> an international flight is extremely unlikely to include only a single non-American. In such a situation, it's absurd to claim that CBP would board and arrest a single non-American.
<sigh> I was wondering if you could read my messages as written.
It is not absurd to suggest that someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US would be arrested in such a situation.
> Your Quora link doesn't support your point. It makes it clear that there are sane procedures in place (ideally, passengers never deplane) and that CBP doesn't board planes and arrest people for accidentally entering the US.
It shows that people involuntarily entering the States are processed by the CBP.
To repeat my last question, which you side-stepped:
you're saying they have the legal right to arrest people, and people will land in the States when they are banned from entry, but that it (a) has never happened, or (b) never will happen?
Only someone with an entirely closed mind would deny that it would never happen.
The fact that I can't find which article I read (years ago) is almost irrelevant. The laws permit them to do this, and no reasonable person would deny that the CBP would always sit idly by while someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US was in front of them.
> I'm going to stop engaging with your FUD.
Yeah, showing that the CBP (a) has the power to do something, and (b) has used that power... is FUD.
You've gone way out of line in this thread with incivility and personal attacks. Since your account doesn't have a history of this I'm not banning you, but it is a bannable offense, so please don't do it again. Instead, please (re-)read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
People misinterpret each other on the internet often. It's practically the default case. When this happens, it's important not to escalate, because that leads to more escalation, the needle goes into the red, and communication ceases.
A phrase like "lying about what I said" is an escalation. To escalate less, you could speak in terms of misunderstanding and clarification. Similarly, to escalate more, you could say something like "you're a liar". After all, they said something false, which by definition is a lie, and someone who lies is a liar, so you'd simply be stating a fact, yes? And a liar is a bad thing to be, right? So you could add "you're a bad person" too. This is how we get stuck in opposition and flamewars.
On HN, each of us is responsible for not letting that happen, regardless of how mistaken the other person is or how badly they violated the rules themselves. Acting from the feeling of "they started it" or "they did worse" won't work. Everybody always feels like the other person started it and did worse.
There are well known stories about planes making unscheduled landings in the US (emergency, storm, delays, etc). Cue CBP opening the front doors, walking down the aisle, and pulling one guy off the plane.
I'd also be interested in hearing about these well-known stories if you or someone else wouldn't mind sharing a link or two.
I've looked, and can't find anything. That doesn't necessarily disprove what I've said, it just makes it unsupported.
I still stand by my claims that the CPB has the legal power to do this. And that it is very likely they either have used that power in the past, or that they will in the future.
I also find it disappointing that previous comments denied such claims as "FUD", and others outright lied about my position.
The psychology of this is simple: Let's say you have an alcoholic "Uncle Bob" who shows up at every family gathering, gets drunk, gropes people, and passes out after throwing up in public. If you decide that you don't want him at your house next Christmas... it's your fault. You are the bad guy. The entire family will gang up on you, and punish you for bringing the abuse to light.
<sigh> I was wondering if you could read my messages as written.
It is not absurd to suggest that someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US would be arrested in such a situation.
> Your Quora link doesn't support your point. It makes it clear that there are sane procedures in place (ideally, passengers never deplane) and that CBP doesn't board planes and arrest people for accidentally entering the US.
It shows that people involuntarily entering the States are processed by the CBP.
To repeat my last question, which you side-stepped:
you're saying they have the legal right to arrest people, and people will land in the States when they are banned from entry, but that it (a) has never happened, or (b) never will happen?
Only someone with an entirely closed mind would deny that it would never happen.
The fact that I can't find which article I read (years ago) is almost irrelevant. The laws permit them to do this, and no reasonable person would deny that the CBP would always sit idly by while someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US was in front of them.
> I'm going to stop engaging with your FUD.
Yeah, showing that the CBP (a) has the power to do something, and (b) has used that power... is FUD.
What, exactly, is wrong with you?