Another escort detained at the border

[+ JEC]

The core issue I think is that sex work, including filming porn, is a violation of a visitor visa b/c you are working and deriving income while here.  

I suspect it would be difficult or impossible to get a work visa based on doing sex work.

Gabriel Cross I think was banned by US Immigration after they searched his phone and found texts or emails confirming he would be meeting clients while here in US.

 

 

[+ Jamie21]

Yes that’s it. They travel on a tourist visa, which requires no paid work. Regardless of the morality question on doing sex work (morally fine in my opinion but seemingly not for US border security) it’s a breach of the visa. Also likely breach of tax regulation in that paid work in US should be declared to IRS. So it’s fine to travel to US on a tourist visa, have sex with locals (without charge) and shoot porn films (without remuneration) on a purely voluntary basis. But don’t try to do paid work. 
Similar rules apply across almost all countries. I think the US is simply being more vigilant in enforcement. 

[d.anders]

On 4/18/2026 at 11:00 AM, BeamerBikes said:

I know I stand with SW’ers because I’m part of their community.

One would think that all customers would agree that they are part of this community, and that they could be counted on for support. Sadly, many men would run in the opposite direction when faced with confrontation.

I'm hearing more and more that gay marriage is on the chopping block to-do list. Why would anyone with a brain think gay sex workers and their clients would be safe under any circumstance?

[nomad]

I know someone from Europe (Slavic looking) who had a connecting flight thru JFK that was banned for 3 years.  He didn't think they would pay much attention to him since he was just passing through.  Agent noticed his photo gallery had lots of photos of him semi-nude, nothing explicit.  Was not satisfied with his answers to their questions about his work and travel plans.  Handed him a ban, but allowed him to leave for his connecting flight.  He said had he known they would screen him fully for just passing thru he would have chosen to connect thru Canada instead.  

[cany10011]

On 4/12/2026 at 4:40 PM, TBD said:

This part of his story is not believable.

Every country MUST accept their own citizens upon arrival.  You can even be accepted if your passport is out of date. Citizenship GUARANTEES entry.  

If he was traveling to the US and he is a citizen, he should have been carrying his US passport, otherwise he would have needed to show a valid visa. 

Even a valid  visa can be revoked. 

[TBD]

2 hours ago, cany10011 said:

Even a valid  visa can be revoked. 

correction - having a valid tourist visa can still be revoked if they have reasonable suspicion that you are coming here to work, in which case that visa would not be valid.  which is my point. 

[jayjaycali]

Yes, the law is the law. A confession is a confession.

But we also jaywalk. We go five miles over the speed limit. And who is 100% sure their tax return isn't off by a couple of dollars?

We don't expect to face maximum punishment for those everyday infractions.

What we really have here is selective enforcement aimed at a gay traveler, which was made completely obvious the second they focused on his clothing choices

[nomad]

Sadly, history is repeating itself.  The anti-bias toward anything not white and "normal" is under assault.  Those living on the coasts are more insulated from it but it's still prevalent when the tone is set at the top levels of government.  The torchbearers happy embrace the chest and brow beating wherever they may be.  Once gay marriage became legal, I thought the country could never go back to those prior days.  But here we are.  Trans phobia is being used as a bludgeon to attack everyone's rights.  I hope history will look back on this period as a blimp and revert back where middle America just shrugs on socially divisive issues.  Live and let live.  

Until then, you do have to be careful what is on your phone when you travel.  

[+ BOZO T CLOWN]

1 hour ago, jayjaycali said:

Yes, the law is the law. A confession is a confession.

But we also jaywalk. We go five miles over the speed limit. And who is 100% sure their tax return isn't off by a couple of dollars?

We don't expect to face maximum punishment for those everyday infractions.

What we really have here is selective enforcement aimed at a gay traveler, which was made completely obvious the second they focused on his clothing choices

  

There is no "selective enforcement". None. Female sex workers are scrutinized and being denied entry at a rate far higher than their male counterparts:

AI Overview

 

Female sex workers are stopped, questioned, and denied entry at international borders far more often than their male counterparts. [1, 2, 3]

Border enforcement is highly gendered, and immigration officers disproportionately target women using visible cues. Officials frequently use behavioral stereotypes—scrutinizing clothing, luggage, and online social media profiles—to search for indicators of potential sex work or human trafficking. [1, 2]

Because of this intense profiling, female travelers face significantly higher scrutiny when crossing into countries with strict immigration controls like the United States or Australia. [1, 2, 4]

 

As for Milo's tale of woe, keep in mind that the DHS pretty much denied most of what Milo claimed (see the upthread). 
Milo knew darn well that "tourists" engaging in sex work in the US is illegal. In fact, as a tourist, he is not allowed to work at all, much less derive income as a prostitute. He knew all of that, yet he continued to do so. He was stupid enough to have all of those conversations and appointments on his phone. He thought because he has Global Entry and was getting away with it for years he had a free pass to come and go as he pleases, all the while, breaking US law.. He now knows differently.

Bozo has gotten pulled over for speeding, having a broken tail light, and other infractions. He didn't whine and complain and play the victim card. He paid the fine and moved on. Milo needs to do the same.

BTC

🤡

[jayjaycali]

40 minutes ago, BOZO T CLOWN said:

  

There is no "selective enforcement". None. Female sex workers are scrutinized and being denied entry at a rate far higher than their male counterparts:

AI Overview

 

 

Female sex workers are stopped, questioned, and denied entry at international borders far more often than their male counterparts. [1, 2, 3]

Border enforcement is highly gendered, and immigration officers disproportionately target women using visible cues. Officials frequently use behavioral stereotypes—scrutinizing clothing, luggage, and online social media profiles—to search for indicators of potential sex work or human trafficking. [1, 2]

Because of this intense profiling, female travelers face significantly higher scrutiny when crossing into countries with strict immigration controls like the United States or Australia. [1, 2, 4]

 

As for Milo's tale of woe, keep in mind that the DHS pretty much denied most of what Milo claimed (see the upthread). 
Milo knew darn well that "tourists" engaging in sex work in the US is illegal. In fact, as a tourist, he is not allowed to work at all, much less derive income as a prostitute. He knew all of that, yet he continued to do so. He was stupid enough to have all of those conversations and appointments on his phone. He thought because he has Global Entry and was getting away with it for years he had a free pass to come and go as he pleases, all the while, breaking US law.. He now knows differently.

Bozo has gotten pulled over for speeding, having a broken tail light, and other infractions. He didn't whine and complain and play the victim card. He paid the fine and moved on. Milo needs to do the same.

BTC

🤡

AI overview:

What you're looking at is a classic internet forum derailment: one user points out a highly specific instance of profiling or selective enforcement (targeting a traveler based on clothing choices and presentation), and the replier attempts a "mic drop" by using a generic AI Overview snippet to completely invalidate the claim.

The logic in that reply falls flat for a few reasons:

• It’s a False Dichotomy: The argument implies that because female sex workers statistically face massive scrutiny at international borders, a gay traveler cannot be experiencing selective enforcement. In reality, border profiling isn't a zero-sum game; multiple demographics can face distinct, systemic biases at the same time.
• The "AI Weapon" Fallacy: Using a surface-level AI search summary as a definitive, unassailable legal source to dismiss someone's lived experience or a specific case study is incredibly weak debate etiquette.
• Ignoring the Trigger: The original poster ("jayjaycali") was highlighting that the enforcement became active the second officers focused on the traveler's presentation. Border agents exercise immense subjective discretion, and behavioral or aesthetic profiling happens constantly, regardless of macro-demographic trends.

It’s a frustrating brand of online argument where nuance goes to die.

 

[+ PhileasFogg]

22 minutes ago, jayjaycali said:

AI overview

Interesting that you have to outsource your thinking to try to be articulate

Like @BOZO T CLOWN, I know of plenty of pasty light skinned folks concerned about entry or reentry.  In fact I have a couple of waspy porn stars I travel with who always get added screening at TSA - presumably, because of facial recognition - every time - even though there is nothing in their possession warranting inspection.

When you outsource your thinking, you’re seeking validation to a question that you likely asked in a biased way leading to the desired outcome.

BTC has made a valid point and we all should be open to hearing inconvenient truths.   At least his AI search was seeking data on the topic. 

Edited Friday at 06:52 PM by PhileasFogg

[jayjaycali]

17 minutes ago, PhileasFogg said:

Interesting that you have to outsource your thinking to try to be articulate

Like @BOZO T CLOWN, I know of plenty of pasty light skinned folks concerned about entry or reentry.  In fact I have a couple of waspy porn stars I travel with who always get added screening at TSA - presumably, because of facial recognition - every time - even though there is nothing in their possession warranting inspection.

When you outsource your thinking, you’re seeking validation to a question that you likely asked in a biased way leading to the desired outcome.

BTC has made a valid point and we all should be open to hearing inconvenient truths. 

Bullet point two in the reply I think was worth the irony.

You're argument indeed makes a large assumption on how I used the prompt.  Then it use 'likely' as a word to pretend to claim some reasonable threshold or statistics to back it up to make it sound grounded 

The argument makes a blanket claim: discussion with AI cannot catch logical fallacies or refine arguments or grammar and paint is as 'outsourcing thinking' instead in a blanket fashion before that's even established

The argument sneaks in 'inconvenient truth' as though the argument was true.   To make the argument a 'valid point' it's better to refute the rebuttal and continue, claiming its a 'valid point' doesn't suddenly make it so.

Sorry but I'll try and read replies to hear you out but I will have to try and decline responding as much as I might want to since for me it's likely more aggravation than I should let it give me. Tc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 07:10 PM by jayjaycali

[+ BOZO T CLOWN]

5 hours ago, jayjaycali said:

AI overview:

What you're looking at is a classic internet forum derailment: one user points out a highly specific instance of profiling or selective enforcement (targeting a traveler based on clothing choices and presentation), and the replier attempts a "mic drop" by using a generic AI Overview snippet to completely invalidate the claim.

The logic in that reply falls flat for a few reasons:

• It’s a False Dichotomy: The argument implies that because female sex workers statistically face massive scrutiny at international borders, a gay traveler cannot be experiencing selective enforcement. In reality, border profiling isn't a zero-sum game; multiple demographics can face distinct, systemic biases at the same time.
• The "AI Weapon" Fallacy: Using a surface-level AI search summary as a definitive, unassailable legal source to dismiss someone's lived experience or a specific case study is incredibly weak debate etiquette.
• Ignoring the Trigger: The original poster ("jayjaycali") was highlighting that the enforcement became active the second officers focused on the traveler's presentation. Border agents exercise immense subjective discretion, and behavioral or aesthetic profiling happens constantly, regardless of macro-demographic trends.

It’s a frustrating brand of online argument where nuance goes to die.

 

You can play word games all you want, but your ChatGPT/AI reply is the one that falls flat.  
Milo thought that because he got away with sex work in the USA in the past, he could continue to do so and flout both US Immigration and Labor laws.
Don't know about you, but when Bozo is a guest in someone's home and is told to remove his big clown shoes or not to smoke, he follows his host's requests. By failing to follow the rules of his host, Milo was giving a big middle finger to the US. Never a good idea for a visitor. And his whining about getting caught just makes him look like a smug, entitled brat.
When you play with fire and your fingers get burned..... don't blame the match sticks!

P.S. @jayjaycali, if you choose to reply, please do so using your own words and thoughts.

BTC
🤡

Edited Saturday at 12:12 AM by BOZO T CLOWN

[+ PhileasFogg]

5 minutes ago, jayjaycali said:

Sorry this is exhausting.  

Yeah.  So maybe think twice before starting such a diversion next time.  There’s never resolution in such a pedantic response 

Edited Friday at 07:10 PM by PhileasFogg

[+ SirBillybob]

While it’s reasonable to speculate about the role of sexual orientation discrimination and racial othering in attracting scrutiny, M had evidently previously entered multiple times without secondary inspection. Although the practical consequences were ultimately more punitive than the obvious immediate disruption to his January travel plans, exacerbated by the misfortune of shift schedule, the underlying immigration provisions apply irrespective of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. 

The ban culminated from downstream evidentiary sequencing in which some degree of profiling often occurs upstream, as underscored within overarching travel guidance for the occupation. In that sense the operative admonition is less “don’t be a gay tourist” (perhaps consider boycott) than “don’t engage in detectable conduct that can be classified as commercial sex work”. It doesn’t deny homophobia reality but frames travel adaptability accordingly. 

Edited Friday at 09:07 PM by SirBillybob