For that level of risk I'd rather go see Shenzhen frankly.
Land of the free?
Forecasts apparently still show an increase in international visitors overall (unsure of the split between tourists and business visits).
But, May numbers appear to be down about 7% compared to May 2024.
The report says the visit count (MAU?) in July is down 18% vs last year. Since I can't think of any local issue (fire, flood, weather...) that would have had an affect on visitor count this year vs last, that seems quite a large change. Especially when the fact that only a proportion of visitors are not from the US.
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Rep...
https://nypost.com/2025/07/25/us-news/foreign-tourism-to-nyc...
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/nyc-will-see-a-17-perce...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/nyregion/nyc-tourism.html
https://vinnews.com/2025/07/25/foreign-tourism-to-nyc-faces-...
https://columbianewsservice.com/2025/06/04/new-york-city-see...
https://tjvnews.com/local/new-york/new-york-city-faces-4-bil...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
Fingers crossed I'll nerd snipe someone here into finding it.
That's incorrect (per the ACLU post in the sibling comment) - it just happens that many major airports are within the 100 mile zone, so CBP/ICE can run operations there (beyond what they might run at an airport well inside the heartland).
For example, in New Zealand, you can be fined $5000 if you do not unlock your phone at the border, and later still compelled to unlock it. The US does not have any fines or laws to compel access. Of course, in any country, refusing the orders of a customs official will get you banned from the country, so that's a strong enough incentive for most tourists.
In terms of frequency: New Zealand searches 671 devices per year on 3M tourists, the US searches 46k/yr on 72M tourists, Australia 8.3k/yr on 6M tourists. That works out to 671/3M tourists is 0.02%, 46k/72M tourists is 0.06% and 8.3k/6M tourists is 0.14%.
Personally, I have fought against these searches for nearly my entire life. But to pretend that the US is on some sort of unique authoritarian slide is laughable. In the UK, today, most forms of protest are illegal. The EU has mandated cellular devices which record your car's location - on every new car. We should stand united against authoritarianism worldwide, not divided and pointing and laughing at each other in some sort of sad petty tribalism. I don't want to score cheap points on the internet, I want all people worldwide to enjoy liberty and privacy. United we stand, divided we fall.
A small island state in the south Pacific, close only to Aus & Antartic penguins, doesn't need or care about your data.
An outpost of the wasp empire, without constitutional impediments getting the way, ABSOLUTELY DOES want to hoover up as much data that passes through it as possible.
Which do you think NZ is? "5 eyes" has the membership it has, for a reason.
So yes, as the centre of this unholy empire, the US is involved, and responsible.
This is not to justify any part of modern surveillance, which I have protested against for many years. Nor is it to dodge US responsibility.
Back to the topic we're discussing - border phone searches - the US surveils their own citizens far less than the other Anglo countries. 22% of the searches were of US citizens, while US citizens make up a bit over half of border crossings. Australian citizens make up a similar proportion of Australian border crossings, but 42% of searches were of Australian citizens. Combine that with the figures above, and an Australian citizen going home has about a 4x higher chance of getting their phone searched than an American citizen. Very roughly, 0.025% vs 0.11%.
When something like Chat Control, mandatory cellular location recording devices in cars, anti-encryption laws, elimination of the right to protest in the UK, etc happens, the American response is to shake their heads and do much the same.
I don't find that productive. That sort of division is toxic. And the broader strategy - provoking us to hate our brothers across the Atlantic - has long been a core strategy of the enemies of Western civilization.
It is, but maybe you just haven't been paying close enough attention. Device scanning at the border is not the only indication of this, there are many. Masked federal agents arresting anyone they want without any warrant and then sending them to prisons in foreign countries without due process, should be ringing authoritarian alarm bells for everyone, including you.
A country that so hates its own constitutional democracy cannot possibly support the democracy of other nations.
I'm no fan of being Israel's sugar daddy but that's a gross mis-characterization of the situation.
The terrorism landscape of the 80s through 2010s has to do with the cold war, the post-colonial governments of the middle east, etc, etc. It's not a simple problem.
But yeah we should def stop supporting Israel. Not our sandbox, not our problem.
It's the same folks who invented the word for the phenomenon we're currently discussing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
1) support for the existence of Israel: just the idea of it, not necessarily the finer points, like whether it should coexist with an Arab Palestinian state. Zionism, whether it meant only taking up part of what was Mandatory Palestine, or all of it, flew directly in the face of the idea of pan-Arabism and Islamic theocratic chauvinism.
2) the Saudi royal family's request that the US-led coalition defend Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War - that was something that Usama bin Laden really hated, as he thought that it should be on the Saudis themselves and Islam as a whole to defend its birthplace, not some Western power.
The whole "support democracy" thing has been a ruse for a while now. Democracy has become a synonym for "human rights", and that's always been for sale. Not just in the US, either. The last 35 years have been characterized by exporting economic infrastructure from the US (and West at large) to a place that specifically does not support democracy because, hey, it's cheaper to make stuff there, and line need go up.
Hell, touching on the Middle East, the only reason the region has a seat at the international table at all is because we're willing to look past the abysmal human rights record so long as the oil stays cheap. Otherwise it's a bunch of arid land with very strict rules. Not exactly the kind of place progress and development flock to.
This isn't just an American thing, but it's certainly applicable here.
As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-citizens non-residents.
The greatest spikes in constitutional and legal rights and guarantees come from being a resident. Being a citizen gives you political rights like voting and participating in the three branches sure, but for the average man it's nothing compared to the rights bestowed by simply walking down a street freely and engaging in free commerce.
This might be one of those restrictions of freedom that allow for greater freedoms to be guaranteed down the line.
Once a non citizen goes through the border, they enjoy a huge spike in rights and guarantees, if you losen the border, you dilute the rights of the residents and citizens, and you add costs (especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility)
Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border.
Similar to how GPL briefly restricts user rights by requiring them to share the source code.
Can you clarify this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Freedoms like those granted in the US bill of rights are specifically designed to be universally applied regardless of citizenship status as long as you are within the geographical boundaries of the US or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction, from my understanding.
So just by crossing the line into the US a person would enjoy almost all of the rights of a citizen. But critically, they don't have these rights BEFORE crossing the border, the border control is the point at which those rights are granted.
IANAL
And all persons in the United States, regardless of status have essentially had their civil liberties significantly curtailed/removed within 100 miles of a border crossing[0].
You might think, "well we need to catch those folks who illegally cross the border, so we need a buffer zone to do so." But the wording (and more importantly the implementation) of these "border zones" include all points of entry like airports. Which means that civil liberties are negated/limited within 100 miles of airports where international flights land.
Which creates reduced civil rights zones around the majority of the US population. Meaning that if I'm within 100 miles of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International airport (which is many hundreds of miles away from any land border, as are most International airports), civil rights for all persons, citizen, resident or otherwise, are curtailed -- permanently and without recourse.
Strip searching tourists, interrogating them about which social media jokes they shared, or locking them up for weeks without charges and then deporting them based on nothing more than their political views does not strengthen the rights of residents.
> especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility
If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception. The large majority of undocumented people working in the US pay the same taxes as anyone else, including income and payroll taxes (sometimes under a borrowed social security number, but sometimes with an ITIN, "individual taxpayer ID no."; the IRS is happy to take the money without worrying about immigration status), but don't reap the benefits of those. So it's rather the opposite: all the responsibilities but dramatically fewer rights. In aggregate, undocumented immigrants pay on the order of $100 billion of US taxes every year.
Searching phones is not really related to reviewing social media is it? You don't need to search a phone to access a public profile. No, searching a phone searches for private messages, maybe you talked with an employer on the US and you are on a tourist visa? Maybe there's talks about drug use or money laundering? or worse?
>If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception.
You talk as if there were some sort of authorative objective dataset, but by nature, how can you measure unreported income?
You can search for FUTON sources all you want, but I've worked with immigrants that don't report income on my country. And just because something "doesn't happen" would be a terribe reason not to protect against it.
Would you leave your port 22 open without password just because "it is a misconception" that russians are brute forcing into systems? No, you would simply protect against it, you don't need evidence to implement security mesaures.
The US Constitution applies to persons within US jurisdiction.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This protection extends to individuals' persons, houses, papers, and effects.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that's pretty undisputed and basic.
I and a whole bunch of lawyers do dispute that claim[0].
Abolishing "everything under" the DHS would do incredible damage. The various agencies lumped under the DHS could plausibly be re-organized again, though I'm not sure it would serve much purpose.
The biggest problem is that voters keep putting incompetent ideologues in charge of the federal government.
As we're seeing with cuts to anything other than programs enabling masked, jackbooted thugs to beat/harass/disappear brown people.
The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety.
Right, and funding for customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance and the Coast Guard are all already being cut in favor of jackbooted thugs.
>The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety.
I never suggested that DHS should be abolished. That was someone else[0].
You might take that up with them instead.
I'm not fan of the trend, I'm open about it I despise travel restrictions and the security theater but I really want to hear from people who like the new way the world is headed for.
Europe has ~750 million people, and even with current policies (where migrants might drown when their boat sinks while the Greek Coast Guard looks on and laughs) millions of migrants try to enter Europe each year.
The US has ~340 million people, and even with current policies (where children might be separated from parents and placed into cruel detention centers) millions of migrants try to enter the US each year.
If movement was free, how many hundreds of millions would pour from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia into Europe and the US? The 3+ billion who live in the tropics are only going to become more likely to try to migrate as the climate continues to warm.
People don't actually leave the places they grow up or their families and friends to live on European food stamps.
Also, Europe tends to receive the worst people because the legal routes are closed. We end up with people who dare to go to the illegal routes for other reasons than running for their lives.
US a similar thing, instead of relying on illegal workforce just let in people from the main gates and watch out for shady types.
There are so many things that can be done to address the issues instead of dividing the world limited travel areas.
Republicans are planning to ban all pornography under the guise of "national health crisis". It's in their Project 2025 playbook which they have been following very closely.
There's not really anything on my laptop, other than SSH keys and some stuff that's in git anyway. So it can technically just be a clean Linux installation on a old burner laptop. When I'm across the border, I could simply install my password manager and pull everything from git.
For the phone that's a little more tricky, because I'd need my 2FA for the password manager. I suppose I could do a "blank" phone and just have the TOTP QR code printed on a piece of paper.
It just seems like it's more suspicious to carry two blank devices.
Do your part and educate an idiot you know. Ask them to stop being unreasonable and stop spreading lies or you will cut them off.
This will probably result in you cutting them off.
We cannot sink into total FUD!
This is often how families of cult members act when they discover their family member has joined a cult. Usually it has the effect of pushing the cult member to become further indoctrinated because the cult is the only thing in their life that offers them acceptance and validation. Instead, talk to them using their terms and get them to understand your world view in their terms.
Some people will still be obstinate and I do not have a solution for that; I am, however, certain that invalidating them is not a solution, even if one believes that what they are saying is not valid. The point is that people need to feel safe in order to change their opinions (doing so is a very vulnerable moment) and constantly invalidating someone is a great way to make sure they constantly feel psychologically unsafe around you.
Just to reiterate: if one is really hoping to change the mind of someone close to them, don't give them an ultimatum to change their mind or you'll cut them off. The result will be that they don't change their mind and you remove yourself from a good position to effect that change.
jacquesm•3h ago
The most surprising thing to me is that people that are by most measures intelligent are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
dmitrygr•3h ago
NoGravitas•3h ago
dmitrygr•1h ago
barbazoo•3h ago
About half of Americans apparently don't have a passport and according to other sources I found only about <30% of Americans have travelled internationally in the past year.
So I imagine this revocation of freedom doesn't affect everyone equally. Presumably things are still mostly fine for those folks or at least they wouldn't have experienced it.
alistairSH•3h ago
So, you could conceivably be a citizen, but CBP/ICE think you might be here illegally, so they can stop you without a warrant. How are you going to prove you're a citizen? There is no national ID, passports aren't required nor are they held by the majority of citizens, and unless something has changed, green card holders / permanent residents aren't required to carry their papers.
filoleg•2h ago
I agree with your larger overall point, but this specific part isn't true.
Nothing has changed recently, but green card holders/permanents residents (over the age of 18) have been required to carry their green card with them since a long time ago (since the implementation of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, according to Google). I remember back when I got mine in 2012, it was a requirement as well (though, I will admit, it was not really enforced).
Here is the relevant quote from Section 264(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.)[0] addressing this:
> Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
And here[1] is an additional resource confirming this.
0. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prel...
1. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-really-need-car...
alistairSH•1h ago
filoleg•16m ago
smcin•2h ago
That's terrible advice, please stop giving terrible advice like that. ICE need to have probable cause (about you specifically, by name, not just your street or zipcode or "people of your ethnicity/appearance" or "people in that store/restaurant/parking lot"), beyond a verbal "uhh we think you're here illegally". You have the right to ask them why. And the 4th Amdt still exists, for all people, so no they can't stop you in your vehicle or inside your own house without probable cause and a [signed, valid] warrant [naming you specifically, and signed by a judge].
> How are you going to prove you're a citizen?
If you're a citizen, you can simply state to them you're a citizen (better when you're on bodycam; and repeat it (on bodycam) to any other ICE officials you interact with, and make mental note of their names or else descriptions so you can subsequently identify them). Pragmatically, you could also identify yourself as such to any bystanders or anyone videoing things.
"U.S. citizens do not have to carry proof of citizenship if they are in the U.S." [0] Read that again and again. Ok?
For sure ICE could knowingly violate a citizen's rights, detain them unlawfully (for hours or days), beat them up, send them to a detention center, even (in very rare cases) deport them. That becomes a political as much as legal matter. If you have constitutional/legal rights and due-process but refuse to stand up for them, do those rights functionally cease to exist? Do they magically get restored in 2029(/2033)? Time to stop being complacent.
(Obviously noncitizens do not have all the above protections, and need to be more careful.)
In the meantime, to inform yourself about your rights, and to get advice how to deal with ICE, both for citizens, GC holders, visa holders, visitors and undocumented people, see: https://www.aclu.org/ or other webinars. But, stop speculating or spreading misinformation. If you don't know, ask here.
[0]: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
SwamyM•41m ago
This is technically true but in practice (as we've seen multiple times recently), if ICE wants to stop you or interrogate you or even arrest you, they will do so without a warrant.
alistairSH•30m ago
text0404•3h ago
Sure, and most Americans have never had their speech censored by a government entity so getting rid of the first amendment would be fine for most people.
rconti•3h ago
30% sounds insanely high. I suspect at least half of Americans haven't even taken a _vacation_ in the past year, let alone _travelled internationally_.
FireBeyond•2h ago
> Approximately 40 million Americans travel abroad each year. This figure represents about 12% of the U.S. population. Travel data reveals that Americans commonly visit destinations in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
Source: https://travelpander.com/how-many-americans-travel-abroad/
rconti•2h ago
> In the past year, the poll of 2,000 U.S. travelers, conducted by Talker Research, found 94% have traveled domestically, and 28% have traveled internationally.
source: https://www.myjournalcourier.com/features/article/unpacking-...
splap•2h ago
passport to resident ratio usa, 1989-2023:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/44102530-5b24-467a-8510-c...
wat10000•2h ago
potato3732842•2h ago
wat10000•2h ago
abeppu•2h ago
Even if I happen not to hold any particularly radical political opinions, if political speech is censored, my rights of free expression are also decreased. I may not practice a minority religion, but if the state systemically attacks one religion, my freedom of religion is also attacked.
The same is no less true for the 4th amendment; I may not be a target of the police at the current moment, but if they have the ability to search and take stuff at will, I am still less free.
chrisco255•2h ago
See for yourself: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
jacquesm•1h ago
sugarpimpdorsey•1h ago
The ABF are empowered to search any electronic devices, copy and retain its contents.
You can refuse, after which they are empowered to jail you and seize your belongings.
Sorry but I'm not seeing the connection between searching belongings whilst crossing an international border to the mass genocide of 6M people.
jacquesm•1h ago
Or you can vote with your feet and stop going there.
> Sorry but I'm not seeing the connection between searching belongings whilst crossing an international border to the mass genocide of 6M people.
Nazism did not start with genocide. It ended with genocide. If your position is that as long as we haven't seen the death of 6M people then sure, you're right this isn't Nazism. But if you see the endless propaganda, the creations of large 'outgroups' and the building of actual concentration camps as possibly leading in that direction then now would be a good time to do something about it. Otherwise you'll be in a long line of people saying 'wir haben es nicht gewusst' in a couple of years. But you did.