Canadian man says U.S. border officers made him give DNA sample

3/28/2026 at 4:06:41 PM

The original Substack piece:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47548420

by cf100clunk

3/28/2026 at 7:46:18 PM

“Larson mentioned names of officers who talked with him”

This will be more valuable than his presence at a “No Kings” rally. I hope he gets those names to the ACLU, FIRE and other organizations would can make a list and wait for a change in power.

by JumpCrisscross

3/28/2026 at 8:15:53 PM

[flagged]

by peyton

3/28/2026 at 11:15:15 PM

> Why would anybody in power want random people at the border turning up to protest the government?

Why would anyone in power want anyone opposing them? We restrict power because power's wants are unlimited.

> We have been using biometric identification to identify repeat detainees for decades

He was never charged with anything.

by JumpCrisscross

3/29/2026 at 9:19:52 PM

there's a famous user on here who got subjected to the same thing - while a US citizen

by dzonga

3/29/2026 at 10:18:04 PM

> On Oct. 18, 2025, Kincardine, Ont., native Kevin Larson was heading to a No Kings Rally in Port Huron, Mich., when he was pulled over for a “random check” at the U.S. border crossing.

Seems very stupid for a foreign national to go around participating in political rallies of another country. Sure, you can support No Kings like I do, or anyone else, but explicitly going out of your way and crossing the border to take part in a rally as a foreign agent is just asking for trouble. And it would land you in trouble almost immediately in any country in the world.

by fakedang

3/29/2026 at 11:22:46 PM

Why is it stupid? Freedom of assembly is not limited to US citizens.

Your phrase “foreign agent” seems to attempt to cast aspersions on this person just for exercising his rights.

by semiquaver

3/30/2026 at 2:42:07 AM

Because traditionally countries do not like when citizens from other countries interfere with their affairs, just like when Canada did not like U.S. citizens being involved with the truckers protest a few years ago.

by rationalist

3/30/2026 at 1:00:12 AM

He’s not breaking the law.

by knodi

3/30/2026 at 7:19:02 AM

[flagged]

by rdevilla

3/28/2026 at 4:02:24 PM

[flagged]

by whynotmaybe

3/28/2026 at 4:10:36 PM

A border agent sensing that someone attempting to enter is a ''liability'' can and should simply turn the person around and forbid them entry. That's how it has always been done. This collection of DNA from a non-citizen for the FBI's use is an outrageous and awful new event.

by cf100clunk

3/28/2026 at 8:06:53 PM

[flagged]

by peyton

3/28/2026 at 8:09:47 PM

>We’ve been doing this for 20 years

Some of us remember pre 9-11 and others have completely normalized it.

by snypher

3/28/2026 at 4:46:27 PM

> “At no time did they question the intent of my visit," he said. "They never challenged that whatsoever.”

I wonder how they knew. Social media?

by throwawayk7h

3/29/2026 at 9:58:07 PM

A few sentences later:

> Larson says once he told U.S. Customs and Border Protection why he wanted to enter the country, he was sent for a secondary inspection.

by tredre3

3/28/2026 at 4:48:28 PM

1. A protest is not "disruption".

2. The "elected" government is explicitly prohibited from policing speech, and mostly strongly political speech.

3. That restriction is framed in terms of natural rights that apply to all human beings, not merely citizens.

Sorry, there is no "however you feel about" both-sidesism to be had in this situation. The time for discussing and debating differing political viewpoints is after we've ousted the fascists and restored our Constitutionally-limited government bound by the rule of law.

I'm a libertarian, so I think many of the policies and narratives pushed by Democrats leave much to be desired. In fact I was both-sidesing up until 2020 or so (5d-chess and all). But at this point, I'm no longer going to be suckered by any of the fascists' dishonest appeals to things that I care about. In fact, I am going to criticize them even more because they are burning the credibility of appeals to individual liberty.

by mindslight

3/28/2026 at 7:57:43 PM

Yes, but as the US decided to put whoever they have in charge now, it's up to them to remove it.

We always complain when Russia or China is meddling in any country's affairs but we should accept it when a Canadian does it in the US because we don't like who's in charge.

by whynotmaybe

3/28/2026 at 8:37:47 PM

A president is still supposed to be subservient to the Constitution. Border guards as well. There was no referendum on getting rid of the Constitution.

Furthermore under the Constitution, Canadians have every right to protest. As an American, I heartily thank those who do.

Your comment sounds an awful lot like the motivated reasoning that brushes aside these structures in favor of simple authoritarianism.

by mindslight

3/28/2026 at 10:07:43 PM

> sounds an awful lot like the motivated reasoning that brushes aside these structures in favor of simple authoritarianism.

You know that's a stretch.

Just because I think that no country should meddle in another's affair doesn't mean that I agree with whatever's happening down there.

>A president is still supposed to be subservient to the Constitution. Border guards as well. There was no referendum on getting rid of the Constitution.

The current administration is just the tip of the problem-berg, but if millions of people see it as normal and I see it as a problem, what should we do now ?

by whynotmaybe

3/28/2026 at 10:19:46 PM

> Just because I think that no country should meddle in another's affair

A random person wanting to cross the border to attend a protest is not a "country meddling in another's affairs". It's an individual wanting to join a protest.

Let's not resort to hyperbole here.

If the Canadian government was telling its citizens to go cross into the US and join protests, then yes, that would be a country meddling in another's affairs. That's not what happened.

by kelnos

3/28/2026 at 5:02:57 PM

Luckily these fascists control the SCOTUS so they can politely say "Mindslight, you're wrong because we can ignore previous case law whenever we want". Well, luckily for them, not for the rest of us.

by pixl97

3/28/2026 at 7:43:23 PM

> these fascists control the SCOTUS

What’s learned helplessness when it isn’t learned but willed? SCOTUS has rejected “these fascists” multiple times. Electoral consequences to this administration are mounting. It’s wild to continue to ply lines of lazy nihilism when the evidence points so clearly the other way.

by JumpCrisscross

3/28/2026 at 8:59:05 PM

Because while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court.

by lovich

3/28/2026 at 11:14:06 PM

> while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court

While "the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with the Trump administration," it has been far from the "control" rhetoric posited above. Most of this was on the emergency docket. Major cases have been decided against Trump, from reimbursements for DOGE cancellations to restricting Trump's use of the Alient Enemiest Act and National Guard [1].

Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.

[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/looking-back-at-2025-the-...

by JumpCrisscross

3/29/2026 at 3:21:29 AM

> Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.

That’s an opinion you can have but that I don’t share. I also would posit that the current SCOTUS thinks they still can maintain control while ceding further and further power to an imperial presidency when Trump is in charge.

The existence of some major cases being decided against Trump when the majority have been decided for him and the opposite logic is applied to presidents on the other side, are only part of why this current conservative government keeps checking off the 14 points of ur-fascism

by lovich

3/28/2026 at 5:05:05 PM

Sure? That is obviously one of the things that needs to be remediated as part of reclaiming our country.

My original comment was talking about what ought rather than what is, in case that wasn't clear.

by mindslight

3/28/2026 at 6:24:48 PM

> ...if you explicitly state that you want to take part in a demonstration against the elected government.

Cambridge Dictionary's definition of a free country: a country where the government does not control what people say or do for political reasons and where people can express their opinions without punishment.

by sowbug

3/28/2026 at 7:15:59 PM

They were talking about citizens there, not random people from other countries.

by jepj57

3/28/2026 at 9:34:37 PM

Nowhere in the definition of a free country does it state that you have to be a citizen.

Even in the US constitution that is not the case. Unalienable rights extend to everyone under the constitutions jurisdiction, which includes people who are not citizens. Even aliens get due process in the US. Or should, anyway, if we didn't have anti-American leadership.

by array_key_first

3/29/2026 at 9:32:55 PM

When defining a Constitution for a country, to whom would you direct the constitutional precepts? Surely it would only be for people that were to be governed by the constitutional government. China, for example, would not cover American citizens in their Constitution.

by jepj57

3/28/2026 at 5:05:40 PM

> OK, what did he expect by explicitly stating that he wanted to bring disruption to a country?

Exactly right! Order above all else, even rights. If you break the rules, you no longer deserve rights. Rights are based on your adherence to the state, not on natural or universal law.

by kelseyfrog

3/28/2026 at 10:21:38 PM

I assume you're being sarcastic, but you're essentially right. There's no such thing as natural rights or universal law. We only have what the people in power grant us. That's been the case for what I assume is the entirety of human history.

I wish that wasn't the case, but ultimately whoever has the guns gets to decide what the rules are. There's nothing, unfortunately, more "natural" than that.

by kelnos

3/29/2026 at 12:04:35 AM

You don't think that "whoever has the guns makes the rules" is not a violation of your universal rights?

by kelseyfrog

3/28/2026 at 6:03:10 PM

Lol. Great comment. I think people missed the sarcasm.

by anon7000

3/28/2026 at 9:34:14 PM

Poe's law strikes again.

by pavel_lishin

3/28/2026 at 6:07:45 PM

Was it sarcasm? I wondered if it was satire.

by cf100clunk

3/28/2026 at 8:17:53 PM

It's a reflection of The Doctrine of Fascism[1] (Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile 1932). I find it important to read original works and point out when those threads resurface. Rights as a product of the state is a core belief as described by facists themselves opposed to the universal natural rights of the liberal project. You can see how rights tied to the state naturally produce an in group and out group, and an obsession of law and order, two common features of such regimes.

The original passage reads

"Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission..."

1. https://dn721808.ca.archive.org/0/items/mussolini-archive/Th...

by kelseyfrog