Woman Sues US Border Agents Over Seized iPhone (bbc.com) 277
An American woman who had her phone seized by border agents as she returned home to the United States is suing the country's border protection agency. Bob the Super Hamste shares a report: Rejhane Lazoja was stopped at Newark airport, New Jersey, after returning from a trip to Switzerland in February. Her iPhone was seized by agents after she refused to unlock it for them. The lawsuit alleges that border agents took a copy of the data on her smartphone and failed to say whether it had been deleted. According to legal documents, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) kept the phone for more than 120 days before returning it to Ms Lazoja, who is a Muslim woman and wears a hijab. [...] "Neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant [to search the phone]. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms Lazoja's property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment," the filing says.
meh (Score:5, Insightful)
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds...
probably should wipe phone before travel as a privacy measure. delete pics and texts... probably better to use a travel phone with nothing on it.
its retarded... but we live in retarded times.
Re: meh (Score:5, Interesting)
That's actually company policy where I work. When traveling to the US, we keep our normal phones at home and we get a sort of burner phone from our company to take on the trip. It's basically empty except for a few emergency phone contact numbers.
Re: meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol, land of the free... free from freedom.
Re:meh (Score:4, Interesting)
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds... probably should wipe phone before travel as a privacy measure. delete pics and texts... probably better to use a travel phone with nothing on it. its retarded... but we live in retarded times.
Yup.... Don't bring anything in to the country if you don't want to risk it getting inspected. I'd take a burner cell anyway, something prepaid and cheap, overseas. Just forward your local calls to the burner and leave your normal phone safely at home. Same with laptops and such. Don't take them, or wipe them clean before you do.
Re:meh (Score:5, Informative)
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds...
That's debatable. Customs and Border Protection decided for themselves that they had the authority to search cell phones without a warrant, but that's being challenged in court [reuters.com].
The judge brought up the the similarity to a 2014 case where the Supreme Court held that police have to obtain a warrant to search a cellphone and refused to dismiss the case, so there's a reasonable chance of justice prevailing.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. You have the right to be secure in your person and papers against warrantless search. Now that more and more of your papers are on your cell phone, which you being with you, doesn't mean you give up that at the border.
Searching stuff for contraband at the border does not imply searching your papers. If The People move their papers into their personal electronics they carry everywhere, that drags 4th Amendment protection with it.
This lawsuit isn't about what is. It is about what should be, in th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if the authorities had the unlimited right to search anything at any time, they'd probably catch people sooner if they break the law. Of course, if everyone was locked up at night and wore an ankle bracelet when they were let out to go to work in the morning, we could also cut crime way down.
But that's not the way the U.S. is supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution does not have a geographic limitation. It applies to the U.S. government wherever it or it's agents may be.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
For example, let's say my phone contains the data I need to access and move my bank account. What would prevent the border agent from using this data to access my account and steal my money? Nothing.
Or imagine that I'm carrying important documents for my company that although they are perfectly harmless to national security, my competitors would love to get their hands on them. What would prevent the border gua
Re: (Score:2)
i will address the second question as i am not sure what you could have to access your bank that you cannot without the phone.
"carrying important documents for my company"..
remove the encrypted repository of your company data and then re-provision your device after crossing the border. that is if you carry information that can be a target of nationstate level scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
convenience trumps security every time... its just the nature of us.
Re: (Score:2)
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds...
Are you talking about seizing her phone? Or about keeping a copy of her phone data indefinitely?
Re: (Score:2)
does she actually know they kept a copy (they probably did) and they can justify it any which way they want. at the border before you cross/are permitted by border security... technically you are not in US and do not have the full citizen rights.
what is even more interesting that in a foreign country this same government will fight for your rights from this same persecution by foreign powers.
Re: (Score:2)
So the government is free to arrest you without probable cause, hold you without an attorney, and beat a confession out of you if they feel like it? As long as you are in this supposed Constitution-free zone that isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution....
Re: (Score:2)
technically you are not in US and do not have the full citizen rights.
You may be right, in which case, as a US citizen, I would want an actual US citizen who's had their phone confiscated to sue the US to find out how far the rabbit hole goes.
what is even more interesting that in a foreign country this same government will fight for your rights from this same persecution by foreign powers.
This remains to be seen and entirely depends on the foreign government in question.
If we're talking Iran, sure, but Saudi Arabia, certainly not.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Who gave them that authority? Regardless of what border agents say, I don't believe they should be able to inspect my phone when I cross the border. I don't believe they should be able to operate in a 100-mile 'border zone' that they apparently invented themselves. We should challenge them on these things. We shouldn't just sit by while the creeping authoritarian police state takes over.
Nobody is above the law (Score:2)
Welcome to America! (Score:5, Funny)
The land of the free!
(Some restrictions apply. See insert for details.)
how many pages is the "insert for details" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It used to only be a few lines, starting with:
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;"
Re: (Score:2)
Discontinue use if you experience an erection lasting than four hours...
Re: (Score:2)
Or a gay person in Russia.
Being gay isn't illegal in Russia. Only promotion of homosexuality.
Or someone without a porn license in the UK.
So the entire population of the UK then.
Sorry but your comparisons are a fucking long way away from the racist seizing of land.
This will be interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So the question boils down to this. Can Border Agents search you as you enter the USA or not? Does that include your phone and other personal effects?
On one hand, we have the 4th amendment which prohibits warrantless searches without legal review. On the other hand, we have the clear need to secure the border, which requires some level of inspection of persons and the things they are carrying.
The whole argument about the content that might or might not have been on the phone is moot regardless of her religious views. If the data from the phone has been deleted or not is also moot. I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled.
My guess is the courts will hold it was legal to inspect the phone, demanding she unlock it and confiscate it when she refused. But that begs the question about it this is really how we want to do things.... I'm not so sure.
Re:This will be interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)
" On the other hand, we have the clear need to secure the border, which requires some level of inspection of persons and the things they are carrying. "
There is simply nothing on the phone that could be illegal enough to warrant seizure like this though; in the sense that border control should be concerned about it.
It's ones and zeroes. It's not produce or livestock that might need to be quarantined, its not radioactive or a bomb. Its not goods which need customs, duties or tarrifs levied.
Yes, it might contain terrorist plots, or child porn, or something bad; but that's true of every single phone in the country -- if there is a legitimate suspicion of that, just like for everyone else -- get a damned warrant, and by all means arrest and search. They've got all the airline reservation data so there are hours of lead time before any actual suspect arrives at the airport.
Beyond that, it's simply not something that really needs to be the concern of customs and border patrol, with carte blanche authority to confiscate, copy, or rummage through. Especially given that ANYTHING that can be smuggled in as a data on a smart phone can be trivially transmitted accross the border completely encrypted via the internet, terrestrial radio, satellite, flashes of light from a boat in international waters, stenography in cat videos on youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that, it's simply not something that really needs to be the concern of customs and border patrol, with carte blanche authority to confiscate, copy, or rummage through. Especially given that ANYTHING that can be smuggled in as a data on a smart phone can be trivially transmitted accross the border completely encrypted via the internet, terrestrial radio, satellite, flashes of light from a boat in international waters, stenography in cat videos on youtube.
I think this is the crux of it all. They are basically trying to apply the logic, "we search other stuff at the border so here is an opportunity to search data too!" When this shit could be EASILY circumvented by anyone trying to do anything nefarious. It then becomes just a blatant invasion of privacy on US citizens. They are not transmitting physical fucking goods that could do any damage or be subject to certain restrictions. This is nothing but data that is legally allowed to freely pass via electro
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Anyone who wants to hide criminal activity can easily do so by keeping it on an internet service instead of on a phone, and there's nothing that border patrol can do to prevent that. Searching phones for (for example) social media posts disagreeing with the government isn't about security, it's about intimidation, trying to scare people into giving up their civil rights because they're inconvenient to people in power. That's not how the US is supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Searching for illegal and/or dangerous objects, yes. Searching someone's private data? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a serious question. If we grant for the sake of argument an absolute right to search to make sure no contraband is brought in, wouldn't that be satisfied completely (with respect to the phone) if you perform a factory wipe? Poof, if there was any contraband, it's gone now, definitely no contraband entering the country there.
Re: (Score:2)
I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled. It absolutely DOES matter if she was profiled. The 14th amendment offers equal protection to everyone under the law. That means that if you target one religion over another, or one race over another, it's unconstitutional.
It's a moot point. The question is if the search was legal in the first place. It doesn't matter how she was dressed, unless she's going to claim that she was searched because of the way she was dressed, but she's not making that claim in her suit as far as I can tell. It's just included as a side fact in the BBC story to imply something and justify why she's so upset about the data being deleted if it was collected in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently this woman is making this very argument, that the search was unreasonable.
So, where the courts may find the decision easy, the public will surely debate this. So it is up for debate, but the debate may not change the court's decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Statist bullshit. Border searches are "reasonable" in terms of catching contraband or illegal items (i.e. weapons). Neither of which applies to a personal cell phone that can legally be purchased in the United States.
Get a damned warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only did you comically try and use wikipedia as a source of authority, the wikipedia article you linked even supports the person to whom you replied.
Anyway, he used the term 'begs the question' not 'begging the question'. His usage was correct. You're a twat, and insulting people isn't immature.
Nothing really new here (Score:4, Interesting)
CBP does these seizures under the legal rationale that when you are entering the U.S., you are initially outside U.S. soil, and thus Constitutional protections do not apply. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that U.S. law does not apply outside U.S. soil (nor should you want it to - that would give the CIA free reign to enforce U.S. law in other countries). That's the whole reason Bush put a prison in Guantanamo Bay. Because while it's a U.S. base, it's not on U.S. soil. It's on Cuban soil. And by holding prisoners there, he hoped to deny them protections provided by the U.S. Constitution (which the Supreme Court has ruled applies even to illegal aliens if they're on U.S. soil).
Unless/until the Supreme Court rules that U.S. law applies to people at U.S. border checkpoints but have not yet been admitted to the U.S., this stuff will continue. Business travelers ferrying sensitive information in/out of the U.S. that they wish to keep out of the hands of the government typically wipe their devices clean. Then once they're out of the U.S., connect to their company's network via a VPN and restore backups of their devices. Repeat the process in reverse when entering the U.S. Connect to to their company via VPN, create a backup of their devices, then wipe their devices before going through customs. Restore from the backup once they're in the U.S. Any smart terrorist is going to use the same procedure, so I don't know what's really gained by all these searches and seizures. I guess they keep the dumb terrorists in check, but at the cost of inconveniencing hundreds of millions of travelers and leaving them feeling their privacy has been violated.
Re:Nothing really new here (Score:5, Interesting)
You're missing one critical element -- and so is the damn story -- whether or not she is a U.S. citizen. The protections of the Constitution *do* apply to U.S. citizens even when outside the country, when applied to actions of the U.S. government. Gitmo's logic only works because the prisoners are "enemy combatants" and not U.S. citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is implied, and the SCOTUS has ruled on it definitively in Reid v Covert (1956).
Justice Hugo Black, author of the majority opinion, sums it up by saying
At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/1 [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Gitmo is even more insidious. US citizens have legal rights, and so do prisoners. In Gitmo they pretend that prisoners aren't prisoners, but are an invented new label 'enemy combatants' , so that they can pretend that these prisoners don't have the legal protections by the Geneva Conventions, so no laws at all constrain their behavior. This is moronic, because it legitimizes other countries using the same dodge to illegally torture captured Americans. And, of course, US law still applies to the people doing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that U.S. law does not apply outside U.S. soil
Not so fast there, Sparky.
Try telling US citizens residing overseas that US law does not apply and they no longer have to pay taxes to the US government (hint: it does and they do, subject to customary offsets for taxes paid in the nation where the income was earned)
Also try telling that to US citizens abroad who engage in what is considered human trafficking by US standards:
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
The original TVPA of 2000 has been reauthorized three times, the most recent being the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. These reauthorizations have clarified definitions of trafficking and forced labor in order both to aid in prosecution of traffickers and to aid the victims of trafficking. The reauthorization versions have also required the federal government to terminate all contracts with overseas contractors involved in human trafficking or forced labor. Extraterritoriality jurisdiction was also extended to cover all U.S. nationals and permanent residents who are living overseas.[75]
Re: (Score:2)
Try telling US citizens residing overseas that US law does not apply
Try telling foreign financial institutions that US Law [wikipedia.org] does not apply to them.
You might think that Lincoln freed the slaves. But you still belong to this country. And in much the same way that your predecessors were returned [wikipedia.org] to their masters regardless of their resident states laws, we still can't outrun our masters.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that U.S. law does not apply outside U.S. soil (nor should you want it to - that would give the CIA free reign to enforce U.S. law in other countries).
There are many problems with that position, but I'll covert just one:
U.S. law does not apply outside of the U.S. borders, but neither does U.S. jurisdiction (and U.S. law only applies where the U.S. has jurisdiction). The U.S. does not have any legal authority outside of its jurisdiction. And inside U.S. jurisdiction, all Constitutional protections apply.
Re: (Score:2)
"CBP does these seizures under the legal rationale that when you are entering the U.S., you are initially outside U.S. soil, and thus Constitutional protections do not apply."
That is an argument that could backfire. For example, if they are outside the U.S. then under what law are they operating? Do the U.S. courts have jurisdiction? It is more likely that it hinges on the word unreasonable. It is totally reasonable to search and seize on the border. Bloody silly not too.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if they are outside the U.S. then under what law are they operating?
They're not outside the US. The person they're violating is.
Whether the finger they just inserted leaves the US when it enters the body of the person being searched might be an interesting court case.
She's not SUING, she's filed a Rule 41(g) Motion (Score:5, Interesting)
She's not suing CBP. That's pretty stupid since case law says she'd lose under all sorts of "protecting America" style laws.
She's filed a Rule 41(g) Motion instead, or "Motion to Return Property".
In other words, she's basically seeking to have CBP tu "return" all the data they collected from her phone - to not only destroy the images that were created, but any portions thereof, plus to have 3rd parties who many have accessed said image for any reason to again delete that data they may have collected.
Even more, she wants information on what happened to the data, including information on who it may have been provided to for what purposes and such (presumably also to verify that they too have destroyed/returned the data)/
If anything, it's probably a more unique case to go through the courts with and one where she may succeed - it wasn't necessarily wrong to collect the data, but now she's ordering its return and justification for keeping that data. And by "return", legally it means "full deletion" (remember the Waymo vs. Uber? Waymo wanted the "return" of the data which really meant the data was given back and destroyed).
More Details: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Unfair, but here's how you get around this (Score:2)
2) Make sure to leave the visible OS squeaky clean and sanitized.
3) Backup your phone to the hidden partition.
4) Wipe your phone.
5) Keep your phone unlocked and open.
6) Gladly pass it over for cloning as it will be empty.
7) IF they ask to search your notebook, don't worry you have a hidden encrypted partition.
8) Once they let you pass, restore your phone.
9) Laugh about how this will work every singl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm. You don't host your own cloud?
Come on, get with it.
How about this for a solution? (Score:2)
* Unlock the phone and start in a sandboxed environment that looked like the real one but contained fake user data. Maybe show initial screen like "Congratulations on the purchase of your new XXXX phone! Let's get started personalizing it!!"
* Display a message like "Internal battery short detected. This device is being hal
Re:but these are border guards (Score:5, Insightful)
What malarky is this? Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt. It says so right there, and there are no clauses based on locality.
If a foreign government seeks to search toy in their country, that is between you, them, and maybe the State Dept.
But, our rights are our rights and our government can not breach them, just because we are somewhere abroad.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But the AC is actually not wrong. This has been going on for well over a decade, and I'm pretty certain it has been fought before in court and the court upheld it. However, I also seem to recall reading very recently that a law was either proposed or actually passed not long ago that would prevent this.
Re:but these are border guards (Score:4, Informative)
The constitutionality of it has not actually been upheld. All that is upheld is you have *less* rights to the right of privacy at the border.
Re:but these are border guards (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds like its still up for legal debate according to the very article you linked. Last sentence of the 'electronic materials' section reads:
"In May of 2018, in U.S. v. Kolsuz, the Fourth Circuit court of appeals has held that it is unconstitutional for US border officials to subject visitors' devices to forensic searches without individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.[20]"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The failure of the courts to enforce the bill of rights doesn't change what it says.
Nope it doesn't change what it says, it simply invalidates it wholesale like an unenforceable contract.
Re: (Score:2)
You are both right and wrong. If the US decides to ignore its own laws and legal foundations and instead act however the hell it wants. However should this case go before a judge and it is determined that this violated the defendants constitutional rights, the government may feel compelled to comply with the courts or else admit to the world that it is a failed state run by warlords.
In other words, the persons in power may ignore the constitution all they want in an attempt to render it irrelevant, howeve
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:but these are border guards (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: 9th and 14th Amendments (Score:2)
Sure it does. The 9th and 14th amendments
The 9th amendment simply states that despite the Constitution enumerating rights, it should not be assumed that any rights not listed don't exist. Conversely, it does not state that everything not prohibited by the Constitution is a right.
The 14th amendment has 5 sections. The first section defines citizen. The second section talks about how to apportion the members of the House of Representatives based on state populations (excluding Indians who don't pay tax) and prohibits felons from voting for federal o
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that there is less expectation of privacy, rules are less restrictive regarding warrants, and so forth. However it does not mean it is a free-for-all. The border patrol MAY NOT stop any random car and search the trunk sieze the contents in order to fund their operations. Just because the first amendment protections are weakened does not mean they no longer exist and it does not mean that the fourth amendment no longer applies.
Yes, it is true that the border patrol routinely ignores this.
In th
Re: (Score:2)
Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt.
The border agencies have decided with agreement from some judges that at the border a thorough search is reasonable, and for some reason: including any data stored on any of your electronic devices, or cloud/social media accounts.
Re:but these are border guards (Score:4, Insightful)
he, NO, your quote is not even correct.
That 4th says...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Let me break this down. This amendment says the word "unreasonable" but that word is not saying that anything the "government deems" as reasonable is now fair game. The amendment is specifically stating that any "search or seizure" that is NOT accompanied by a WARRANT, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, is what the meaning of unreasonable is in the context of the 4th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
But the courts have put some limits on it. It said that in the border zones that there is less protection against searches, but it did not say that there is zero protection. The border agencies still have to show a reasonable cause for searching, and in this case goes through they'd have to show to the courts why there was a reasonable cause to hold on to the mobile phone for 120 days.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as she refused to unlock the phone for them: the border agents likely decided to detain her and put her in handcuffs.
Kind of hard to call the police and do anything, when the border police already have you in their custody.
Re:but these are border guards (Score:5, Informative)
"Unreasonable" is a giant loophole, however, you can march a brigade of goons through it... See Border Search Exception [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Try to go through TSA bearing and keeping Arms. Whenever allow exceptions to made illegally against one right you start to lose all your rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the searcher is part of Customs and/or Immigration. This doesn't apply to your local law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you american?
if so you should be aware of the 100 mile excluson zone as well : https://www.aclu.org/other/con... [aclu.org]
So you not only dont have "rights" AT the border, but you have limited rights for 100 miles into the country as well.
Re: (Score:2)
4th amendment does not apply at the border, dipshit. Neither does any other amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Far more so than statist bootlickers, we do. Beyond searches for contraband or weapons, the state and its apologists can fuck right off unless they get a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
courts have ruled you do have rights, its just that you have less of a right to privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
However. She landed at an Airport, located within the border. The Newark Airport is well within the border of the United States, just because you aren't allowed to go past a certain point in the airport does not mean you haven't actually crossed the boreder.
Re:but these are border guards (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do we try so hard to try to justify being cruel to other people?
People spend years digging in books from recent to thousands of years to come up with a justification to be cruel to that person who is different.
Re: (Score:3)
Untrue, the constitution still applies in this case. It would even apply within the so-called 100 mile "border zone", it applies in military bases that are overseas, it applies to US protectorates, and so forth. If this were indeed within areas (outside the 200 mile national waters region) it would be considered piracy and many treaties would apply there that the US would be obligated to respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but she's not AT a border, she's at an airport well within the border.
Re: (Score:2)
but she's not AT a border, she's at an airport well within the border.
An international airport (i.e. one at which there is Customs service) is considered "the border". If you are within 100 miles of "the border", you're at the border and have very few rights.
Also note that since there are so many airports that can be considered "international", that there are very few places anywhere within the United States where you don't happen to be "at the border".
Re:They don't need cause to search you (Score:4, Informative)
If you didn't support Clinton's impeachment and support Trumps, you are a piece of shit.
Clinton's impeachment was over an affair he had, and was a political witch hunt. A Trump impeachment would be over many campaign finance law violations and (possibly) election law violations.
The latter impeachment would be far more justified than the former.
Re:They don't need cause to search you (Score:4, Insightful)
Even Star had more restrictions and limited scope than Muller.
Are you seriously trying to claim that an investigation over a failed land deal in Arkansas that ended up charging over a blowjob in the White House decades later was restricted in scope?
Re: (Score:2)
It was about more than that but maybe you just read the first sentence of the investigation.
And is this better? Why is a Russian collusion investigation leading to charges of an affair with a pornstar? Or do you see campaign fiance charges that much more serious than perjury?
Re: (Score:2)
The second a service-provider is deprived of a legitimate interest in getting paid by the service-buyer
Do you realize we already have this situation in the US?
You are not the one paying the hospital. Your health insurance is. And their interests are not at all aligned with yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, and this is bad. But, at least, there are several of those to choose from, and they are still interested in my (or my employer's) money.
Switching to the "single payer" — a dog-whistle for "government run" — would make it even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying people on medicare and medicaid go to special medicare hospitals run by the government?
Re: (Score:2)
This is how we make America great again! She shouldn't provoke those border agents by wearing a hijab.
Probable cause. That's all there is to it.
When I came back through border security a few months ago 3 of the agents were women wearing those head scarves. Notice this case is about the cell phone but there's a paragraph devoted to how her religious beliefs prevent her from removing the scarf of which there is exactly zero mention of the agents asking her to do.
SPACE FORCE (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Believing in invisible pink unicorns and having terrible fashion sense shouldn't bar someone from returning home.