* Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices?
* Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens?
* If we find either of the above objectionable, what should we be doing to stop it?
The reality is that this is on the rise, not just in the USA but globally, and we should be having frank discussions on whether this is acceptable or not given its repercussions.
For context, despite my critique of an unnamed EMEA government, they’ve happily let me into their country repeatedly to do work for an employer, associate with my colleagues, and perform volunteer work within its borders. On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders.
This [broader issue] is what we should be discussing, not nuanced specifics over a single incident.
That’s what I’m getting at, here. Folks are digging into the details of what’s in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture first.
"Let's not discuss this specific government policy, because should governments even exist" is not very interesting.
Which is why the guy in the article is wrong:
> I don't feel there is any point in contacting the State Department, nor do I think they have any power against such a powerful and strict country as the United States
That's exactly what he should have done if things happened as described and the Norwegian government should then take appropriate action.
It was the parent to my comment that was suggesting otherwise.
From a practical standpoint it’s completely unworkable to require an actual judge to evaluate every person coming in and out to issue or deny a warrant. The costs alone are staggering.
I’ve posted a lot of pro-Taiwan content and not once have I ever been interrogated at the Chinese borders. Many times they don’t even talk to me.
Unless you are a well-known and famous agitator, I highly doubt they will even care about you.
IRL, the dictatorships we have don’t actually control the population that much. As long as it doesn’t create problems for the administration , nobody cares what you talk about..
Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").
Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.
No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence.
It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it.
In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.
IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works: you're in US jurisdiction, and governed by US law (including the highest law of the Constitution), when you cross the twelve nautical mile control zone by plane (or boat).
* https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
* https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
> Rasul v. bush and Boumediene v. Bush guaranteed due process for prisoners of Guantanamo; In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court birthright citizenship is stretched to people born to illegal immigrants; Plyer v. doe and Yik Wo v. Hopkins gave 14th equal protection clause; Padilla V. Kentucky gave the right to legal counsel; Bridges v. Wixon (1945): The Supreme Court ruled that a noncitizen could not be deported solely for political speech, affirming that the First Amendment applies to immigrants; United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992): Acknowledged that noncitizens in U.S. custody still have constitutional rights.
* https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_do...
What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected."
Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them.
When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights
If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal.
By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.
It took Erdogan 20 years to dismantle the core of the secular republic for example , arguably he hasn’t finished it.
America's peers as a country are not Europe, Japan, Turkey, but other very large area, very large population countries i.e. Russia, China, Brazil, India.
Meanwhile everyone is broke and precarious.
People aren't very willing to risk everything they have just to get brutalized by a cop that will later be acquitted
Another reality is that people don't actually value personal freedoms, and they happily give that up in exchange for a tiny bit more sense of security. Lots of discussions on this topic assume that westerners believe in freedom of speech, but that's simply not true.
I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump).
Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.
Yes, but it's (IIRC) that it's so blatantly happening in the Land of the Free World where the first amendment of the constitution is touted as the best law ever written in history.
When it comes to border control, I've looked into several of these outrageous claims, and they consistently omit critical details that point to a valid reason for denial. Being denied entry and then having an overzealous border agent tsk-tsk at your meme is not nearly the same thing as being denied entry or thrown in jail because of it. And now OP primes us to think that the details don't really matter. I think they do, because every conversation on the current administration is now tainted by propaganda (in both directions).
They just tell you that you they are denying you entry and putting you on the next plane back.
That being said, we are clearly only getting one side of the story and I'd love to know what _exactly_ that found on his phone, but given how consistent the stories have been (pulled into secondary, forced to unlock personal media under threats of imprisonment, strip search, disappearance for a few days or weeks) I am inclined to move this from the "anecdotes" to "anecdata" to something-very-close-to-data category.
If you chose to rebutt this with the "millions of people come in to the US every year with absolutely no problem" I'd like to say that only 0.02 people die by train per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Does that mean I don't want the NTSB to investigate train crashes or that these peoples deaths (and injuries) don't matter because they comprise such a low percentage?*
I am extremely sympathetic to his position of his phone automatically downloading media he is sent. My phone's WhatsApp settings came with "auto-download any images people send you to your (local, on-device) gallery" set as default. I also had Google Photos installed, which had the option of "auto back-up any images/videos you store on your phone to your Google Photos account" which I turned on because I break my phones often. The result was that several relatives with questionable (and opposite) political tastes have their memes (think [pollitician x] next to a [hate symbol]" (got it? Good. It's not the one you're thinking of!) automatically stored on my phone and backed up to my Google Photos account, not even accounting for the automatic WhatsApp backup that is stored on my Google Drive account.
From previous reporting, the agents plug in the device into a forensic analyzer which dumps out a list of images/videos that were saved (note the distinction between "that you saved" and "that were saved") and use it against you.
I can't imagine what it must feel like to arrive here from Norway to go camping and be subject to a strip-search and interrogation because someone you may not even consider a friend sent you some shitty memes a few years ago. Or, in this case, because they found a "anti-JD-vance" meme that even JD vance seems to think is fine?
[0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
I think you're looking at this point the wrong way around: If the people bringing these stories up had good examples, they should use those instead of these questionable ones. Using these stories instead makes it look like the US is doing a good job of not overreaching.
I think the title is deficient and should be based on this higher-weighted fact, over the weaker phrasing "refused entry".
"Tourist jailed without trial for possessing political cartoon"
I don’t doubt that it’s possible he was denied because of the Vance image and that in itself says something terrible about the current state of affairs.
But I think it’s more likely that he was stopped based on some other red flag like not having a return ticket and denied because of that.
He does say he was detained PRIOR to the picture being found. Being detained if far more relevant than being asked about a photo.
It's also important to note that Border Control will not tell you WHY you're being denied entry, so the person ascribing it to the meme is speculating based on being asked about it.
Edit: It was drug use according to CPB: https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
Not the hundreds of “highly intelligent and immune to manipulation” HackerNews readers apparently.
How are you even certain the story happened?
Why would you be any degree of certain that it happened the way that this angry Norwegian is saying it happened?
How would you have any idea you’re being manipulated or not? Would you care if it entirely aligned with your presumptions and preferences?
That he was refused entry because of the picture is his speculation and likely not the full truth because they only found the picture after already pulling him aside.
There is certainly questionable behavior by the CPB here if the description is correct but lets not make conclusions that aren't backed by facts.
Edit: CPB refutes that he was denied entry because of the meme: https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
The context: He smoked weed in California, where it's legal, years ago.
This guy isn't a drug trafficker. He's not doing meth or heroin, never did. He smoked weed, in a legal state (as millions of Americans do on a daily basis).
Then he made the critical mistake of handing over his phone to be searched, rather than flying home (!), upon which advanced creepy software (probably developed and funded by some of this very crowd) flagged this 'federal crime' of smoking weed while in Cali.
So yes, the meme is a red herring, but it's distracting from a thing that's still incredibly fucked up.
It's still a demented justification to turn someone away from the country. "You can come here, buy weed in a majority of states, and face no fear of repercussions... Until you try and come back in". That's nutty. It's batshit.
And, the real reason he was brought in - as brought up by the Immi officers - was that he was doing journalism at one of the anti-genocide protests.
Keep in mind I'm very much not pro Isreal, but it's not practical or moral to have foreign partisans participating in our politics that way.
That would be called 'freedom of assembly', which is a universal human right (see Article 20 of the UNDHR). Highly moral, most practical, and widely recognized as such.
A state (not federal) senator and his wife were attempted murdered, but both survived and are expected to recover.
Your comment frames it as if 2 members of federal congress were assassinated which would have been a much bigger deal. State politicians being killed is still shocking and tragic, but try to be precise in your language as to not mislead.
This is not a good sign for democracy in the US. I think a healthy response would be protests, investigations, state and federal "comissions" looking into domestic political terrorism, etc. A whole lot of consequences. Instead there is nothing.
In contrast, in Brazil (not even a best example of a healthiest democracy) the assassination of a city councilwoman (city! not even state!) has been a dominant story in politics for many years and has never completely fallen out of public attention. It's been close to a decade!
I'm not one to quickly say "fascism" or to spell out doom but even to me this is a crystal clear sign of a system starting to fail...
Jail almost by definition means pretrial detention, so "jailed without trial" is a tautology.
Nitpicking about the precise legal terminology is a bit pointless in this context.
If some protester got arrested for protesting, the reasonable thing to do is to call it just that, not "protester jailed without trial for protesting".
> A jail holds people for shorter periods of time (for example, less than a year) or for pre-trial detention and is usually operated by a local government, typically the county sheriff.
> A prison or penitentiary holds people for longer periods of time, such as many years, and is operated by a state or federal government. After a conviction, a sentenced person is sent to prison.
Here's an example of it used that way in Virginia's laws, at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter1/secti...
> The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:
> (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
I've even read (but not experienced) reports of GrayKey or UFED being used to download someone's unlocked phone for offline analysis also. Your choices at the border are either: Unlock your phone and MAYBE get let in, or refuse which is best case a guaranteed entry refusal or worse case a 5 ban (for "non-cooperation" as inadmissibility reason).
The US (and UK) treat non-citizens terribly at the border; even with zero history or justification. It is even worse for non-white Europeans.
That's if they search your phone which isn't standard procedure for every entry. Likely it means you have already been flagged for something else.
I don't think the threat of a fine or jail time is real. Even if the agents said that, that's not an actual legal penalty they can apply. They can deny entry to someone on a visa, but they can't deny entry to a citizen or legal resident. They can keep your device, though.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/can-border-agents-search-your... has a lot of good details.
> "Later I was taken back in, and the situation got even worse. I was pushed up against a wall and was strip-searched with a lot of force. They were incredibly harsh and used physical force the whole time," he claimed.
> "I felt completely devastated and broke down, and was close to crying several times. I was on the verge of panic.
That sounds worse than being denied entry.
I looked up the article in Norwegian Reddit and someone posted a link to this person's Youtube channel where he shoots guns and (apparently, as I don't speak the language) has made comments about the President. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC68cjx7WTYtXGhC3rLD3N4A
This could be the long arms of Palantir scanning social media and identifying him as a person of interest.
But also interesting is the response that Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out (I checked, this was in response to his specific case):
> Entry regulations can change at short notice, and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations. It is the immigration authorities upon arrival who decide whether you are rejected at the border.
Which seems to hint that the subject arrived in the US without proper paperwork.
No, it's just a general statement. Because they can't comment on specific cases.
Also note, he would not have been allowed to board the plane in Norway if he didn't have the papers in order. They check that before going to that part of the international terminal.
Ok, so help him fill out the proper paper work. At which point does this justify strip searching and assaulting someone?
Norway regularly strip searches suspects, to mostly the same level of standard as other European countries and even the US.
The grounds they use to determine suspicion might be different, but in both countries a lot of discretion is given to the officers.
That's kind of the whole point, isn't it?
I don't get why people keep posting that tweet in this thread as if it justifies what happened. It's insane, and needs to be addressed.
The legality of weed in the US is quite complicated. It is officially still as illegal as ever at the federal level and those laws are the ones that border control care most about. I never said that being denied entry because of that is "fair" or how things should work but it is not entirely unexpected. The US has historically been very hard on drugs and anyone visting ought to know that. It's best not to test the limits of the laws when you are a guest in a foreign country.
>"“Look, we both know why you are here,” the agent told me. He identified himself to me as Adam, though his colleagues referred to him as Officer Martinez. When I said that I didn’t, he looked surprised. “It’s because of what you wrote online about the protests at Columbia University,” he said."
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-my-reporting-on-... ("How My Reporting on the Columbia Protests Led to My Deportation")
What has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.
The law works differently at the border, especially for non-citizens. Tourists don't have any legal right to get in. You may argue that the guards should be kinder and I would agree.
The historical examples you mention involve racism and slavery that were terrible but also the global standard at the time.
The Patriot Act is scary, but it doesn't seem much better elsewhere in the Anglosphere or in Europe. Say something impolitic loud enough and you'll get in trouble anywhere.
Here's hoping individual freedoms win in the end.
Depends on who "you" are.
There some some who are allowed to openly make tangible, if thinly veiled death threats to others without repercussions. Others can have their lives ruined over trivial things.
The "you"s who are not granted as much freedom of speech are aware of it and only express themselves among trusted people.
The type of speech being policed is different, but it's absolutely happening.
i drove to Surrey to a UPS Store, resealed and shipped the package and returned to the border. The US Immigration officer asked why I was only in Canada for 30 minutes, I explained, he laughed and sent me on my way.
Moral of the story is that every country can and will search your stuff and detain you and often turn you back for no meaningful reason.
Horribly authoritarian, with wanton disregard for human rights, yes, but not "fascist".
Indeed, but those people are wrong. It would be like calling Jerry Falwell an Islamist extremist. Maybe they are bad for vaguely similar reasons but it is still inaccurate.
If you start telling me about how Syria has a serious problem with fundamentalist Baptists I am just going to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
Really, you're just pissing into the wind.
I agree that the term fascist is wildly over-used, to the point where actual fascist behaviours are getting normalised.
Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.
To add another example to your list -- the TSA also has their own police (e.g. Federal Air Marshal Service), but they don't work the line screening your baggage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_Unite...
If you are doing something illegal, they call the police, and the police arrest you.
Or is it “huh europe is weird they give their TSA agents guns instead of having the transport security and also airport police?”
Not sure I would ever consider the GDR to have been "fascist".
Is it? Lack of rights at the border isn't "fascism", it's the norm. I don't think any country gives you 4th amendment (or similar) rights at the border, even liberal democracies.
TSA employees in 2000's USA scan your luggage and poke through it with technology. For any reason or no reason, they can open it up and poke through it by hand, or ask for assistance from nearby policemen with guns.
Is there any moral difference? If so, what is it?
(Also, nitpick: The East Germans were Communists, not fascists.)
We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here
TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share
They are not the same thing even if the means look the same
There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind
Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places
There was probably some nationalism too. Stalin buried internatonalism quickly. They would inevitably bow to the Russian overlords. No shame about it. We were bowing to the USA in the West and we still are.
Anyway, was communism only a facade by the 70s and the 80s? In that case it was a fully fascist country. All of the East.
I'd like to hear from somebody who lived in those countries at that time.
You do you but that's gonna be a no for me.
I don't want to be in some Central American concentration camp when they decide that its time to turn on the ovens.
Like it or not, these countries are who you are being compared to.
France: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230329-french-woman-...
Spain: https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/belgian-cou...
Poland: https://www.intellinews.com/polish-writer-faces-prison-for-c...
United Kingdom: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/13/queen-elizab... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/16/activist-shock...
Italy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/18/italia...
Note in most of these cases people prosecuted faced graver consequences than not being let into the country, and were full citizens, not foreigners.
Belgium abolished similar law in 2023. Switzerland allows you to mock local politicians, but not foreign ones based in Switzerland (go figure). Portugal, Iceland, Denmark and Brazil still seem to have such codes, though I am not aware of any recent prosecutions (maybe they exist, I'm just lazy and don't want to make this into a whole M.Sc. thesis in political science).
The only verified fact is that he was denied entry.
It might not be 100% lies, it might be "based on a true story". The temptation to embellish/frame yourself as the faultless protagonist is instinctive and there are hundreds of examples of people doing it. Narrative shifts are super common in cases where facts are initially sparse and then more come to light... we don't have the whole context.
One obvious reason to lie is that the real reason is embarrassing. Maybe he has criminal history, porn/nazi/fentanyl docs, what-have-you. Then when people ask why you was denied, you have to say something.
I'm absolutely not saying that he is lying! Only that we shouldn't blindly trust him.
Something like "attempts to reach CBP for comment were unsuccessful." goes a long way. It's a tell that they don't. The story is too good not to print.
Do you expect the vile dog-shooting sociopath Kristi Noem to speak to this, given it's under her realm of extraordinary incompetence? Maybe she can play dressup to try to get some camera time.
For years we heard whines and cries about the politicization of government. Well the entire apparatus of the US federal government now wears a red hat and writes an essay declaring fealty to the king. It didn't take much for the country to collapse into a fallen idiocracy/husk of an autocracy, at least as a prelude for the utterly inevitable secessionist movement that is going to kick up to an 11.
And while the delay might have been the airline's fault and possibly you could have a civil claim against them for damages incurred it is still your responsibility to have a valid Visa and not overstay it and also your responsibility to pay any fines for it (which you may or may not be able to get reimbursed).
The really sad story is that the flight was canceled a second time after that drama, and we were really feeling a lot of emotions over that debacle. Suffice it to say we’ve sworn off delta for awhile.
China gives you a ten year unlimited entry visa, so it’s pretty hard to screw that up.
In contrast, my worst border experiences have been in the U.S. and Canada (and I've traveled to over 30 countries).
In the US, I was nearly denied entry at SFO while on a valid TN visa simply because I didn't have a business card with me. The officer also referred to my wife as a "Chinese bitch" - within earshot (this happened during the Obama years). I had to let them handle my phone a bit to verify work emails, etc. But they didn't really search through it beyond that.
In Canada, I was sent to secondary inspection, had my bags searched, and was asked to show the photos on my phone. I was questioned for over an hour and they never told me the reason for it. It felt like they suspected me of smuggling drugs because the guy kept asking me what I had for breakfast... I'm Canadian btw and don't do drugs.
FWIW in the US you usually also don't get asked more than that (not including questions on you Visa / visa exempt application) and searches are not standard procedure that everyone goes through.
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Where does it say that? Your source only says profiles need to be public
Moreover your description is slightly misleading because it only applies to "all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas", which notably excludes tourism visas (B-2). The visas listed all seem to be academic related, presumably because the administration wants to crack down on woke ivy league students or whatever.
> "THE US EMBASSY in Dublin is tightening its visa requirements, saying that future applicants looking to visit the country will be required to divulge “all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form."
https://www.thejournal.ie/us-visa-changes-6740830-Jun2025/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44354298 (209 comments)
I got in. I was sent to some form of secondary screening, but they apparently couldn't find anybody who could speak English, so they just let me in.
Edit: I'm from a rich western country, in case it matters for anybody getting an understanding of who gets treated what way.
I guess it's a routine part of China's paranoia. They definitely do do weird things to check if tourists are causing trouble in some way i guess. I imagine that sort of interaction alone would scare off trouble makers and it's probably effective honestly.
I’m guessing you actually did something suspicious or illegal without realizing it.
A common and simple example of this is taking pictures where it’s technically forbidden — airports, military buildings (these aren’t always obvious to visitors), religious sites, etc.
Another example would be interacting with a person of interest. This could be a Chinese person that they are watching, or a foreigner that they are keeping tabs on (e.g., embassy staff that they suspect of being an agent).
As a tourist, you probably wouldn’t notice these things or even be aware that they are a red flag.
I of course wouldn't know if they tried to find my profiles.
Case in point this is only the 2nd story ever to come out about someone being detained / refused entry for content that was on their phone since Trump is president.
But we don't talk about that for whatever reason.
The US is not a friendly country, not even to allies.
The fact that you have to get approved before traveling(that is fine), and then can be denied entry when you arrive for no logical reason is absurd. Visiting the US is simply not worth the risk and hassle.
Its crazy when you expect your privacy to be more respected in China.
Coincidence.
This is really why. Any evidence or suspicion of drug use or paraphenalia is a major offense. Even it they attempted to justify or explain it, its a major rejection criteria. Ive heard of several denials for suspicions of marijuana use, "DUDE WEED" memes and the like. They are really going hard on anything that looks like illicit substance use.
It could happen to anyone in a country where possessing lock picks is not a criminal act. For example, your sibling might get you some picks in credit card form factor one year for Christmas. You put them in your wallet and forget about them. You travel a bit within the USA and nobody cares. Then years later you travel to Japan and are whisked away to jail because of a thing you forgot about in your wallet. The Japanese don't understand why an innocent civilian would ever have such a thing; therefore you must be a nefarious criminal.
The real problem is that the US system allows individuals with minimal training and virtually no oversight to wield unchecked power over travelers' lives.
Trump himself probably wouldn't care (which is why he thinks these rules are fine - he knows what should be a jailable offense) but of course the bureaucracy needs to make rules that any of the thousands of border guards can follow. The outcome is a bullwhip effect and you get this (or worse).
> "They threatened me with a minimum fine of $5,000 or five years in prison if I refused to provide the password to my phone."
this isn't real/legal/enforceable (as the law currently stands) is it? how does one protect ourselves against this turn of events upon entry when the immigration officer's claim fails the smell test?
Don't see how it wouldn't be legal as long as the target of the request isn't a citizen
This response from the Norwegian foreign office makes it seem like the man lacked proper documentation, which led to the search. However, it’s unclear to me whether the comment is specific to this case or just a general statement.
"DHS communicates a traveler’s ESTA status to the carriers. However, DHS recommends that travelers print out the ESTA application response as a record of their ESTA application number to confirm their ESTA status."
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/esta/frequ...
They also have DHS Agents on the departure Airports, which already tell the Airlines which Passengers aren't allowed to board. If the Airlines violate against this, they face severe consequences like a ban from US Airspace
https://netzpolitik.org/2014/bundesregierung-beauskunftet-re...
Have been lied to too many times by the media with stories like these to believe them at first glance.
But what is it with refusing water? Hydration is extremely important. I'm never voluntarily going near any situation which could result in me being refused water.
I am French, white, blue-eyed, it was business travel in business or first class.
I never understood why the US border was so hostile to visitors. Equal to the Russian border if not worse.
The US used to be an immigrants country, built by these immigrants. So why the hostility against foreigners? Their parents or grand parents were in the same spot, usually way worse wealth-wise.
Middle East entries were the best - sometimes slow, chaotic but always enjoyable. Europe was with bored agents who did not give a shit.
After one last trip my children begged for (the landscapes in the US are indeniably wonderful) I stopped going to the US, mostly because of a vague fear of being arrested for no reason. I felt like in a dictatorship country (but worse than in the ME where there predicability).
In Europe you can get in trouble, but it is soft. You have to fight the bureaucracy but that's more or less all.
I can think of several things that are more stupid, and for better or worse, border guards are dicks in a lot of countries.
My last border crossing, a few days ago: "What was the purpose of your travel? ... What are you bringing back with you? ... Welcome home." Took one minute.
With exception of might be Russia very few of such countries actually ever arrest tourists. Worst that can happen they'll send you out and ban for life.
Being a citizen of authoritorian country is another story...
Not even in my Top 100.
Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Nope, tourism is tanking. There are numerous stories about tourists being detained for little to no reason and eventually deported.
Travel warnings from various international orgs like Amnesty International and other governments have been mounting since 2019. It also doesn't help when the president attacks the country that makes up a large portion of tourist like Canada.
World Travel & Tourism Council says international visitor spending is going to drop by $12.5bn this year (down 22.5%).
Even this comment in HN could put me into problems if the guard considers it harmful.
If a funny pic of a politician can put you into prision, the probably some messages you write in a WhatsApp group with friends, discussing world news, could mean serious problems.
I planned last year to stop off in Hawaii and Seattle on the way from NZ to the UK this May, but in March this year I altered that and just did Vancouver instead as the stop-off.
I know several friends and colleages who have also done similar (even two didn't go to weddings of friends in the US).
Yeah, good luck downplaying the 12+ billion the US tourism industry is about to lose this year.
Stop measuring dicks with America. It has a much larger population and economy, so you cannot win.
Searching for projections seems to indicate that our tourism industry will definitely be growing:
Canadian tourism is expected to increase in 2025. Key points include:
Canadian travel demand surged by 61% year-over-year, reflecting growing interest in adventure and sustainable tourism. 67% of Canadians plan to travel more in 2025, with many prioritizing lesser-visited destinations. Morocco and Egypt are increasingly popular among Canadian travelers seeking cultural immersion. Solo travel is on the rise, with 1 in 4 Canadians planning their first solo adventure. A devalued Canadian dollar could provide a significant boost to the sector by attracting more foreign visitors and their spending. Canada's revenue in the Travel & Tourism market is predicted to reach US$17.42bn in 2025, with a steady annual growth rate of 2.25%. Evolving domestic spending patterns are also contributing to measured growth in Canada's tourism industry.
Enjoy your fascist country - it is truly the "most free", right? Right?
Zero, but that's not the same question. If something I think is unacceptable happens at a low rate, the fact that I think it's bad doesn't mean it's necessarily rational to change one's travel plans because of it, if the rate is low enough.
If I go to Iceland, there is some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption, but I wouldn't let that deter me from visiting Iceland.
The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
As a tourist doing tourist things in the US, your risk of being involved in a violent crime is notably lower than an average US citizen, and your risk of being involved with a border guard is notably higher.
Why would you compare an unpredictable natural risk with one stemming from human behavior and government policy? This is like saying speeding limits are a bad idea because some people are killed by lightning.
By the way, I never said anything like "power tripping pro-MAGA border guards are okay because there are volcanoes in Iceland", so your lightning vs. speed limits analogy isn't relevant.
> Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective.
It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists).
I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
The numbers are not a principle.
Pedantic, but if it is at entry rather than chasing people down afterwards, its probably CBP, not ICE. (CBP also does some chasing down afterward, too.)
And we don't really whether the JD Vance meme wasn't just the frosting on the cake. All we have is the tourist's word.
Given the repeated reports of international carriers cutting US routes due to lack of demand this year, I wonder why you would assume that the numbers this year are the same as two years ago?
> It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Waving off new abuses isn't rationality (it's also not opposing the current administration, but the opposite, carrying water for them.)
Ask people who have tried going to Canada from the US how welcoming border guards can be at their ports of entry. Say the wrong thing or try to cross with the wrong thing (in my friend's case, it was a set of tools used to repair electronics) and they will try to jam you up and deny entry.
I managed to save a few by arguing how ineffective as weapons they would be and then watch as two security staff try their best to pinch each other with wire strippers.
Canadian Border Guards then lectured me about responsible gun ownership, tore about my bags going "Since you don't keep track of your guns, let's find out if they are in your bags", went through my iPad movie content and finally was like "Ok, you are clear".
I've been back multiple times and since then, Scan Passport Check Computer STAMP PASSPORT Welcome to Canada.
However, when returning to the United States, even as a citizen (born, not naturalized), I have frequently faced questioning about my social graph, who specifically I have contacted, and things of that nature. I thought it was one dickhead guard in Vermont, but it keeps happening.
No qualms with your actual point, but immigration/customs is not the same thing as airport security, sorry but it's my pet peeve when people conflate them.
We should just lecture our audience to keep their head on straight and come travel.
We haven't been there since this current administration took over, and have no plans on it until something changes.
Trumps comments regarding Canada, and the whole "51st state" rhetoric triggered the decision, but these stories absolutely play a part in it. I'm not about to put myself, or my family, in a position where someone might be detained for anywhere from days to weeks for no reason.
There's a big, beautiful world out there, and plenty of countries who are happy to have us and take our tourist dollars, all without me having to worry about getting detained for silly pictures on my phone. It's a pretty easy decision if you ask me.
Sure - America is a beautiful country, and people that I had met while on vacations and business trips were all very nice - I have driven thousands of miles (to/from Las Vegas from AB, Florida from ON) and never had a bad experience. But - unfortunately, the current political and cultural climate down there is just a little too "hot" - I hope it works out for the average person, but I don't have high hopes.
Why would you?
> Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
Most people have an opinion about the US. They might have shared it on social media.
For comparison, the government of Turkey might care if you have insulted Erdoğan on social media (I don’t know; they might). But chances are you want to travel to Turkey while not having strong enough opinions to have flamed Erdoğan on social media. People care more about what they can see in Turkey; foreigners objectively spend more time on US political news than they spend thinking about the US national parks.
I'm quite sure that's their main job, finding out who are the adversaries of the regime.
There’s no recourse if you’re uncertain. You can’t wave over a manager - you’re expected to process the huge queue with more piling in all day.
You work multiple long shifts per week. In a single shift you make thousands of decisions with huge impact to your life going forward - huge downsides for mistakes.
When you make 1000 decisions in a shift, even a 0.1% error rate is one wrong decision per shift!
And even if you are a nice person, you need to keep your job. When your biggest boss has an unsympathetic streak, you tip more into “my mistakes will be punished” mode.
That should be more concerning here, I think.
In any case, I think with CBP here, it's either take it or leave it.
I have a new one for american applicants - how fat is JD Vance??
> Fact Check: FALSE
> Mads Mikkelsen was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons, it was for his admitted drug use.
I would write a witty message about how it seems like a good idea to put your phone in the carry-on luggage, but given they now ask for social media handles I don't think I will
(if ever.)
Also better to leave the laptop at home, if you don't want to wipe it.
Sure, if you get sent to secondary screening they may pick up your bag for you, but no.
Luggage pickup is after CBP. As far as I remember this is the case everywhere.
The best way to seem like you're not hiding something is to have something else to show.
US politics is outpacing satire at an unprecedented ratio.
If you are going to upset the empire with your on and offline behaviour, you better practice solid information hygene.
Which it could still be. ESTA was granted because it was a "maybe". Then they found something at the border that was not in meme form, that the article doesn't mention.
Maybe he had no pre booked return ticket, was claiming to stay with a friend he didn't have the address of, and then the meme was the last (albeit tiny) straw.
My experience with CBP is that if you answer "wrong" (including saying that you only have the hotel name on your phone, which you are not allowed to check at the desk), then you need something "right", like a business card, to dig yourself out.
On a separate note, border agents being able to force you (anyone, including U.S. citizens) to give them access to your devices has been a problem for a long time and certainly should be illegal. When traveling internationally, you should either (1) leave your personal devices behind or (2) back up your personal devices to an encrypted drive (a tiny SD Card is ideal) and factory reset them. I know the EFF has been fighting that issue for a while and I’m hoping that at some point in the near future, border agents will be prohibited from forcing folks to give access to their devices.
There was the case a few months ago of a Canadian lady being detained and denied entry "for no reason", and then it turned out she wanted to work in the US while on a tourist visa, and also was attempting to evade border patrol by flying to Mexico and entering via the southern border instead of the northern border or at an airport, where she had previously been denied admittance.
To share an anecdote, a person I knew in high school went around telling people that he got tasered for having a broken tail light on his car. Well, he did have a broken tail light, and he was tasered, but when the body cam footage came out, it tells the story of kid getting pulled over, being extremely combative with the initially polite officer, refusing to provide identification, refusing to exit the vehicle 10 times when the officer was attempting to lawfully arrest him, and then being tasered.
So the Norwegian's account can't be trusted but the CPD's can? Why?
Also most drugs are not federal crimes and it sounds like he wasn't arrested for it, so there's no record and therefore no reason to prevent lawful entry.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14842359/Norwegian-...
> It comes after an Australian writer claimed he was turned away from the US border after being grilled on his views on the Gaza conflict and articles he wrote about pro-Palestinian protests.
> Alistair Kitchen, 33, boarded a flight from Melbourne to New York to visit friends on June 12 when he was pulled to one side by a Customs and Border Protection officer during a layover in Los Angeles.
> He was detained for 12 hours at Los Angeles International Airport before being put on a flight back to Melbourne.
> Mr Kitchen claimed a customs officer told him he was being detained because of his views on the pro-Palestinian rallies that took place on campus at the New York university last year.
> 'I was interrogated about my beliefs on the crisis in Gaza. I told him what I believe: that the war is a tragedy in which all parties have blood on their hands, but which can and must come to an immediate end,' he wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald.
Was this drugs too? Or maybe he did something else DHS can blame instead of owning their behavior?
So again, how many times does this government have to police thought before you admit that is what they are doing, and how does that not directly conflict with your free speech ideology?
The messages were described by the source in your article “reflect[ing] hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”, and “hateful and conspiratorial messages”. Maybe they were? Who knows?
Is this story real? I just checked, and nope, it's not April 1 yet.
Does anyone here have addition information?
this just in: agency infamous for fragile egos and abuse of power got their ego bruised and abused their power.
Would you be looked at with suspicion at this point?
Why is this even on HN?
> Mathias Rongved, a spokesperson at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned fellow Norwegians that it is their duty to be clued up on US regulations before entering the country. "Most trips to the US go without any particular problems," he said.
> "Entry regulations can change at short notice, and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations. It is the immigration authorities upon arrival who decide whether you are rejected at the border. Norwegian authorities cannot intervene in this decision.
And as far as the original story, individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this to people because they have a meme on their phone, doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself. There is straight up no justification for this.
Dark days for the values the US professes to represent.
One of the underdiscussed aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it creates countless little tyrants that all feel empowered to exert whatever power they have in any way they see fit.
Some years later "Pull the guy with tattoos". Full search.
Year or two after that, New York, pulled from the queue, directed to stand in a clear box. "Do not move your feet from those markings". My young daughter had to stand and watch.
Another trip. My passport photo did not fit their criteria. "Why did you shave your head?" .. "Because it was hot" .. repeat that whole interaction several times.
I am so so happy that I never have to visit the USA again and it's solely because of the 'people' assigned as 'guards'.
Most border agents are brutal, regardless of the current administration. But things do seem to get worse when the Republicans/MAGA are in. I wouldn't even want to think about how they'll act if a big terrorist attack comes.
Drawing attention to yourself results in attention. Who knew.
People who put tattoos on their face are looking for attention. Attention is exactly what he got.
Obviously the guy has never traveled to Asia. He'd be singled out in every port and every station. Sounds like he lives a tidy life in No Europe. Where bald white guys with face tattoos and body armor are normal and only brown people are singled out in security lines...
No. Should have precisely zero baring on anything at all.
Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
I know you didn't mean it this way, but both sides believe this to be true depending on how you define "the right"
The thread in question is already 6 days old but you (both) broke the site rules so badly that this is not one to let pass.
We end up having to ban accounts that break the site guidelines like that, so please don't do it again.
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
Maybe someday the civilized world will realize democracy often ends in the case of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
> We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
and further that you're intending to use it as a burn on Trump and his government?
Regardless of what you think about them and Neo-Nazis/white supremacists, I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
That is due to incompetence, not desire.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369233
Or celebration
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369218
The whole “political correctness is so bad that we need to elect the current regime” crew only ever really wanted to feel aligned with power and are more or less indifferent to what that power does so long as they are periodically made to feel reassured that they are on the right side of it.
The polite description of bootlicker
As someone who would be closer to that side than the opposite: this is terrible and unacceptable.
(It is not that hard to have actual principles)
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
https://plas.princeton.edu/news/2023/do-latin-america’s-top-...
I'm not a historian, but this reminds me a bit of the prelude to the French Revolution: a growing list of grievances against a ruling class by a population that feels abused, disenfranchised, and numerous.
Even if one expects to enjoy a sense of Schadenfreude were such a revolution/slaughter to occur, our staples of daily life (food, medicine, electricity, fuel) are distributed over such a geographically large network, that almost everyone on the country would suffer greatly.
I imagine.
The other thing to remember about the French Revolution was that nearly all the revolutionaries who came to power during it were dead by the end of it. The folks who are crying "We're in power now, suckas!" are being extremely stupid. Power doesn't last long at times like this.
The other thing that scares me is that the best place to be in all those historical times of crisis was an ocean away from the place where the crisis starts. But that doesn't work today; we have weapons with global reach that can level whole cities in 30 minutes. If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
This is a very Hollywood action film way of seeing the world. In the case of an American civil war, it's unlikely that it will be fought using nuclear weapons, and in that case, it's unlikely that they would use any on say, Chile, or Australia.
Europeans are screwed though.
If you live in Chile, the main danger is not that the U.S. drops a nuke on you. It's that Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India, which then can no longer export rice to Saudi Arabia, where revolt breaks out, which cuts off the flow of oil, which makes Chile's economy grind to a halt.
So it’s not the Hollywood action movie view of the world. It’s just the standard 2005 version of Pax Americana make-believe.
Meanwhile Israel has attacked Iran and its US ally said “we want to do that too”.
India is also a nuclear state, so this is pretty unlikely unless the wheels really come off the deterrence strategy. North Korea attacking South Korea perhaps, but even that seems unlikely as it would greatly anger NK's closest ally of China.
Anyway, even I, with my paltry education in history, can see the historical parallels. And here I am, versus an oligarchic class that had the opportunity for a world-class education, and surely knows at least as much history as I do. I wonder if they really believe that they've found the way to prevent the inevitable consequences this time, or if they just think that they'll have found some way out, possibly just having passed the buck to the next generation, before the consequences for them come to pass.
History rhymes.
Just because who he voted for got the power, does not mean Yarvin got the power.
"Me Yarvin, Me powerful now". Is not true. What power does he think he has.???
The real question is, what has to happen before these people 'learn', or 'understand' that they were duped. What would it take for them to really grasp how they were played? Like all those Germans that shrug, 'I didn't know'.
Democrats lost their conscience with Clinton.
The last republican president with a clear conscience was probably Bush Sr. He was also crucified for it (hence the single term). He foolishly let reason about running a government get in the way of party bluster and that ended his career.
Carter was the last democrat president with a conscience and he also was lambasted for it.
Unfortunately in the US, principles and conscience haven't resulted in party success in the last 50 years.
And the difference is really striking.
Once Republicans got power, they immediately forgot basically ALL their ideals: small government, States rights, adherence to law, budget discipline, etc.
A better summary might be:
Yarvin tells Scott that today’s populist right is too weak to fear, while the real authoritarian danger comes from the prestige-driven institutions that already steer American life. His shift since 2008 isn’t a sell-out but a recognition that the fuel of mass democracy has run low and that the managerial regime’s ongoing failures are the greater evil.
This is a perfect example of Bourdieu's idea of symbolic violence and the violence of the arbitrary.
The uncomfortable truth is, for many the thrill isn't in enforcing fair rules, or even unfair ones. The thrill is in the power to enforce arbitrary rules. The point isn't who gets punished, it's that someone can be, at a moment's notice, for no coherent reason. And the joy is in unpredictability, in knowing they can shift the rules under your feet and there's no one appeal to.
This is the logic sitting beneath every hand-wringing editorial and rage-bait thread about "cancel culture run amok." The goal is sovereignty, not consistency. It's about who gets to draw the lines and when they can redraw them. Arbitrary enforcement isn't a bug. It’s the feature.
The clever "gotcha" crowd falls flat when they imagine that, by exposing contradictions, they'll force a confession, a moment of logic, an admission, and surrender. But that moment never comes. When the point is arbitrariness, contradiction isn't a failure. It's the currency of power. Pointing it out only proves you're not the one with power.
What will the "PC culture" critics say? Probably what they’ve always said. Remember, it's not about the arguments. It's about who gets to arbitrate, who gets to punish, and who gets to laugh last.
It always has been.
This really is just what we have been hearing from the cultural right for a long time, masked as a kind both-sides/human-nature take. It sounds good, in that it gives something like general principle to subsume all the instances. But it just doesn't really make sense in the actually existing world. How could any given side even know they are the new hegemon, the new line-drawers, at any given moment. At what point are they rewarded with regard to the influence they wield? What does it even look like? Do you have examples? Sovereignty implies a concentration of something like power, but your very point here seems to decentralize sovereignty to the point of it being unrecognizable as such. Its like taking something very individual and trying to stretch it across everything in awkward way.
Just simply: how does this actually work? When does whatever side thats on top actually get to feel good, actually get to be the sovereign?
In my experience, the scope is the establishment of a status hierarchy.
We love to put ourselves in a privileged position. In most internet discussion, the status hierarchy extends throughout the duration of the encounter. In most Thanksgivings, the crazy uncle goes away at the end of the night, in marriages, it extends for the duration of the relationship. It's fundamentally tied to the social engagement.
Does it not feel at least a little juvenile to think like this, if you look at it critically, maybe from a little more the outside than you seem to be? These kind of pat armchair psychologies that answer in one breath the phenomena of culture, of human interaction feel just extremely schoolyard to me... but I guess ymmv.
At the very least: its unfalsifiable; one could easily go the other way and say "people love to belong to a group, and being able to police another group's language/jokes/etc is the best mechanism for reinforcing their belonging".
To picture you and your smug interlocutor as ever placed in some asymmetric structure where they are the king and you are the pauper belies the staying power of these controversies, the clear struggle they manifest. You make it sound so much like there never even is a battle, just spontaneous winners and losers.
I don't want to come off as harsh, but what you are arguing for is the logic of a loser, in the technical sense. Its asserting a projection you/others have of perceived intellectual enemies as a kind social theory for everything. It dooms you to fatalism you just dont need to have! Humans, for better or worse have a capacity for much more complicated motives. You do not need to "Mean Girls" the entire world!
I'm curious though, you seem to have not experienced this sort of internet domineering?
Yes and: Free speech maximalists seek freedom from consequences.
Reading your missive, I now have to consider how impunity is related to sovereignty.
Him and the people that backed him are the machine behind of all of this.
In this case, we have a report that someone was denied entry over an image of JD Vance.
From the same report, we have the facts that JD Vance approved of the meme the image was taken from, using it himself; and that the image provoked border control agents into interrogating the person about his ties to "right-wing extremism". Not usually something you'd expect from someone about whom the only thing you know is that he appears to be criticizing right-wing politicians.
It seems safe to conclude that politics weren't a concern. If you wanted to diagnose what happened, this looks more like the agents were looking to turn people away and seized on whatever they thought they could make work.
I have a sibling that's deep into this, he would say "haha owned"
Also remember that JD Vance himself has plenty of air time laughing at these memes, and they aren't considered threatening like calling out Biden's cognitive decline with memes making fun of it.
The overall response to memes of this nature are very different on either side. One side wants to censor the entire internet and penalize people for daring to share something politically incorrect, while the other caught an outsider who may harbor threatening sentiments about our nation, with the intent to harm - although I sincerely don't think that's the case here.
Part of the irony here is that you'll more likely find a right-winger with more JD Vance memes on their phone than this guy.
The mass-censorship has a much deeper weight to it than inconveniencing 1 tourist, and I think it's a little surprising this needs to be explained.
I condemn cancel-culture full stop whether its the right-wing mcarthyism of the fifties or the leftist bullies of the last decade.
Do you?
Here's a footballer from Tromsø with that name: https://www.til.no/nyheter/mads-med-forste-proffkontrakt . He is 17 years old, so not the 21 year old mentioned here.
Here is another Mads Mikkelsen in Tromsø. https://fjellet.dk/
(Is Tromsø where they keep all the spare Mads Mikkelsens??)
It's not actually that unlikely for other people to possess the name.
Mads and Mikkelsen are both common Norwegian names (SSB has >4000 Mads and Mikkelsens individually), and unless his parents were big Refn enthusiasts I don't think they would have been aware of the actor...
[1] https://www.nordlys.no/mads-sin-drommereise-til-usa-spolert-...
https://archive.ph/h3Uf4 couldn't capture it well but you can see has his name is referenced as Mads Mikkelsen.