Immigration and welfare is a topic that should be pretty clear from a libertarian standpoint. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case for many who claim to be libertarian. Also, What's in the News with stories on Snuggies, Trump, government funding, federal cannabis enforcement, ATF smuggling, and assault weapons ban. And a Muh Roads segment on Border agents downloading information from your phones and computers.

WHAT’S RUSTLING MY JIMMIES 

[1:30]

Here I was, minding my own business, like I usually do, listening to one of many liberty podcasts, that will remain unnamed. The interviewee on this episode, who will also remain unnamed, who also claims to be a libertarian, says she believes we should keep the borders closed until welfare is ended. In defense of the show host that I was listening to, he made no comment in support of this idea.

And, this is not the first libertarian who I've heard say this recently. Just a couple of weeks ago, I listened to my first episode of The Jason Stapleton Show in over a year because I ran out of other shows to listen to. Ten minutes into the show, he was essentially making the same argument and defending Trump's border wall. I had to turn it off. I've also seen numerous comments in the last few weeks on the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Facebook page from people defending borders, border walls, and border security.

There are, essentially, three camps on immigration.

A CATO study shows that non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25 percent less likely to be signed up for Medicaid than their poor native-born equivalents.

Another study shows that immigrants are less crime-prone than Americans.

Jacob Hornberger, president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, wrote one of the best short pieces I've ever seen on the topic of immigration.

WHAT'S IN THE NEWS 

[11:50]

In without the government news, a federal trade court has answered a very important question, “is a Snuggie a blanket or a robe?”

In Trump needs a reset button, too, news, Trump has selected General H.R. McMaster to be his National Security Advisor.

And, speaking of Trump, something I try to do as little as possible, he is working on eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities, a less than $500 million a year program.

In illegal for you but not for them news, The ATF has been caught using a web of shadowy cigarette sales and smuggling to funnel tens of millions of dollars into a secret bank account.

In the Consitution is unfit to exist news, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of appeals has ruled that Maryland’s assault weapons ban is constitutional.

In asset forfeiture news, if Republicans in Arizona’s senate have their way, police in that state could soon have the power to seize assets and property from protesters.

MUH ROADS 

[24:43]

This segment is all about government solutions, why they fail, and how they could be done better outside of government. This episode, we talk about the security theater we all face if we ever have to fly, but more specifically, if you are having to fly internationally. like to Anarchapulco or something.

 

Read Full Transcript

TEASER INTRO

Immigration and welfare is a topic that should be pretty clear from a libertarian standpoint. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case for many who claim to be libertarian. Also, What's in the News with stories on Snuggies, Trump, government funding, federal cannabis enforcement, ATF smuggling, and assault weapons ban. And a Muh Roads segment on Border agents downloading information from your phones and computers.

INTRO

“Welcome to The LAVA Flow, channeling the flow of information to the Libertarian, Anarcho-capitalist, Voluntaryist, and Agorist community. Find us at thelavaflow.com. Here’s your host, Rodger Paxton.”

Thank you for joining me this week, coming to you from the state that formerly held the world record for the most people who wore Groucho Marx glasses at the same time, 525, in Pittsfield, this is the show that will bring you the people, places, and events that everyone in the liberty revolution needs to know. You can catch me on Twitter @TheLAVAFlowPod.

This is episode fifty-six, Immigration and Welfare, and its Tuesday, February 28th, 2017, when there have already been more than 210 people killed by police this year. What's Rustling My Jimmies this week? You're about to find out! Let’s Do It To It!

WHAT’S RUSTLING MY JIMMIES

Here I was, minding my own business, like I usually do, listening to one of many liberty podcasts, that will remain unnamed. The interviewee on this episode, who will also remain unnamed, who also claims to be a libertarian, says she believes we should keep the borders closed until welfare is ended. In defense of the show host that I was listening to, he made no comment in support of this idea.

And, this is not the first libertarian who I've heard say this recently. Just a couple of weeks ago, I listened to my first episode of The Jason Stapleton Show in over a year because I ran out of other shows to listen to. Ten minutes into the show, he was essentially making the same argument and defending Trump's border wall. I had to turn it off. I've also seen numerous comments in the last few weeks on the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Facebook page from people defending borders, border walls, and border security.

There are, essentially, three camps on immigration.

One. People like me, who believe that people should be free to travel where they choose or where they're invited. For instance, if I choose to invite a Somali Muslin family to my home, they should have the right to travel to my home without interference from a government thug at an imaginary line drawn on a map.

Two. People who believe that we need to allow people to come into our country as long as they pass certain specifications like a criminal background check and a medical exam to make sure they are not criminals and not going to get anyone sick. Some of these people also believe that immigrants should have a good reason to come to this country and have a skill that we need in the labor force. Even the Libertarian Party platform says this about migration, "Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property." This category of opponents to the free movement of humans also make the argument that, as long as welfare exists, we will not be able to have open borders, because people will just come here and take all our money. To be clear, people who hold this view can be considered only an inconsistent libertarians, if they are libertarian at all. They may consider themselves libertarian, but they do not hold a libertarian position on this issue. This is a conservative position.

Three. People who believe our borders should be sealed up like East Germany and North Korea and no one should pass except for verified citizens of this country. Now, I would argue that people who believe this are not truly libertarians, although many of them will throw that term around. Frankly, I will ignore this argument today because it's authoritarian and 100% statist.

The argument for blocking immigration until welfare is abolished is one that is pretty popular among libertarians, and, frankly, one that I once held. But, this is an argument that is largely overblown and illogical. First, immigrants who are here on a green card can't even access most welfare programs unless they've been here for five years or more. Foreigners on work visas, those on other forms of lawful residency, and illegal immigrants don’t have any access except for emergency medical care.

And, for those programs they can access, a CATO study shows that non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25 percent less likely to be signed up for Medicaid than their poor native-born equivalents. When they do sign up, poor immigrant adults consume $941 less on average than similar natives and typically have better health outcomes. Poor immigrant children consume $565 fewer dollars than similar native-born children. So, the problem with welfare is not immigrants, it is natives. And, if you make the argument that you shouldn't have to pay for immigrant welfare, then you're only half-way there. You shouldn't have to pay for any welfare.

The same CATO study shows that immigrants have a positive long-run fiscal impact on Medicare and Social Security. From 2002 to 2009, immigrants made 14.7 percent of contributions to Medicare Part A while only consuming 7.9 percent of all expenditures, contributing a net $13.8 billion annually to Medicare Part A. Natives took out a net $30.9 billion more from Medicare Part A than they paid in. Among Medicare enrollees, average expenditures were $1,465 lower for immigrants. The differences are largely the result of return migration and varying age structures between the typically older natives and younger immigrants.

Estimated impacts on the Social Security system vary widely. Based on actuarial information provided by the Social Security Administration, Stuart Anderson found that an increase in legal immigration by 33 percent would reduce the actuarial debt by 10 percent over 50 years, boosting revenues to Social Security by a present value of $216 billion over 75 years. Interestingly, a moratorium on immigration would increase the Social Security debt by almost a third.

And, the crime problem is a non-starter as well. Another study shows that immigrants are less crime-prone than Americans, despite what the mainstream media may portray. Your chance of being killed by a foreign-born terrorist on American soil since 9/11 is one in 178 million. By comparison, your chance of being murdered on U.S. soil by anybody over that same time period is one in 19,517. It’s time to calm down and take count of the real but small foreign-born terrorist threat Americans face. Non-terrorism related violent crime is also committed much less per capita by immigrants than by native-born Americans.

But, don't take my word for it. In the show notes to this episode, you will find links to these studies and you can dig into the numbers for yourself. The show notes are at thelavaflow.com/56.

But, even if immigrants used more welfare and committed more crime than native-born Americans, would that matter? Libertarians are supposed to care about individual rights and the individual over the collective, yet many libertarians lump all immigrants into a collective and disregard their individuality. Shouldn't we only care about what a specific individual does? If a particular immigrant commits a crime or takes stolen funds in the form of welfare, then yes, that person should have to pay restitution. That person's crime should not be borne by all people who wish to be immigrants to this, or any other, country. That is as immoral as saying all black teenagers should be put in jail because a large percentage of black teenagers commit crime.

If you're against the police state, then you have to be for open borders. Who else do you think is going to patrol borders and build a wall and enforce immigration laws? Jeffrey Tucker from the Foundation for Economic Education, says this: "This is a huge debate among people who otherwise swear fealty to "limited government." Many people who claim to want freedom seem to have no problem with the implications of a closed-border policy: national IDs, national work permits, non-stop surveillance, harassment of all businesses, a "papers please" culture, mass deportation, tens of billions in waste, bureaucrats wrecking the American dream, broken families, [and] the rights of Americans and foreigners transgressed at every turn."

Jacob Hornberger, president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, wrote one of the best short pieces I've ever seen on the topic of immigration. I want to read you a short excerpt from this article and encourage you to go read the entire article. It is an eye opener. A link is in the show notes to this episode.

Suppose you have two adjoining ranches along the U.S.-Mexico border in the state of New Mexico. The ranches are individually owned by two brothers, one of whom is a Mexican citizen and other is an American citizen. Running along the northern border of the American ranch is a government-owned highway, which is about 10 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

One day, the American brother invites his Mexican brother to come onto his ranch for dinner. The Mexican brother accepts.

So far, everything is peaceful and consensual. The dinner plans are entirely consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle.

Enter the government, which claims that it has the rightful authority to control the border and prohibit illegal entry. To do so, it must enter onto the American brother’s farm in order to travel the ten miles to get to the border. It does so without a warrant under the guise of its “right to control the border.” That’s trespass, given that the American brother has not given his consent to the government agents to enter onto his property. Trespass involves the initiation of force against another person.

What if the American brother resists the trespass onto his property with force? They will meet force with force and, if necessary, arrest or even kill him.

When the government agents get to the border, they will interdict the Mexican brother who is doing nothing more than peacefully walking from his ranch onto his brother’s ranch, by mutual consent. Remember: the border is nothing more than an imaginary line dividing the two tracts of land.

Under a system of immigration controls, the government agents will initiate force to prevent the Mexican brother from crossing onto his brother’s ranch. If the Mexican brother proceeds to go further north in the direction of his brother’s home, the government agents will initiate force against him to prevent him from doing so. If he resists with force, they will arrest him or even kill him.

What a brilliant way to put it. Again, please go read this full article. As he points out here, immigration laws are clearly back up by the initiation of force, plain and simple. As libertarians, we cannot support the initiation of force. Violations of immigration laws are clearly non-violent victimless crimes, akin to prostitution or drugs. It is inconsistent to be for the legalization of prostitution and drugs, yet to be also for laws restricting immigration.

And, I want to close on something else Jacob Hornberger said in his article:

There is a common perception that there are two alternative libertarian positions on immigration: government-controlled borders and open borders.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is only one libertarian position on immigration, and that position is open immigration or open borders.

Well said!

WHAT'S IN THE NEWS

In without the government news, a federal trade court has answered a very important question, "is a Snuggie a blanket or a robe?" The answer, of course, is blanket. But, why is this so important?

Taxes, of course. If you are trying to import blankets into the US to sell, there is only 8.5% import duty theft attached to each item. If the item is a robe, then the duty theft jumps up to 14.9%. And, of course, wanting to steal as much money as they can from us, the Justice Department went after Allstar Marketing Group nearly a decade ago trying to get the Snuggie classified in the category that would describe them as “robes or priestly vestments.”

Now, I don't know if you've ever owned a Snuggie, but I got one for Christmas once from my mother. Let me tell you, it is not a robe or a priestly vestment, even though the DOJ insisted that, since it has sleeves, a Snuggie resembles, and I shit you not, “clerical or ecclesiastical garments and vestments” and “professional or scholastic gowns and robes.” What the actual fuck? Come on, guys. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money and this almost seems like a troll move to me, if it hadn't likely cost Allstar Marketing Group hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to fight this ridiculous attack over the last ten years. But, you know, if we didn't have government to protect us from buying cheap priestly vestments, where would we be as a society?

In Trump needs a reset button, too, news, Trump has selected General H.R. McMaster to be his National Security Advisor. This is a very curious appointment, considering Trump's campaign language about cozying up to Russia. McMaster seems to be very anti-Russian in many of his remarks.

Gen. McMaster has blamed the lack of sufficient US military presence overseas for what he calls a more aggressive Russian geostrategic posturing. The General also made the completely fallacious assertion that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Even the highly critical if not overtly anti-Russia European Union concluded that Georgia was to blame for launching an ill-advised attack on Russian peacekeeping forces that were part of an international mission in South Ossetia.

And, you know you've done fucked up if John McCain approves of your choice.

Sen. McCain, who just returned from attacking President Trump at the Munich Security Conference for not being harder on Russia, said that McMaster:

“…knows how to succeed. I give President Trump great credit for this decision, as well as his national security cabinet choices. I could not imagine a better, more capable national security team than the one we have right now.”

Uh oh!

And, speaking of Trump, something I try to do as little as possible, he is working on eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities, a less than $500 million a year program. Of course, liberals are up in arms over their welfare program for shitty artists who can't create art worth buying in the free market. They are criticizing Trump for going after low hanging fruit and saying that this and other programs on Trump's hit list, amount to only about $2.5 billion, just .0625% of the projected $4 trillion budget. Other programs on the hit list include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and Americorps.

In Trump's defense, all of these programs are very poor ways to spend stolen money. For that matter, any way to spend stolen money is a very poor way to spend stolen money. I know this is a drop in the bucket, but any government program that can end means it is a government program that no longer grows. No, if only Trump would grow a pair and go after some government programs that actually matter.

And in Dump Trump news, the White House has said it expects law enforcement agents to enforce federal marijuana laws when they come into conflict with states where recreational use of the drug is permitted.

"I do believe you will see greater enforcement of it," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said regarding federal drug laws, which still list marijuana as an illegal substance.
That's a reversal from the Obama administration's stance, which laid out in an official memo that the federal government wouldn't interfere in states where nonmedical use of marijuana is allowed, even though that was a load of shit and Obama still went after even medical cannabis dispensaries in states where it was legal, especially in California.

Spicer, showing that he really is an idiot, linked marijuana use with the widespread abuse of painkillers, suggesting that allowing recreational use of marijuana could be interpreted as condoning drug use more widely. He said, "When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people. There is still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana and drugs of that nature." Spicer, was, however, careful to distinguish between use of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. President Donald Trump, he said, understood that marijuana could help ease suffering for patients with terminal illnesses.

Of course, this is a reversal of Trump's campaign comments on the issue. In October, 2015, in Nevada, he said. "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state."

Well, who is surprised by this? I think exactly no one, especially any of you listening to my show.

In illegal for you but not for them news, The ATF has been caught using a web of shadowy cigarette sales and smuggling to funnel tens of millions of dollars into a secret bank account.
Here's how it worked: An export company working with the A.T.F. placed an order for cigarettes to be shipped internationally — thus not subject to American taxes. Big South would instead ship bottled water and potato chips, making it look as if cigarettes had been exported. Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Small would then buy the tobacco at a slight markup through a private bank account. Lastly, they would sell the tobacco to Big South, again at a markup.

Because they had the authority to buy on behalf of the tobacco cooperative, “Carpenter and Small simply sold products to themselves,” the farmers wrote in court documents. All of these transactions occurred on paper. The cigarettes never left the Virginia warehouse.

In one single deal described in the lawsuit, the informants bought tobacco at $15 a carton and sold it to U.S. Tobacco at $17.50. The profit, about $519,000, went into what was known as a “management account.” That account helped pay for A.T.F. investigations. How that arrangement began is unclear. Ryan Kaye, an A.T.F. supervisor, testified that the management account was created “as a result of verbal directives from the A.T.F. program office and other headquarters officials.” Mr. Kaye’s full statement is sealed, but excerpts are cited in one publicly available document.

How that arrangement began is unclear. Ryan Kaye, an A.T.F. supervisor, testified that the management account was created “as a result of verbal directives from the A.T.F. program office and other headquarters officials.” Mr. Kaye’s full statement is sealed, but excerpts are cited in one publicly available document.

And now, the Treasury Department is going after the company involved in this, U.S. Tobacco, for all of the tax money it didn't pay under this ATF program. Of course, the ATF will nto be held responsible for this smuggling at all. Imagine that.

In the Consitution is unfit to exist news, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of appeals has ruled that Maryland’s assault weapons ban is constitutional. The 10-4 ruling is a win for gun control advocates who had sought to keep the restrictions in force, including a ban on 45 types of weapons, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15, and a restriction on magazines to just 10-rounds.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court.

Judge William Traxler blasted the ruling in a dissent. “For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.

Of course, arguing that weapons of war aren't covered under the Second Amendment ignores completely the entire purpose of the amendment, which was to allow private citizens to own weapons for militia use. But, this ruling is nothing more than confirmation of Lysander Spooner's famous words:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

In asset forfeiture news, if Republicans in Arizona’s senate have their way, police in that state could soon have the power to seize assets and property from protesters.

“Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened. Wait, what?

“SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

Essentially, under this bill cops could arrest anyone at a demonstration that suddenly turns violent, however peaceful it might’ve started. They would even be able to target people who had nothing to do the property damage.

But it gets even worse than that, as the Arizona Capitol Times pointed out: “By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events.”

Planning events. Meaning cops will have the authority to investigate activists before the demonstrations even take place.

This sounds like some more pre-crime bullshit to me, straight out of Minority Report. On Arizona state senator even said, "Wouldn't you rather stop a riot before it starts?

The bigger issue at play is the chilling effect such legislation would have on free speech. After all, if a person could get arrested for simply participating in a political demonstration — regardless of their own peaceful motives and actions — that person might decline to get involved.

S.B. 1142 would actively enforce the notion of guilt by association. If would punish the innocent who are wishing only to exercise their right of free expression, all because of the actions of criminals. Sure, guys, this is the way to have fewer protests, become even more authoritarian.

In some personal news, I need to apologize for the lack of LAVA Spurt episodes. I've only been able to do one every other week for the last month or so because of a crazy work and play schedule. Between Liberty Forum, my major company-wide roll-out at my day job, and working very very hard to release a new podcast under the Pax Libertas Productions network, I have been a bit crazy.

But, speaking of the new podcast, it's a great one! We recorded the first two episodes of the show this weekend and I am working hard to get them ready for release. I'm also working on a trailer for the show, and, something really new to me, some serious video production for this show. We've been working hard to "Stay on Target" with this podcast. You guys are really going to love this podcast, so keep an eye out for it. I've got a good feeling about this.

And, finally, I have a new contest running through the month of March! The prize pack is a Pax Libertas Productions t-shit from the PLP show of your choice, including this show, the Ancap Barber Shop, Freecoast Freecoast, or our new show that you'll be hearing about soon. You'll also receive a The LAVA Flow tote bag and a copy of one of my favorite libertarian books signed by the author.

All you have to do to be entered in the contest is fill out a simple short survey with 17 questions. It will take about five minutes of your time and it will really help me out. And, if you want to be entered into the contest, just put your email address in the last question. You can fill out the survey and get your chance to win this prize pack by going to thelavaflow.com/survey!

You'll only hear about this contest on the Pax Libertas Productions podcast episodes because I want to restrict it only people who actually listen to the show, so don't expect reminders on Facebook or other social media for this contest. Go do it now before you forget!

Good luck in the contest!

MUH ROADS

This segment is all about government solutions, why they fail, and how they could be done better outside of government. This episode, we talk about the security theater we all face if we ever have to fly, but more specifically, if you are having to fly internationally. like to Anarchapulco or something.

A Vancouver man was denied entry into the United States after a US Customs and Border Patrol officer read his profiles on the gay hookup app Scruff and the website BBRT. The officer suspected the man was a sex worker because he found messages from the man saying he was “looking for loads,” and assumed it meant he was soliciting sex for cash. Wait, what? I mean, hell, even I know what a load is. Jesus Harold Christ!

André, a 30-year-old Vancouver set decorator who declined to give his full name for fear of retaliation from US Customs, describes the experience as “humiliating" and said he was planning to visit his boyfriend, who was working in New Orleans. But when he was going through Customs preclearance at Vancouver airport last October, he was selected for secondary inspection, where an officer took his phone, computer, and other possessions, and demanded the passwords for his devices.

A month after his first denial of entry, Andre tried to enter again.

This time, he brought what he thought was ample proof that he was not a sex worker: letters from his employer, pay stubs, bank statements, a lease agreement and phone contracts to prove he intended to return to Canada.

When he went through secondary inspection at Vancouver airport, US Customs officers didn’t even need to ask for his passwords — they were saved in their own system. But André had wiped his phone of sex apps, browser history and messages, thinking that would dispel any suggestion he was looking for sex work. Instead, the border officers took that as suspicious. This is scary as hell, and about as draconian as it gets.

André says he lost at least $1200 on non-refundable flights and hotels on the two canceled trips.

This fits in with another article I saw this week on Medium, titled "I'll never bring my phone on an international flight again. Neither should you."

The writer talks about encrypting your devices, but that will do no good if someone has physical possession of your devices and can intimidate you into giving up your passwords. He tells a story of a US citizen returning home to Houston from Chile, where he was pulled aside by Customs and Border Patrol agents. They searched him, then detained him in a room with a bunch of other people sleeping in cots. They eventually returned and said they’d release him if he told them the password to unlock his phone.

Sidd Bikkannavar, a US-born scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, explained that the phone belonged to NASA and had sensitive information on it, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. He eventually yielded and unlocked his phone. The agents left with his phone. Half an hour later, they returned, handed him his phone, and released him.

While the CBP had his phone, they likely used forensic software from a company like Elcomsoft that can suck down all your photos, contacts — even passwords for your email and social media accounts — in a matter of minutes. Their customers include the police forces of various countries, militaries, and private security forces. They can use these tools to permanently archive everything there is to know about you. All they need is your unlocked phone.

And, before you say you have nothing to hide, consider the author's words:

Think of all of the people you’ve ever called or emailed, and all the people you’re connected with on Facebook and LinkedIn. What are the chances that one of them has committed a serious crime, or will do so in the future?

Have you ever taken a photo at a protest, bought a controversial book on Amazon, or vented about an encounter with a police officer to a loved one? That information is now part of your permanent record, and could be dragged out as evidence against you if you ever end up in court.

There’s a movement within government to make all data from all departments available to all staff at a local, state, and federal level. The more places your data ends up, the larger a hacker’s “attack surface” is — that is, the more vulnerable your data is. A security breach in a single police station in the middle of nowhere could result in your data ending up in the hands of hackers — and potentially used against you from the shadows — for the rest of your life.

The fourth amendment protects you against unreasonable search and seizure. The fifth amendment protects you against self-incrimination.

If a police officer were to stop you on the street of America and ask you to unlock your phone and give it to them, these amendments would give you strong legal ground for refusing to do so.

But unfortunately, the US border isn’t technically the US, and you don’t have either of these rights at the border.

It’s totally legal for a US Customs and Border Patrol officer to ask you to unlock your phone and hand it over to them. And they can detain you indefinitely if you don’t. Even if you’re a American citizen.

The border is technically outside of US jurisdiction, in a sort of legal no-man’s-land. You have very few rights there. Barring the use of “excessive force,” agents can do whatever they want to you.

The author's advice to you, if you travel internationally, is to leave your mobile phone and laptop at home, then rent phones at an international airport that includes a data plan. He says:

If you have family overseas, you can buy a second phone and laptop and leave them there at their home.

If you’re an employer, you can create a policy that your employees are not to bring devices with them during international travel. You can then issue them “loaner” laptops and phones once they enter the country.

Since most of our private data is stored in the cloud — and not on individual devices — you could also reset your phone to its factory settings before boarding an international flight. This process will also delete the keys necessary to unencrypt any residual data on your phone (iOS and Android fully encrypt your data).

This way, you could bring your physical phone with you, then reinstall apps and re-authenticate with them once you’ve arrived. If you’re asked to hand over your unlocked phone at the border, there won’t be any personal data on it. All your data will be safe behind the world-class security that Facebook, Google, Apple, Signal, and all these other companies use.

Is all this inconvenient? Absolutely. But it’s the only sane course of action when you consider the gravity of your data falling into the wrong hands.

And, the CBP even detained son of the famous boxer, Muhammad Ali, also named Muhammad Ali, recently, asking him questions like, "Where did you get your name," and,"Are you Muslim." Ali was returning to the US from a speaking event in Jamaica. Clearly, this was due to his Muslim-sounding name and is 100% profiling.

So, be sure to protect yourselves out there when traveling internationally. There haven't been any reports of this happening by boat or vehicle travel across borders, yet, but it will surely come soon. The CBP holds all the power, and as long as someone like Trump, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or any other asshat who thinks they can rule your lives is in power, you can rest assured they will use it to the maximum effect they possibly can.

In a truly free market society, there wouldn't be any international borders to protect, only personal property, and that would certainly be better protected by a private company that a government that doesn't give a single fuck about you.

OUTRO

Thank you for listening to the show this week. As always, I need to thank my favorite snow tunnel builder, Jessica, for her help with this show. For the show notes to this episode, where I put links and other information that has been on this show, go to thelavaflow.com/56.

SURVEY COMMENT FOR NEXT SHOW IN WHATS IN THE NEWS

I have two new iTunes reviews this week! Shieldsb52 said:

You haven't subscribed yet? DO IT NOW! Rodger is a tireless activist for the liberty movement. His podcast is quick, quick witted, and jampacked with news items relevant to your interests. You are seriously missing out if you don't subscribe now.

Wow! Thanks, Shields! Glad you're enjoying the show!

And, butcher_pete said:

My favourite niche podcast! Great libertarian podcast. While I'm not from America it's fun to listen to as he covers a range of topics and is a great speaker. I can listen to him all day.

This is one of my few non-US based reviews. Pete is from the UK! Thanks, Pete, from across the pond.

And my subscribers are piling up on me! I have two new pledges and two increased pledges since my last episode.

Michael started a new $1 per episode pledge through Patreon. Thanks so much, Michael! And, I have a new $2.50 per episode pledge from Ken! Thank you, Ken! Both donors who have increased their pledges are Bitcoin subscribers to the show. Brian was previously a $5 per episode donor and is now a $10 per episode Bitcoin donor. Thank, Brian, and hurry back home! Carl, who was one of my first handful of subscribers, started at $10 per episode, then increased to $20 a few months ago, and has now increased to $30 per episode, putting him in the Executive Producer category where he gets an exclusive the LAVA Flow t-shirt and many other perks. Carl, thank you so much for your friendship and your continued support.

And, thanks to Michael, Ken, Brian, Carl, and all of my other donors, this puts me at an incredible per episode total of $199.50 or 79.8% of the way towards my next level where I will be bringing you a full 30-minute episode of The LAVA Flow every week!
And, if you want more of the LAVA Flow, exercise your free-market muscles by going to http://thelavaflow.com/support and giving a per-episode donation of as little as a buck an episode using Federal Reserve Notes through Patreon or Bitcoin through Coinbase. I want to be able to bring you more content soon, so make sure to add your donation today to help make that happen!

Until next time... keep striking the root.

This has been a Pax Libertas Productions Podcast.

 

Ask a question or share some feedback!

  • Email feedback@thelavaflow.com (audio files welcome)
  • Like our Facebook page
  • Send me a tweet @TheLAVAFlowPod
  • Advertise on The LAVA Flow and other Pax Libertas Productions podcasts
  • Help support The LAVA Flow!

  • One-Time Support Using Bitcoin
  • Per-Episode Support Using Bitcoin
  • Per-Episode Support Using Federal Reserve Notes on Patreon
  • Check out more libertarian podcasts on the Pax Libertas Productions Network

  • Resist the Empire - A libertarian view of the Star Wars universe
  • Ancap Barber Shop - Your barber chair for all things anarcho-capitalist and voluntaryist.
  • Freecoast Freecast - You premier source for libertarian news, philosophy, and events on the Seacoast of New Hampshire
  • Share This