
Mem Fox on being detained by US immigration: 'In that moment I loathed America' - mantesso
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-that-moment-i-loathed-america-i-loathed-the-entire-country
======
bluejekyll
> Instead of crying and being sad and sitting on a couch, I am going to write
> to politicians. I am going to call. I am going to write to newspapers. I am
> going to get on the radio. I will not be quiet. No more passive behaviour.
> Hear me roar.

I have a serious question. What does it mean to be on the frontline? It's
obvious that she intends to do something and push the system, but it's not
"revolution", as she says she is for. She is arguing for action inside the
system, but that is not revolutionary.

I very much want to force change, but it sounds more like she doesn't want to
be on the frontline, but instead call others to action.

I'm horrified by what we as Americans are doing to people of all stripes
coming to the US. We are supposed to be the land of opportunity, the land that
is welcoming to all. Some claim that we are a nation based on Christian
morals, but then we throw out the primary messages of being Christian. It's
horrendous.

So what is the best way to fight this? The things which are getting the most
attention recently are the large marches. I suppose that's the place to start,
and it feels tangible. Civil disobedience, boycotting supporters of these
policies, these seem to cause the powers that be to take notice.

------
relics443
I don't think they have anything against her personally. These tactics are
used to fluster and confuse, and hopefully cause the subject to make a
mistake. Clearly it's effective.

In a perfect world, this would only be applied to criminals. Because the
agents aren't allowed to profile, they have to pull in people across the
spectrum. Which includes authors, women with children, and old ladies.

I don't think they mean any harm. They're trying to do their job of protecting
the border, but they have protocol that they need to follow.

Edit: anecdata, but there may be other reasons they make ridiculous selections
like this (like old ladies). My grandmother, who is an elderly white lady who
is hunched over, has the same name as a criminal on a watch list. Every time
she went to the airport she was selected for additional screening. She never
had the same experience as Fox, but sometimes they got real nasty. She always
thanked them when they let her go, because what if she was actually the
criminal, and they were protecting the country.

~~~
nraynaud
I think they do mean harm, they want to distress the people because they know
that people in distress tend to self-accuse. They go as far as they can on the
spectrum from verbal abuse to torture.

Moreover 1) there is absolutely no need to behave that way even to a criminal
2) people on the international zone of an airport have not yet had the
opportunity to commit any local crime, since they are not yet in the
jurisdiction, the entire premise is flawed if they are not returning. And if
they are returning and accused of a crime, there is a different system in a
different room for them.

~~~
relics443
Yes, they do want to distress people, but they don't have anything against
them personally.

They weren't looking for Fox to self-accuse; she was only in there to fill
their quota of older white women who they needed to pull in.

If someone is coming into the country with intent to perform illegal activity,
then I say they're not doing enough. As a citizen, I don't want those people
in my country.

~~~
nraynaud
You don't get a job where your role is to make people's life hell, even for a
few hours, if you don't have any inclination for it, these are unionized
federal workers whose skills are transferable, not slaves. They are not
bothered enough by their own and their co-workers behavior to resign, they
self-selected.

Moreover, this entire "the bad people are coming to kill us from outside" is
crap, Americans suicide themselves with their food, their cars (about 100
every day) and their guns. This is just pandering to the red necks.

~~~
relics443
Wow, your anti American bias is showing.

So you maintain that because a percentage of Americans live their lives a
certain way, there's no need to defend the border?

------
tzaman
I have an employee from the US (I'm otherwise from Europe) and while visiting
through the conversation/personal stories he explained the most interesting
part of relationship between US authorities and citizens: You're less likely
to be "harassed" if you lie to them, because they can turn pretty much
anything you say against you and dig so deep to finally find an excuse to
bully you, or charge you with something.

That is quite a sad state for the society to be in, being always afraid of the
authorities, rather than knowing their primary goal is to protect and serve.

------
eatbitseveryday
How is there no damned accountability for these people? I'm sure decent humans
in positions of power read such stories or are aware of them. Have they no
authority to curtail this, fire those individuals, or do something?

~~~
nraynaud
There is no accountability. In the US there is generally no real internal
accountability inside the uniformed units for their behavior towards people
outside the unit (if you are a policeman, federal agent or military, you will
be disciplined if you steal from or kill a co-worker, but not a civilian).

Only the judicial system sometime takes action against uniformed people. In
the case of the CBP, by nature there is no judicial oversight, since most of
their actions are not covered by the constitution, and the Executive power
doesn't want to provide any due process or any kind of right to the population
they are in contact with. There is no system in place to moderate their
behavior.

