> There is no risk for people visiting the US and not doing criminal behavior.
There has been extensive coverage of the US detaining people without charge under the new regime's immigration policies. The fourth amendment has been effectively suspended for foreigners. They are literally putting people in jail forever simply because they don't like them.
> There has been extensive coverage of the US detaining people without charge under the new regime's immigration policies.
Can you cite any examples? Mahmoud Khalil (who you referenced in another comment) was not charged with a crime, but he isn’t being held in perpetuity:
> There is no criminal charge against Khalil. Instead, the government's argument depends on a section of the Cold War–era Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that aliens in the U.S. may be deported if the secretary of state believes their presence will have serious negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy. […] On April 1, 2025, New Jersey federal district judge Michael Farbiarz stated his court has jurisdiction over Khalil's case, and issued a stay on Khalil's deportation while it considers a separate case challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and detention. On April 11, 2025, Louisiana immigration judge Jamee E. Comans ruled that Khalil is deportable, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assertion that his continued presence poses "adverse foreign policy consequence". The judge said she had no authority to question that determination.
> The fourth amendment has been effectively suspended for foreigners.
This is not true.
> They are literally putting people in jail forever simply because they don't like them.
So... you're saying that a warrant issued for Khalil without probable cause, and that he has no expectation to be secure in his person and effects as a result. And his right to petition the government for redress of grievances is suspended pending deportation.
All because of some random law passed in 1952.
But don't worry, everyone. The fourth amendment stands!
There have been no rulings on the constitutionality of his detention. They got an immigration judge to stamp the deportation (but not the warrantless arrest!), which was promptly halted by a federal court which agreed to hear the challenge (because, yes, a warrantless arrest and deportation without trial is fucking batshit per the clear language of the fourth amendment).
Attempting to spin that as "the courts ruled it was OK" is just Orwellian. The position of his jailers is that he remains in jail forever (either her or El Salvador or wherever) without right to trial.
I mean, my understanding is that the United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez basically ruled the fourth amendment doesn't apply for foreigners at borders in 1990, so I think that is true but not new.*
And they are certainly arresting people on student visas they don't like, and shifting them to favorable jurisdictions to get the court rulings they want.
* My understanding is that the fourth amendment has been eroded in practice over several years, with decisions like border exceptions apply to anywhere within 100 air miles of an airport or coastline, which is where basically everyone in the US lives. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
I had forgotten about the exclusion zones. From the link you provided it looks like citizens can simply refuse to answer questions from border patrol, while foreigners in possession of a visa are obligated to disclose their status:
> You have the right to remain silent or tell the agent that you’ll only answer questions in the presence of an attorney, no matter your citizenship or immigration status. You do not have to answer questions about your immigration status. You may simply say that you do not wish to answer those questions. If you choose to remain silent, the agent will likely ask you questions for longer, but your silence alone is not enough to support probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest, detain, or search you or your belongings.
> A limited exception does exist: for people who do have permission to be in the U.S. for a specific reason and for, usually, a limited amount of time (a “nonimmigrant” on a visa, for example), the law does require you to provide information about your immigration status if asked. While you can still choose to remain silent or decline a request to produce your documents, people in this category should be aware that they could face arrest consequences. If you want to know whether you fall into this category, you should consult an attorney.
[…]
> As part of its immigration enforcement efforts, CBP boards buses and trains in the 100-mile border region either at the station or while the bus is on its journey. More than one officer usually boards the bus, and they will ask passengers questions about their immigration status, ask passengers to show them immigration documents, or both. These questions should be brief and related to verifying one’s lawful presence in the U.S. Although these situations are scary, and it may seem that CBP agents are giving you an order when they ask you questions, you are not required to answer and can simply say you do not wish to do so. As always, you have the right to remain silent.
What I can’t figure out from the wording is if the right to silence applies to illegals who are not on a visa. This would be bizarre, but would undermine the idea that the fourth amendment has been “effectively suspended for foreigners.”
My (very cursory) understanding is that the law protects noncitizens and citizens in some categories equally, except where someone is trying to become a citizen. Then you are legally obligated by that process. This is all how it plays out in theory; in practice there are examples of this administration just detaining and the deporting people who don’t answer questions the way they like.
And, I think the problems with the current enforcement of these broad powers are even deeper; without any court oversight immigration can just decide they don’t believe you are a citizen and then you have no rights.
How many examples do you need? Mahmoud Khalil remains jailed in perpetuity without charge. In any reasonable world that should be enough. We can keep going.
(Just to head this off: I know you're going to say he's a criminal. That's how the scam works. But if the government could show he's a criminal they'd charge him with a crime. They don't want to, they just want to jail him, LITERALLY because they don't like what he was saying.)
There has been extensive coverage of the US detaining people without charge under the new regime's immigration policies. The fourth amendment has been effectively suspended for foreigners. They are literally putting people in jail forever simply because they don't like them.