Trump's Immigration Reform

[PilotMan]

I'm beginning to believe that ICE has brought in a bunch of private militia members who aren't actually law enforcement.

Another perfect example of we said you did this, when you didn't, so we're right.

[cuervo72]

Beginning to?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

More likely reason ... questioned in secondary (no, not fascism, happens all the time pre-Trump), acted suspicious, CBP looked in phone, came out that he lied about past drug use etc. or some variation of that.

I am sure there are legit outrage cases of these western tourists being denied entry, but this (and the others like the Canadian tattoo artist, German kid, French researcher) previously posted here is not one of them.

If you think they turned him away because he said he legally smoked weed twice, I don't know what to tell you.

[RainMaker]

Access to this page has been denied

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you think they turned him away because he said he legally smoked weed twice,

Not because he smoked weed twice or had pic of weed paraphilia on his phone.

Probably because he lied on his ETSA/Visa form about drug use and/or he was not cooperative during secondary and the CBP decided to deny entry. Unlikely, that it was just about the meme.

I don't know what to tell you.

No problem, ditto. As I've stated before, we live in different worlds.

One where we differ on the size of a JDAM crater; or that Gaza does not border Egypt; or that Philippines is not a democracy; or that US has not been decoupling from China; or when police ask for license, insurance and registration that's a violation of constitutional rights; or that Israel controls 100% of our immigration etc. Happy to provide the links/quotes if you want to continue those discussions

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Access to this page has been denied

I've googled and have not found anything other than his drug use and skipping court. And I can easily believe they were related to PTSD from his military service.

Unless new stuff comes up about other crimes/context, the US should exercise some discretion and give him a pass as he served in the military and shed blood for the country.

I doubt the next Dem Admin will revert back fully to pre-Trump immigration policies, but I do hope they remediate (?) these cases where IMO we should exercise more discretion.

[Edward64]

SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship implications coming up today ...

The Supreme Court is set to conclude its nine-month term Friday with a flurry of rulings, including a closely watched case concerning President Donald Trump's attempt to end automatic birthright citizenship.

The one that has attracted the most attention is the birthright citizenship dispute, which focuses not on the lawfulness of the proposal itself but whether federal judges had the power to block it nationwide while litigation continues.

But from what I've read, this goes way beyond just the birthright question. It's much, much broader than that. So unless I'm missing something, shouldn't MSM should be reporting this more like "are nationwide injunctions constitutional"?

Either way, the Left & Right media, forums etc. are going to blow up today.

[HerRealName]

Another face eaten by leopard:

https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/ala...ainst-america/

https://www.newsweek.com/ribvar-kari...sniper-2090634

[Ksyrup]

It's an even bigger day than that for the SC. I believe there are 6 cases on major issues they will be issung rulings on today.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's an even bigger day than that for the SC. I believe there are 6 cases on major issues they will be issung rulings on today.

You're right ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...day-rcna215246

Along with birthright citizenship, the other five cases the court has to decide concern:

• Whether conservative religious parents can opt their elementary school-age children out of LGBTQ-themed books in class.
• Long-running litigation over whether congressional districts in Louisiana are lawful.
• A law enacted in Texas that imposes age-restrictions for using adult websites.
• A challenge to the Affordable Care Act's preventive care task force.
• A Federal Communications Commission program that subsidizes phone and internet services in underserved areas.

[JPhillips]

SCOTUS kills nationwide injunctions(at least against GOP Presidents) and lets Trump kill birthright citizenship thirty days from now.

[kingfc22]

This has to be the dumbest line I read by Barrett:

“ When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

So then what is the point of the court? Are they simply limited to saying something is unlawful and then the EB gets to keep doing it anyways? Because that is clearly what the Founders wanted.

[flere-imsaho]

We've come a long way from John Marshall.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not because he smoked weed twice or had pic of weed paraphilia on his phone.

Probably because he lied on his ETSA/Visa form about drug use and/or he was not cooperative during secondary and the CBP decided to deny entry. Unlikely, that it was just about the meme.

The questions are if you're an addict which it doesn't seem like he is and whether you violated laws which he didn't (it's legal where he smoked). Like I get that they can always find some reason to deny someone entry if they want to nitpick. But the fact they were scouring through his phone and asking him a bunch of politically charged questions gives the game away.

I don't get why people who got what they wanted out of the immigration policy have to play dumb when their wishes became a reality. It's like you all get embarrassed by it and have to cowardly come up with excuses for things that you wanted. Just be a man and own it.

[GrantDawg]

Don't worry. They were brown...
https://www.tpr.org/border-immigrati...amily-is-suing

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[Flasch186]

@rainmaker because that would mean admitting that they’re racists and they can’t stomach that when looking in the mirror

Only in a Facebook group


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

If stuff like this was happening to white people in red states they'd make J6 look like a pep rally.

Video shows explosion set off in Huntington Park raid – NBC Los Angeles

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The questions are if you're an addict which it doesn't seem like he is and whether you violated laws which he didn't (it's legal where he smoked).

Because we live in different worlds, provide link to your sources for (1) questions are if you're an addict and (2) tell me where he smoked MJ and source where that is legal. I'm also assuming (3) ETSA or Tourist visa but let me know if you assume something else. If not, I'll just add that to the list of abandoned, did-not-answer my question.

Like I get that they can always find some reason to deny someone entry if they want to nitpick. But the fact they were scouring through his phone and asking him a bunch of politically charged questions gives the game away.

I don't get why people who got what they wanted out of the immigration policy have to play dumb when their wishes became a reality. It's like you all get embarrassed by it and have to cowardly come up with excuses for things that you wanted. Just be a man and own it.

I'll wait to answer after you answer my above question about providing your source.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Don't worry. They were brown...
ICE arrested a 6-year-old boy with leukemia at immigration court. His family is suing. | TPR

We disagree on the Comic-con visa situation but agree this is BS, especially since they came into the country legally under a parole program. Just as bad as below.

Originally Posted by Edward64
But no, not going to spend much time worrying about her. There are more worthy illegals & legal non-citizens to worry about. Spend more time worrying about the below situation ...

Texas child being treated for cancer — and who is a US citizen — is deported to Mexico with undocumented parents | The Independent

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

@rainmaker because that would mean admitting that they’re racists and they can’t stomach that when looking in the mirror

Oh, good to hear back from you finally. In case you missed it, still waiting for you to answer the question below. I mean, we wouldn't want to think you go all drama queen & can't back up what you say

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Trump's Immigration Reform

For reference, your pic was from this article US immigration officials push for increased detentions, including ‘collateral’ arrests | US immigration | The Guardian

I read through the article and I think what you think I've said (aka the gotcha) is not what I said. But go ahead, my offer below extends to you also ... quote me AND tell me how this article has proved me wrong.

For easy reference in the future, I'll just tag it as Reminder 2-1.

[Flasch186]

I’ve reclaimed my time from debating with you because there’s no end point, you just move your goal posts. So that’s why I choose happiness, health and time versus engaging with you in a fake world dominated the last few years by you wherein a special thread was made so you could have a specific soap box but that wasn’t good enough so you continue to vomit everywhere on fofc even when it becomes a one on one that was supposed to be moved to said thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I’ve reclaimed my time from debating with you because there’s no end point, you just move your goal posts. So that’s why I choose happiness, health and time versus engaging with you

And yet, here you are ...

Don't reference me. Don't butt in any discussions I'm having. Don't pretend to @RM while making an attack on me. Pretty simple. I don't attack first and I don't bring you into any of my conversations unless I'm responding to you.

in a fake world dominated the last few years by you wherein a special thread was made so you could have a specific soap box but that wasn’t good enough so you continue to vomit everywhere on fofc even when it becomes a one on one that was supposed to be moved to said thread.

Yup, drama queen all over again. Taking pot shots but not willing to answer questions or provide proof of your claims.

[flere-imsaho]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

This is the deep political commentary I come here for!

It's like watching Fox News!

[GrantDawg]

Yo momma!

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Because we live in different worlds, provide link to your sources for (1) questions are if you're an addict and (2) tell me where he smoked MJ and source where that is legal. I'm also assuming (3) ETSA or Tourist visa but let me know if you assume something else. If not, I'll just add that to the list of abandoned, did-not-answer my question.

I'll wait to answer after you answer my above question about providing your source.

Weird how when you get caught making shit up you forget how to Google or use Websters or whatever pedantic shit you do to obfuscate. Google "ESTA application" and you can see all the questions tourists have to answer.

Like I said, you got the far-right immigration platform you wianted but are too pussy to actually stand by your stance. Dog who caught the car I guess.

[RainMaker]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2778843.html

[Edward64]

To recap how we got here ...

1) You claim Mars was picked for secondary, questioned and denied entry because of the meme
2) I said it was more likely because he

Probably (used the phrase "more likely") because he lied on his ETSA/Visa form about drug use and/or he was not cooperative during secondary and the CBP decided to deny entry. Unlikely, that it was just about the meme.

3) Then, to prove me wrong, you claimed

The questions are if you're an addict which it doesn't seem like he is and whether you violated laws which he didn't (it's legal where he smoked).

4) I then asked you to provide source. And in typical fashion, instead of proving me wrong and providing source, you deflected.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Weird how when you get caught making shit up you forget how to Google or use Websters or whatever pedantic shit you do to obfuscate. Google "ESTA application" and you can see all the questions tourists have to answer

I knew telling & showing you sources to show you are wrong, you'd still refuse to believe it. So, I thought a better approach is for you to google it and see for yourself. But as you really aren't a detailed facts/source person (but more la-la-land opinions) let me walk you through it.


So, more for others that care to follow this exchange (doubtful) and more for future reference when this comes back up (more likely), here's the source and 2 part rebuttal.

To rebut #3 specifically (and nothing else) ...

Official ESTA Application Website, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

ESTA asks

1) Do you have a physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict; or do you currently have any of the following diseases (communicable diseases are specified pursuant to section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act):

But then you forgot to read further. It also asks ...

3) Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs?

The second part is if he violated any laws. You claimed where he smoked MJ was legal. Well, let's see

USA, Immigrasjonsmyndighetene ICE | Denied entry to the US - admitted to legal drug use

He admitted to having used cannabis on two occasions — in Germany and in New Mexico.

Other than for medicinal purposes (which has not been alleged by Mars) .... depending on the quantity, it is legal in Germany. It is also legal in New Mexico (the State) but not legal in the United States (the Country or on Federal level).

To sum up. Although not proof this happened, it shows that your #3 is BS and that my #2 is still possible.

[Edward64]

Like I said, you got the far-right immigration platform you wianted but are too pussy to actually stand by your stance. Dog who caught the car I guess.

I would love to get into a discussion with you on current state of immigration, my opinions and your opinions. And although my position has been mischaracterized by some here with reading comprehension, my stance is well documented in this thread for all to see. The only condition I have is you answer questions directly and provide no-twitter-like sources when asked (and I will do the same).

If you can agree to that, let's do the mano-v-mano in this thread (others can ignore) ... anytime, no expiration date on this offer.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2778843.html

Because you didn't leave any commentary, I assume you think the headlines is the outrage?

Veteran LA political adviser detained at US airport – and thinks having Obama-Biden T-shirt in his luggage may have been why

If you read the article, it says

“You go through every possibility in your head,” he added. “I thought, ‘Do I have something in my bag?’ And then it hit me—I had packed an Obama-Biden T-shirt.”

“I actually started to panic. I thought, ‘Oh my God, is this going to cause me trouble in this country right now?’” said Taylor.

But then ...

After waiting for close to an hour, Taylor was told to get his suitcase for inspection.

“It wasn’t with me,” he said. “I started to panic again, trying to figure out where it was.”

It had already been picked up by his wife. It was sent through a scanner, but wasn’t opened.

“They handed it to me and said, ‘You’re good to go,’” Taylor told the Current.

So, the obvious question, just based on this article, how did CBP know he had an Obama-Biden T-shirt in his bag that wasn't opened? There may be more facts forthcoming, but based on your linked article, what's the problem?

FWIW, thanks for trying. You are getting better not just posting twitter-and-like sources, but in this case, theindependent isn't much better.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So, the obvious question, just based on this article, how did CBP know he had an Obama-Biden T-shirt in his bag that wasn't opened? There may be more facts forthcoming, but based on your linked article, what's the problem?

The obvious question is why was he stopped and placed in a room for 45 minutes, allegedly after being asked if he was from California.

Was it just a random check? Maybe.

Was it because there are legitimate reasons to question admitting him into the United States? Maybe, but they let him go after 45 minutes were they really that legitimate.

Was he detained specifically because he was from California? Maybe.

Was he detained because he was a political adviser to Democrats? Maybe.

Was he detained because he was not a supporter of the current administration? Maybe.

Now I am not assuming as fact that it was any of these things other than a random check. I don't have any evidence of anything beyond that. I also am not assuming that it was not for a reason beyond just a random check. I don't have any evidence of that either. I do have evidence that this administration is capable of detaining him for reasons beyond a random check including him owning a Obama-Biden T-shirt.

The problem is not that he was detained IMO. It is that we all believe it is a less than zero possibility that he was detained specifically because of some combination of him being from California, being an adviser to Democrats and yes, owning a Obama-Biden T-shirt.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The obvious question is why was he stopped and placed in a room for 45 minutes, allegedly after being asked if he was from California.

Was it just a random check? Maybe.

Was it because there are legitimate reasons to question admitting him into the United States? Maybe, but they let him go after 45 minutes were they really that legitimate.

Was he detained specifically because he was from California? Maybe.

Was he detained because he was a political adviser to Democrats? Maybe.

Was he detained because he was not a supporter of the current administration? Maybe.

Now I am not assuming as fact that it was any of these things other than a random check. I don't have any evidence of anything beyond that. I also am not assuming that it was not for a reason beyond just a random check. I don't have any evidence of that either. I do have evidence that this administration is capable of detaining him for reasons beyond a random check

All your maybes above are valid. Could be yes, could be no. None of those I contested except ...

including him owning a Obama-Biden T-shirt.

But getting back to this re: Obama-Biden T-shirt. I don't see how. Wife picked up luggage, per the article, it was unopened when returned back to him. So how did CBP know he have the t-shirt. How do you reconcile that?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To recap how we got here ...

1) You claim Mars was picked for secondary, questioned and denied entry because of the meme
2) I said it was more likely because he


3) Then, to prove me wrong, you claimed


4) I then asked you to provide source. And in typical fashion, instead of proving me wrong and providing source, you deflected.

I knew telling & showing you sources to show you are wrong, you'd still refuse to believe it. So, I thought a better approach is for you to google it and see for yourself. But as you really aren't a detailed facts/source person (but more la-la-land opinions) let me walk you through it.


So, more for others that care to follow this exchange (doubtful) and more for future reference when this comes back up (more likely), here's the source and 2 part rebuttal.

To rebut #3 specifically (and nothing else) ...

Official ESTA Application Website, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

ESTA asks

But then you forgot to read further. It also asks ...


The second part is if he violated any laws. You claimed where he smoked MJ was legal. Well, let's see

USA, Immigrasjonsmyndighetene ICE | Denied entry to the US - admitted to legal drug use

Other than for medicinal purposes (which has not been alleged by Mars) .... depending on the quantity, it is legal in Germany. It is also legal in New Mexico (the State) but not legal in the United States (the Country or on Federal level).

To sum up. Although not proof this happened, it shows that your #3 is BS and that my #2 is still possible.

Yeah, smoking weed twice in your life sure is drug abuse. The Feds haven't charged someone with simple possession in decades. Surely dragging him into a room and asking him a bunch of political questions was a ruse to get to the bottom of him sharing a joint 3 years ago with his friends.

Mind you that half the people entering this country would be denied on this basis (and there is no evidence it's being done). And the rejection letter they gave him didn't mention drugs at all, but instead stated he was entering under the guise of unlawfully gaining employment. They also told him he was carrying extremist propaganda.


Now this shouldn't be a surprise. They have come out over and over saying they will screen people's social media and devices for anti-American/anti-Israel content now. Making fun of the Vice President would fall into that. They told you what their plans were, and you supported them. Now you have to play stupid (not a tough ask) because you're embarrassed to be associated with it.

And I have no intention of holding a deep debate on immigration with you. Mainly because outside of violent criminals, I don't give a shit who comes and goes. I don't care if you have a meme on your phone, smoked weed a few years ago, or wrote a blog post critical of a foreign country. Don't care about the "browning of America" or whatever other shit you folks are worked up about. All I ask is that you folks who got what you wanted on immigration stop being total pussies when actions of your policies come to light.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

All your maybes above are valid. Could be yes, could be no. None of those I contested except ...


But getting back to this re: Obama-Biden T-shirt. I don't see how. Wife picked up luggage, per the article, it was unopened when returned back to him. So how did CBP know he have the t-shirt. How do you reconcile that?

I did not say it had anything to do with having the T-shirt. Don't fall into the same trap you have accused others of falling into.

Here is what I said.

It is that we all believe it is a less than zero possibility that he was detained specifically because of some combination of him being from California, being an adviser to Democrats and yes, owning a Obama-Biden T-shirt.

According to the CBP, "travelers may be subjected to secondary screening for "variety of reasons.". That does not rule in or out a suggestion that owning an Obama-Biden T-shirt might subject a passenger to being detained.

If you acknowledge my possibilities that this could have been something other than a random check, you also have to acknowledge that the U.S. government has ways to find out what might be in his luggage after the luggage was checked in and prior to them putting it through the scanner at the end of a 45 minutes detainment. Maybe they forgot to put the Notification of Baggage Inspection card in that suitcase.

[RainMaker]

It is one hell of a coincidence that a former staffer for a prominent Democratic Senator in the news was detained.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I did not say it had anything to do with having the T-shirt. Don't fall into the same trap you have accused others of falling into.

Here is what I said.

And I didn't say you said it absolutely had anything to do with the t-shirt. But (1) the article we are discussing strongly implied it (2) you did say it is possible it had something to do with the t-shirt.

From the article headlines

Veteran LA political adviser detained at US airport – and thinks having Obama-Biden T-shirt in his luggage may have been why

I am providing the 2 full quotes from you.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I do have evidence that this administration is capable of detaining him for reasons beyond a random check including him owning a Obama-Biden T-shirt.

The problem is not that he was detained IMO. It is that we all believe it is a less than zero possibility that he was detained specifically because of some combination of him being from California, being an adviser to Democrats and yes, owning a Obama-Biden T-shirt.

*****

Therefore, because you believe it could have been possible, my question to you below still stands

Originally Posted by Edward64

this re: Obama-Biden T-shirt. I don't see how. Wife picked up luggage, per the article, it was unopened when returned back to him. So how did CBP know he have the t-shirt. How do you reconcile that?

And your answer is ...

According to the CBP, "travelers may be subjected to secondary screening for "variety of reasons.". That does not rule in or out a suggestion that owning an Obama-Biden T-shirt might subject a passenger to being detained.

I agree it is not ruled out, anything is possible but we also have to assess the probability of something like this happening based on the facts of the incident per the article.

... you also have to acknowledge that the U.S. government has ways to find out what might be in his luggage after the luggage was checked in and prior to them putting it through the scanner at the end of a 45 minutes detainment.

Maybe they forgot to put the Notification of Baggage Inspection card in that suitcase.

I do acknowledge the government can easily open up any suitcase and further check contents. However, additional context to my answer ....

1. The "aggrieved" party himself said it was unopened. Why would he be so transparent about this if he even suspected otherwise?
2. While it is possible TSA forgot to put the notification inside the bag, it is unlikely he would not have noticed his shirts/stuff being sifted through
3. And you go through immigration/Global Entry and then pick up luggage. Walk to immigration is like 15-20 minutes (?), wait in line for 15-30 min (?), subtract time for luggage handler to find and pick out his luggage for whoever. Therefore, not a lot of time to go through a checked-in bag, find the t-shirt, and then pull him into secondary

For #2, just watch some "Border Patrol" YT videos. You'll see plenty of customs looking through suitcases and no, they do not repack it back to the way it was.

In summary ...

Although it is possible that they opened his luggage, sifted through his shirts/stuff, found the Obama-Biden t-shirt, repacked everything back where he wouldn't noticed, and then send him into secondary questioning ... because of #1-#3, I consider it very low probability (swag 1/1000+) that it happened.

Now, if more facts come out from him or non-twitter-like source, let me know.

[Edward64]

I created a new post for below statement because I believe this can be an interesting discussion.

If you acknowledge my possibilities that this could have been something other than a random check,

Yes, there are random checks.

However, not all secondary and/or additional questioning are random. Just some examples below that I've seen through my countless hours of watching "Border Security" YT videos.

• Dog sniffed drugs, food etc. (and even wads of cash) on you, carryon, luggage etc. as you exit the plane, lining up in some airport line etc.
• You come from a country that has high overstay rates
• You come from a country or travelled through countries that have high drug/mule activities
• Weird travel schedule like multiple countries, short period of stays etc.
• Any past criminal history
• Looking suspicious at the airport (e.g. sweating profusely, standing in one spot for way too long etc.)

Countless other reasons. I read US cannot profile solely due to race, but with examples above, there are plenty of other reasons. At airports, they have a broad degree of freedom. All pre-Trump. You get the idea

So, my point is (1) not all checks are random and (2) profiling is legal in this context.



EDIT: 8/5/2025

After a "spirited" discussion on profiling, see below post (and 1-2 pages prior) regarding CBP profiling. Basically, yeah (1) legal and (2) there's lots of latitude and both sides (pre-Trump) did it.

https://osftw.com/fofc/fofc/showpost...postcount=1206

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And I have no intention of holding a deep debate on immigration with you.

No problem. Let me know if you change your mind

I would love to get into a discussion with you on current state of immigration, my opinions and your opinions. And although my position has been mischaracterized by some here with reading comprehension, my stance is well documented in this thread for all to see. The only condition I have is you answer questions directly and provide no-twitter-like sources when asked (and I will do the same).

If you can agree to that, let's do the mano-v-mano in this thread (others can ignore) ... anytime, no expiration date on this offer.

All I ask is that you folks who got what you wanted on immigration stop being total pussies when actions of your policies come to light.

As I've stated, my POV is throughout this thread. Not hiding anything.

But feel to tell me where you think I'm afraid of "when actions of your policies come to light". Be sure to provide my quote because I know providing "real sources vs your la-la-land opinion" is difficult for you.

[miami_fan]

Edward, can you explain to me why despite all the caveats expressed in the article and all the caveats I have stated in giving reasons he could have been detained, you feel the need to prove the low probability of him being stopped because of a T-shirt in this particular case while also agreeing with there is a less than zero possibility it happened and it can't be ruled that it could happen and then providing a defense of doing so would be legal?

[cuervo72]

Haven't been following, but: because he's never argued in good faith?

[Brian Swartz]

To the contrary, he has often done that. In general, more often than those who criticize him have.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Edward, can you explain to me why despite all the caveats expressed in the article and all the caveats I have stated in giving reasons he could have been detained, you feel the need to prove the low probability of him being stopped because of a T-shirt in this particular case

You have provided "may or may not have occurred" or your caveats. However, the article in question has NOT provided any caveats.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2778843.html

Therefore, I believe the article headline is misleading (e.g. click bait) because it says below

Veteran LA political adviser detained at US airport – and thinks having Obama-Biden T-shirt in his luggage may have been why

And yet, when you read the article, it reports that

It had already been picked up by his wife. It was sent through a scanner, but wasn’t opened.

And therefore, I do not believe there is significant chance that he was detained because of the t-shirt (e.g. swag 1/1000+) based on my reasoning on #1-3 above.

... while also agreeing with there is a less than zero possibility it happened and it can't be ruled that it could happen and then providing a defense of doing so would be legal?

There is less than zero possibility because there is always chance it happened (e.g. if FBI, CIA, NSA etc. wanted to do it, I'm sure they could have). However, based on my reasoning #1-3 above and my admitted swag of 1/1000+, the probability of it happening is effectively 0 ... unless there is additional info that is not in the article.

If something is effectively 0, it did not happen, not worth fearmongering the public, and therefore the article headline is very misleading and has its own agenda (e.g. click bait).

Questions to you ...

1) Can you quote what caveats are in the article that supports the article headline, maybe I missed it?
2) What do you think is the possibility of it happening? e.g. I say swag 1/1000+, you say swag of x%?
3) Do you believe the article headline is misleading and/or NOT supported by the contents of the article?

*****

providing a defense of doing so would be legal?

My intention in the breakout post was not to provide a defense that it was legal. I responded to your comment about "random" and I knew that many times detaining/secondary questioning are not random. Just wanted to share it in case people did not know

... and because watching how white Australian Border Security officials harass Asians who try to sneak in non-drug contraband is strangely entertaining to me. If you haven't watched any episodes, encourage you to give it a shot

[RainMaker]

Israel definitely doesn't control our immigration system.

Bob Vylan’s U.S. Visa Revoked Over Glastonbury Performance

[miked]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Israel definitely doesn't control our immigration system.

Bob Vylan’s U.S. Visa Revoked Over Glastonbury Performance

Wrong hill to die on here.

[RainMaker]

Please be nice to the modern day Nazis while they continue carrying out their holocaust.

[RainMaker]

lol at them figuring out the concept of work visas.

Big news on the border from my interview @realDonaldTrump is working on a "temporary pass" for workers on farms and in hotels where they pay taxes but it's up to the farmer for a temporary pass even if they came into the country "incorrectly"

— Maria Bartiromo (@MariaBartiromo) June 29, 2025

[Passacaglia]

I don't get why the shirt matters at all. Is there some potential better reason why anyone should be held in detention?

Anyway...

Air France A350 Pilots Denied Clearance by Chicago O'Hare, Flight Returns to Paris - Aviation A2Z

Article doesn't mention if the plane was wearing an Obama shirt. I guess we'll find out as more details emerge.

[Lathum]

Because they haven't done enough to decimate the tourism industry.

I guess you won't need housekeepers when all the hotels are empty

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't get why the shirt matters at all. Is there some potential better reason why anyone should be held in detention?

Anyway...

Air France A350 Pilots Denied Clearance by Chicago O'Hare, Flight Returns to Paris - Aviation A2Z

Article doesn't mention if the plane was wearing an Obama shirt. I guess we'll find out as more details emerge.

It looks like this was because the actual plane type wasn't cleared to land in Chicago. It was supposed to be a 787, and they swapped it with an airbus due to a problem with a different flight where another American flight wasn't cleared to land in Naples because it lacked proper clearance. This isn't immigration but regulatory restrictions.

[RainMaker]

Access to this page has been denied