929
Man 'refused entry into US' as border control catch him with bald JD Vance meme (www.dailystar.co.uk)
submitted 2 days ago by XLE@piefed.social to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
144 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A 21-year-old tourist has described the horrendous treatment he allegedly received after being denied entry to the USA due to a meme depicting JD Vance as bald being found on his phone

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] XLE@piefed.social 71 points 2 days ago

Any idea if these threats are actionable? He's not a US citizen to just fine or imprison.

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago

they are not legal, as the first amendment applies even to noncitizens. however that doesn’t mean they can’t deny entry for “any” reason. they are fascist after all.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

Basically like firing you from work for discrimination isn't legal, but firing you for performance is (your performance being anything they wish to come up with).

[-] refalo@programming.dev 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It has been ruled by SCOTUS that the Constitution specifically does not apply at border entry to non-citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Knauff_v._Shaughnessy

the Constitution does not grant aliens any protections when trying to enter the United States.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-3/ALDE_00001263/['article',%20'14']

an alien "on the threshold of initial entry stands on a different footing" because he or she is theoretically outside the United States and typically beyond the veil of constitutional protection.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/206/

Although a lawfully resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights [to due process], the alien in this case is an entrant alien or "assimilated to that status" for constitutional purposes.

The Attorney General therefore may exclude this alien without a hearing, as authorized by the emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to the Passport Act, and need not disclose the evidence upon which that determination rests.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 days ago

Depressingly, SCOTUS has ruled that you really don't have the same rights at border crossings as you do once you've passed through.

This applies to citizens as well as foreign nationals.

[-] refalo@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You have even less rights at border crossings if you are not a citizen and have not technically entered the country through immigration yet... basically the Constitution does not even apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Knauff_v._Shaughnessy

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Once you're in a country you are subject to that country's laws, it's a thing you need to be aware of when traveling. A lot of people find that out the hard way.

So yea, they are actionable if they want it to be.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago

It's against American law.

this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
929 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

2918 readers
299 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
fxomt@piefed.social