I would like to offer another viewpoint.
user568458 had explained very nicely that it is possible to put an irksome statement into an objective evaluation of what is going on. So his answer is the "technical" solution for confrontational facts.
But I think the problem is that chx has the impression (just the impression, I do not say that it is really so) that something runs right out of the rudder in the USA and everyone tries to ignore the elephant in the room.
I hope this is correct, chx.
I have the suspicion he asked this question in meta because he is simply frustated about the perceived silence; essentially he wants that the issue and the current injustice is broached, in which form ever.
I can understand the problem that TSE is not a political forum and given the enormous number of cultures involved here I do not think it is a good idea to openly display confrontational issues in TSE itself in general. So far I am in agreement with the answers here.
So, chx, while your frustation is comprehensible, I really do not know how it fits into TSE; the problem is that currently the border guards seem to act on a whim so until it their behavior so plain obvious that it is reproducible, TSE cannot warn in good faith.
And some people who are not interested in your background may get the impression you want to be provocative (trolling).
And then there is disagreement.
Answers should not betray the person's political sentiment one way or another. Doing so is evocative beyond the scope of what's appropriate and invites community opprobrium.
It means you may endure consequences on how the community views your online 'persona' and this can ultimately reflect on your credibility in answers unrelated to what happens at a USA border point.
Or in more specific terms, if you are given to rants community members may opt to skip past your contributions and give more attention to answers provided by others.
Translation: If you are not prissy, noone likes you anymore.
Gayot Fow, in all seriousness, while I understand the intent and I also think provocational statements are not suitable, the form is
an attempt of emotional blackmailing and I for myself can only shake my head for your recommendation.
While I will try to be hospitable, some people may have already realized that I am very direct in my answers. When I say things, almost always I mean exactly those things. And if I think it is the right time to state a political sentiment, especially if it involves friends of mine, I will state those political sentiments. So if someone feels angry about something I write: that's life. If someone does not read me anymore: that's life, too. If someone thinks that I have a specific prejudice, but also knows that I am quite direct, (s)he can judge for her-/himself and if my statement is not convincing, tough luck for me. Even better, s(he) can ask and get a clarification. Or not.
It is preferable that someone pretends to be objective even if secretly the pot is boiling? And you think that people won't realize that person has no real commitment?
I really doubt that your proposed right, "appropiate" behavior is such a great idea.