American citizen’s electronic devices are subject to search by border agents, see last paragraph of article.
We need a whole lot more of the ‘this isn’t the left vs the right, we are in this together.’ Distance ourselves from the culture war bullshit the administration is trying to wage.
4 Likes
The end of the article is worth amplifying:
It’s a reasonable and plausible statement, setting aside questions of the appropriateness of the court-confirmed authority for devices to be inspected at the border.
Shame that reasonability and plausibility are tainted by extreme skepticism of other actions taken and statements made by the Executive Branch of the government recently.
They kinda brought that on themselves imo. It’s foolish to take anything this administration says at face value. They have zero credibility.
1 Like
They still ended up searching a US citizen’s device without a warrant functionally as a condition to re-enter the US. I thought US citizens were supposed to have rights on searches like this…
Where is that order, for US citizens? I get they can do whatever they want for foriegners, or even green card holders, but citizens?
It’s been a thing for as long as I recall. Maybe it was new following the PATRIOT Act or something.
All travelers crossing the United States border are subject to CBP inspection. On rare occasions, CBP officers may search a traveler’s mobile phone, computer, camera, or other electronic devices during the inspection process. These searches have been used to identify and combat terrorist activity, child pornography, drug smuggling, human smuggling, bulk cash smuggling, human trafficking, export control violations, intellectual property rights violations and visa fraud, among other violations. Furthermore, border searches of electronic devices are often integral to determining an individual’s intentions upon entry to the United States and thus provide additional information relevant to admissibility of foreign nationals under U.S. immigration laws.
I recognize that’s just one claim from the government and government websites cannot be assumed to be factual, but it’s an official stance and jives with what I understand to be happening.
The “court-confirmed authority” statement is a bit of a stretch.
(Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL)
SCOTUS has held that CBP has an absolute right to conduct “routine searches” at the border without a warrant or suspicion, but it must have probable cause or a warrant to conduct “non-routine searches”.
Poking around your luggage and looking inside your car’s gas tank have been ruled to be “routine”.
A cavity search, or holding you until you poop to see what comes out are “non-routine” searches due to the intrusiveness and magnitude of privacy invasion.
Stepping away from the border… LEOs have an analogous power to conduct routine searches of possessions on the person of people who are under arrest. However, SCOTUS has ruled that a warrant is required to search the contents of a digital device held by a person under arrest (Riley v California) due to its intrusiveness.
SCOTUS has not ruled on whether Riley applies at the border. I don’t think we want this SCOTUS to do so.
Riley is essentially the basis behind all the legal advice that everyone still has the Fifth Amendment right to decline to give passwords or codes to unlock devices or decrypt files… even though CBP is authorized to physically search the devices or retain them for further forensic examination.
When looking for the specific ruling name, I came across this:
…which appears to be EFF’s current guidebook on privacy vs the border.
And, of course, it bears repeating that CBP agents have absolute authority to deny non-citizens entry for effectively any reason, and citizens can be delayed while CBP agents conduct their routine searches…and if you resist unlocking your devices and have “Trusted Traveler” status (PreCheck, Global Entry, NEXUS) that status is probably toast and you’ll have an increased likelihood of “SSSS” status for future flights.
And that’s why citizens might want to weigh the potential inconveniences vs switching to burner devices when traveling internationally.
2 Likes
Nice freedoms ya’ll gave up after fighting so hard for them…
…and it’s one of the reasons that I’ve cautioned a few times that it’s not objectively clear how much of the recently reported/hyped shenanigans at the border is “new” vs stuff that’s been occurring for years making it to social media, and getting magnified given things like ICE’s snatch-and-grab campaign of the past almost 3 months.
(At this point, I’m inclined to believe the frequency of the shenanigans has increased, although it’s still unclear how rare/common it actually is.)
Those freedoms have been fragile and somewhat illusory since the late 18th century, despite the myths we tell about how America got its start.
We gave up a lot of our freedoms in October 2001, at the peak of rah rah freedom patriotism.
2 Likes
Has ICE targeted meat-processing plants that extensively employ undocumented workers? Or does even Trump realize that Americans won’t do these jobs?
Objective information on where ICE has been targeting doesn’t seem to be widely available.
Experience from Trump 1.0 suggests that the extent to which particular companies in particular industries are targeted depend considerably on the political connections possessed by those companies/industries.
I recall massive immigration raids being conducted on the second-tier poultry companies in Mississippi during Trump 1.0…but the two largest poultry corporations, which just happen to be major GOP donors, had no ICE encounters.
Guessing that Tyson Foods is safe then.
My impression is that ICE is trying to preferentially target people in blue states.
2 Likes
This is already being accounted for.
This past May, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) signed into law a bill that would sharply decrease protections for child workers in her state, while making it tough to impose penalties on employers for related violations. Touted by supporters as a way to address Iowa’s labor shortages — and afford kids “valuable” work experience — starting the first week of July 2023 it opened the door for meatpacking plants to hire apprentices as young as 14 to work on meat processing lines, for example, as well as for kids to work 6-hour night shifts during the school year. As this bill made its way to the governor’s desk, 13 other states have introduced — and in some cases advanced — similar rule-loosening pieces of legislation.
Since 2021, 14 states have loosened their child labor laws, or tried. New Jersey has permanently increased summer working hours for 16- and 17-year-olds to 50 hours per week, and for 14- and 15-year-olds to 40 hours per week; it’s also abolished the need for parental consent for working papers. New Hampshire has done away with a prohibition on night shifts for 16- and 17-year-olds and extended their school year work hours to 35 per week; it also lowered the age when kids can bus restaurant tables served alcohol, from 15 to 14. And Michigan has lowered the age for serving alcohol and working in liquor stores.
Lawmakers in Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, and South Dakota introduced bills to try to increase work hours for kids; some of these are still pending. Maine, Nebraska, and Virginia all took a shot at paying minors less than minimum wage. Georgia legislators tried to do away with work permits for kids under 18 and to make it legal for 14-year-olds to operate lawn and garden-care machinery. And Minnesota legislators want to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work in construction, the 15th most dangerous industry, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Meanwhile, over in Congress, the Future Logging Careers Act introduced by Senator James Risch (R-ID) seeks to make it federally legal for 16- and 17-year-olds to work in logging, America’s fourth most dangerous job.
Allowing kids to work in meatpacking plants is not my idea of “valuable work experience” unless it is to encourage them to stay in school!
WTF man.
Florida has been explicit about this:
"Why do we say we need to import foreigners, even import them illegally, when you know, teenagers used to work at these resorts “
…"And what’s wrong with expecting our young people to be working part-time now?” DeSantis said.
(Desantis referring to a law that will allow teens to work full-time)