I'm not even half through this article but I felt an urge to say this: The automatic french-english translation is so good, I didn't even notice it at all. Good work, google!
Edit: now that I'm aware that the text I'm reading is a translation, I see the errors. I guess my brain just filtered it out. Still awesome though!
Well, to be fair, the language used is rather simplistic. The vocabulary itself is of a higher level, but the grammar is really basic from the start to the end. Most of the article is also pure description and not a thesis or something. I guess all that helps a lot the automated translation tool.
Good to know, it makes a lot of sense. What do you think, was it written by a non-native speaker or is it comparable to something you find in a french newspaper?
The original article, in French, is very well-written; the grammar didn't strike me as "basic", but rather the writing of someone used to getting messages across clearly. Largely on par with most articles in French newspapers.
That said, the automatic translation holds up pretty well, except for some gender issues and mistranslation of colloquialisms.
The author is an experienced academic historian and hence the language is precise, perfectly formed and persuasive. Google Translate does indeed do quite well. Where GT fails is in colloquial context sensitive language, like IRC or facebook, where it is terrible.
Beware the translation in some places. Google translates: "Une policière engueule une femme dont le garçon de trois ans court dans tous les sens" into "A police officer beats a woman whose three-year-old runs in all directions". The actual translation is: "A female police officer shouts at a woman whose 3-year-old is running all over the place"
> The actual translation is: "A female police officer shouts at a woman whose 3-year-old is running all over the place"
"Berates" feels much closer than "shouts at", "engueuler" is not just general shouting there's a strong component of scolding to it.
Also "policewoman" if you want to carry gender across the translation, but I'd say "police officer" is just fine, french requires gendering, english does not.
I think "berate" is unnecessary: in the context the type of shouting is completely clear, and "engueuler" is used much more commonly than "berate" so IMO using it would be to change the tone without improving the meaning.
Wow you are right. Given your example, Google Translate doesn't recognize the gender of the police officer at all. It didn't even get "sens" correct, it translated it to "means" instead of "direction" until I told it the correct translation.
> Given your example, Google Translate doesn't recognize the gender of the police officer at all.
Or it did and did not care, "police officer" is a perfectly valid translation for "policière", French is a highly gendered language, English significantly less so.
Have you been to one where it was decent? I haven't.
Every single time I've had a run-in with CBP or DHS they have (with two notable exceptions) come across as a hoard of malicious little fascists, delighting in how much power -- and how little oversight -- they'd been given over another person's life.
I was traveling shortly after 9/11 and the National Guard was deployed to many airports. Fair, calm, and respectful, they were a comparative delight to deal with.
> A police officer beats a woman whose three-year-old runs in all directions
Is anyone able to give a better translation of this bit? Looks like the original sentence was "Une policière engueule une femme dont le garçon de trois ans court dans tous les sens"
The original phrase is " Une policière engueule une femme dont le garçon de trois ans court dans tous les sens". in the context;I think a correct transalation is " the police-woman shouted at a lady because her three-year-old child was runing in all directions.
Probably it's been like that always at the US border, it's just now it's popular to showcase such stories as an example of "look what Trump did to our country". I heard of horror stories at the US border way before Trump took office.
It is not so, such behaviour would have gotten reported as well under Obama, many countries are just waiting for the US to slip up as it is doing now, to justify their own less-than-stellar human-rights records: "see, it's just as bad in the US".
Sadly ESC:bdw Luckily! the US is still better, For how long?
I guess there is a self selection bias in the people who apply to work in the DHS, ICE and CBP in particular, and now they are given a political validation to their instinct.
But it's clear, my personal close call at the US border was under Obama, and that I am far from calling him someone in love with justice.
That's one of the good things about this whole media campaign against Trump. The media is throwing everything they can find at him and in the process expose a lot of heretofore ignored problems that have been festering for years. Maybe something will finally change?
Obama didn't get blamed for such things because he clearly didn't want them to happen. They happened, can't tell how often, but he didn't want or intend that. I didn't have the impression that Dubya wanted to harass random foreigners either.
Trump, OTOH, is the kind of person who wants to throw out all the Yemeni in case one of them is another Timothy McVeigh.
You can't really prove this. Something being said in the front of the camera with a fake smile on the face is one thing, documents being signed that are not released to the public is a different story.
Any king can claim to be innocent when a bishop is killed in his realm, and may in theory be innocent. One that said "oh, won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest" before the bloodshed can't expect to be believed innocent, though.
And that's had a direct effect on the attitude and behavior of immigration goons:
"[...] the shift — and the new enthusiasm that has come with it — seems to have encouraged pro-Trump political comments and banter that struck the officials as brazen or gung-ho, like remarks about their jobs becoming 'fun.' Those who take less of a hard line on unauthorized immigrants feel silenced, the officials said."
This combined with the fact that they now demand access to your facebook account on entry means I'm scared to post anti trump comments online. I need to travel between my birth country and my new home in the USA regularly. If I get a pro-trump homeland security agent (and it seems many of them are) scanning my phone. I fear I might be denied re-entry despite having a valid work visa.
I guess we'll be seeing more and more of this in the near future. I and other non citizens are now silenced. A few more laws like this to silence a few other anti-trmup groups and the USA will slowly creep into totalitarianism for fear of losing everything they have.
I'm just glad my birth country is Australia and I can happily return there before it gets really bad in the USA. The biggest problem I'm having is where shall I draw the line where I pack up my life here and return.
An example would be a great way to support that assertion.
When I applied for... it doesn't matter precisely what. I've forgotten, actually, but it was some piece of paper that foreigners need, and only foreigners. Anyway, when I applied for that I chanced upon an official who didn't have much sympathy for foreigners. I got my paper in the end, but it wasn't because of his helpfulness.
Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech to make that official speak a understandably to foreigners? Slur a little less, swallow fewer consonants?
>An example would be a great way to support that assertion.
An example of what? That the POTUS, who appoints the Homeland Security secretary, could, if they so wished, absolutely influence behavior and/or policy in the TSA?
>Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech
How about something like: "Any malevolent behavior and unnecessary harassement to visitors from border officials wont be tolerated?"
I think you're right about it having been going for a while because I used to live in Canada and visited the USA regularly and I found that in both countries not just border officials but the police behavior was incredibly rude and counter productive compared to what I was used to in London, in the UK. I could detect there was a certain glee some of these people get from treating other people badly which is actually quite alien in my experiences in the UK. I'd say it's actually a cultural difference because it's so prevalent over there compared to here.
The part where he mentions three officials immediately shouted down a man in unison after he protested about their treatment of the woman with the child is a perfect example of the cruel and over the top behavior I was witness to. It's also quite cowardly to need three people to do that and pathetic. I should say I was not often the victim, but just watching other people being treated in this way made me feel sick and I think it's something that should be addressed by the citizens, you should say denounce this sort of treatment of anyone. Anyone who gets pleasure out of causing any sort of suffering of another person should be removed from their post, based on my experiences that would require a complete overhaul from top to bottom.
That's pretty much it. I can remember stories from a decade ago about Canadians traveling to the US. They get the "business or pleasure" question. They say "pleasure" and then the border patrol does a quick search, finds "business" papers, then proceeds to ban the person for 5 years from entering the US.
Nothing has really changed with regards to how people are treated.
No, they're not different. Every time I am visiting the states I have to go through the extra process of interviewing (due to things that happened a long time ago), and every time I am struck by how it seems like they're actively attempting to dehumanize the persons who are there. The border control is actually the #1 reason I am considering never visiting again. Though, as the original author, I love the US, so it's difficult.
In English you can say "as X, Y", for example "as Google, Microsoft releases code, "as last time, I was late" or "as the author, I love the US". It doesn't mean that "Microsoft = Google", or "I am last time" or "I am the author".
Google's dictionary (wherever it comes from) has
> conjunction 2: used to indicate by comparison the way that something happens or is done
I think you're thinking of
> preposition 1: used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has
That's just wrong. In the original comment, "as" was used as a preposition and not as a conjunction. But it is grammatically incorrect to use the preposition "as" to draw a comparison instead of "like". See for example: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/as-o....
You all bring up good points, and I agree that the usage was imprecise and/or wrong, though the original comment did, IMO, contain enough information that you should be able to deduce with a significant probability (in the Bayesian sense) whether or not I am, indeed, the great French historian Henry Rousso!
Ah well. You win. Congratulations? I'm not here to argue over grammar. It seems like you have sufficient grip on the language to have understood the comment you quibbled with.
This isn't a competition. While I appreciate that you were only trying to be helpful, in reality proposing false theories doesn't add anything of value to a discussion, especially when the issue can be settled with a basic web search.
In this case, "as the original author" would be taken by a native speaker to mean the person is speaking with the authority of being the original author, i.e. they are the original author. "As" is only used for comparison when it is clear from context that that's the case. The idiomatic way to express what I think is intended is "like the original author".
I had "extra screening" at the US border in 2007 or 2008 (I forget exactly when it was), and it wasn't much fun back then.
I think the author of this article made the classic mistake of admitting he was being paid for work, which is forbidden with a regular US tourist visa. It turns out that he did have the right visa (or the type of work he was doing is permitted - it wasn't clear in the article), but as soon as you say that you're being paid, it sets off alarm bells.
My understanding -- reading between the lines -- is that if someone has been to the US on a J1 they are more likely to return and work illegally.
CBP screen based on this. It sucks, and has for a long time. I've not personally experienced any change post-Obama. The major variability is in the CBP agent, not in top-down policies.
At the end of the day you have to choose between open and closed borders. If you want to close your borders then screening is a tough business. The main difference between the US and the rest of the world is scale and desirability. A lot of people want to go there, more than any other country in the world. That makes it difficult!
I am very white and a native English speaker and I can attest that there have always been rude and overzealous immigration officers. Heck they are rude to me when we cross the border from Canada with the wife and two kids in the car and in-state license plates.
I think the appropriate outcome depends on whether they were going to be paid by the US institution.
If you're going to get paid, you need an appropriate visa.
Unfortunately some institutions don't understand this/don't want to understand this/tell you "it's fine, we do this all the time." But if you say the wrong thing at the border, you'll be denied entry and it'll get noted down for the next time you try and enter the country.
The only appropriate visa to get paid is a work visa, like H1B, O1 or J1. He didn't have one, his J1 is expired. His situation is peculiar because as a scholar there is an exception. But if it had been to, say, tech talk at a conference, you can't get paid.
So I think it's relevant to the article because that's probably what the CBP agent was thinking. And the fact that he'd have been doing it for 30 years doesn't change anything.
Otherwise as French we don't need a visa just to visit the US, we are on the visa waiver program (ESTA).
> The only appropriate visa to get paid is a work visa, like H1B, O1 or J1.
No. There are plenty of situations where you can get paid in the USA without having a work visa. As you mentioned, the scholar in this article is one example. Another example: my spouse has a H-4, which is not a work visa, but has received employment authorization (EAD) and can get paid. Another example: athletes can enter the USA on a B-1, which is not a work visa, and get paid prize money.
We could keep going, but the point is that a rule with too many exceptions stops being useful and just becomes a false statement. This led the first CBP officer to incorrectly detain the scholar in the article. This also led the author of the original comment I replied to to visibly stop reading the article halfway through, and post to HN that the scholar did not have an appropriate visa and that it was the university's fault, both of which are explicitly debunked at the end of the article.
> that the official who examined my file was
> "inexperienced" and did not know that certain activities,
> including those related to research and education,
> enjoyed an exceptional regime and could well be carried
> out with A simple tourist visa."
From what he wrote at the end of the article it's not clear at all why they've decided to control him.
I've travelled to the US quite a few times on different types of visas (lived and worked there for a few years). It's important to know yourself what is and isn't allowed, as some people will try and tell you "things are fine, we've done it loads of times" when in fact they don't understand the restrictions properly, and it'll be recorded against you and not them when you get denied entry.
An honorarium is sort of a funny thing because it's not really a payment, or at least that's the fiction. The theory is that it's more like a thank you gesture, very possibly at below market rates. Who knows what he actually said to CBP. If it was something to the effect of "Sure, I'm being paid for my speech," it's not hard to see this raising a flag.
There really is a broader lesson here that has nothing to do with the current US president or the US in particular.
Countries in general have a lot of rules about visitors working and what constitutes "working" from country to country. And many countries have rules about just about any business activities if you're on a tourist visa.
ADDED: Furthermore re: "things are fine, we've done it loads of times"
I don't get paid when I speak at events. But it's also the case that when I travel to Europe, I'm not sure I've ever been asked that question. It's usually "I'm attending a computer software conference" "in XYZ city" "I work for such and such" etc. If someone were getting paid, I could see it not coming up for years and suddenly it does for some reason and it's a problem.
No need to be a Derp about it, curiousgal was asking a logical question.
Yes, the answer was in the article, but it was toward the end. Since many of these days skim articles or read HN comments first or some combination _and_ getting paid to do something for others is a common, if not defining aspect of "work" [0], her question is logical.
As for FUD spreading, before she even asked the question, she started by stating, "IANAL" which indicates anything said about the law should be taken with more than a bit of doubt.
So take a chill pill. Yes,it is important to answer the question to remove doubt or ambiguity, but there was no need to be rude or disrespectful or to berate her for asking a question!
[0] The societal definition of "work", not the physical sciences definition.
You'd think. The culture in the US just seems to tolerate too much of this "Show me your papers!" attitude imho.
Source: I grew up in the UK where you (still) don't need to carry a drivers license. Meanwhile in the USA where I'm now a citizen I get a cold sweat if I forget my wallet when I take a 10 minute drive to buy some milk in case I'm pulled over by the cops..
For clarity, what you say is not true (see section 164(7) in the reference cited above). You only have to produce your license upon request within 7 days at a police station. Nothing bad can happen to you (e.g. you can't be detained) for driving without your license on your person.
Section 164(7) requires the driver to either immediately produce a receipt (option a) or produce within 7 days a receipt (option b). But that receipt is for surrendered licences under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
By not immediately producing the document you've committed the offence. (Section 164(1-6), unless section 164(7) applies (it almost never does)) It's a defence to produce them not more than 7 days later, this is in section 164(8).
Strictly speaking: you need to carry your licence and produce when asked. You commit the offence if you do not immediately produce the licence, but it's a defence if you produce the licence within 7 days to a named police station.
> Nothing bad can happen to you (e.g. you can't be detained) for driving without your license on your person.
That's not correct. If officers need to identify you and they can't from the information you give you're going to have a bad time. They most certainly can detain you until they identify you. (If you're the driver.)
I've been pulled over without my license in the US. Nothing happened. I've also had no proof of insurance. I just had to provide within a specified time period. No big deal.
Lots of US law enforcement experts from overseas on the Interwebs these days.
It's a special type of payment, often called an honorarium, which is to defray the cost and inconvenience a visiting academic incurs in order to perform a voluntary service for their host institution (e.g. participating in a colloquium). The academic is already generally fully employed at their own institution. (N.B. TAMU chooses to call them speaker fees and travel reimbursements, which might be the cause of some of the drama though I doubt it.)
I wonder why didn't he take a VWB instead of a VWT? It may have saved some hassle.
I don't remember exactly how it works, but last time I visited the USA for a conference, I think I ticked the 'business' box. I still got the awful interrogation they do, but I think everyone's noticed that's been standard for a few years now.
For an added bonus: he is an historian expert in the Vichy government. So I guess he knows a bit about rounding people for deportation and internement camps at the southern border.
I understand the basic scope of the author's intent, stop advertising fool-proof solutions to avoid vetting checked by the CBP, but their praxis comments require a bit more sourcing and evidence for some of the claims, and quite frankly, most just sound like scaremongering.
The CBP actions and incidents as described by first hand accounts do not seem to define an institutional directive guiding the decisions as to who warrants further investigation, and more importantly, who warrants having their entry denied. From the article earlier today on Henry Rousso's experience, the Immigration Lawyer that helped secure Dr. Rousso's release suggested that agents themselves are looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit. [1]
This isn't to excuse their behavior - it's deplorable, but to suggest there is a rhyme or reason to what's happening isn't really sensible. The issues is emboldened agents abusing power, not an institutional directive.
Quite honestly, travelers worried about drawing the ire of the CBP don't have many reassurances right now since you're not looking for what makes you suspicious or unsuspicious to the CBP, you're trying to guess what makes you suspicious or not suspicious to the individual agent you're reaching.
The agents' attitude absolutely needs to be checked and unfortunately this likely means there will be more of these cases until something institutional is sent down to curb the behavior.
The agents must be looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit, since that's what the law (e.g. [1]) has always required them to do.
If you come in with a tourist visa, the explicit legal presumption (opposite to presumption of innocence in criminal law) is that you're not fulfilling the conditions of the visa and actually intend to immigrate or work in USA, and the job given to the immigration officer is to interview you until (and if!) they become convinced that you really do meet the conditions - and if they aren't sure one way or another, then it's their duty to deny entry. It's not a new change coming in with Trump, it's that how USA immigration (sadly) works by design.
(b) Every alien 10/ (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .
I think there is a slight misunderstanding in the turn of phrase used by the lawyer and repeated by me. I understand what you're referring to, but the idea of "looking for a reason to deny" is more meant they're going beyond their stated and written duty and creating reasons to deny entry after establishing they have a valid permit for entry with no other reason. It's not that they are just doing their job, it seems some agents are inventing problems or refusing to accept some conditions as OK once properly vetted. It's the idea behind looking for a problem, trying to provoke an issue
So I should do nothing about it? I don't think so.
FYI that article has a number of errors. Most notably that anyone can any person can detect lying better than someone else. It is simply not true. I do believe that they are trained to give oddly-phased questions, which is a technique.
I will be carrying devices, but not personal ones. So without any personal data. If that is enough to send me back, sure then I'll go back. I won't lie. I will simply say that I don't want my devices searched if asked about it. Honestly, I don't think I would give up my password even for devices that are not my personal ones.
The officer at the border has discretionary power to send you back. If they are unhappy with what is on your device - or they dislike you - they can bounce you.
That's kind of a worthless article. What's the solution, then? Just accept that all of your private data will be copied by the government? Don't travel at all?
Edit: Also, the same guy explicitly encourages lying about your social media accounts two posts prior to that one. Which is it, chief?
I don't think it's worthless to point out that a number of strategies are bad, and likely counterproductive. It might just be the case that there are no good foolproof methods for getting through the US border without any negative effects on your privacy or convenience.
The only real solution is to change government policy.
The evidence seems at odds with this guy's suggestions. We've heard lots of stories about people being stopped and required to hand over devices. I'm not aware of any stories of people being stopped simply for not having devices.
Do not come to the US for any reason. Also, request that your government treat all US visitors exactly the same as this. Until people start to see how awful treating people like trash is nothing will change, it will only get worse. My job depends (somewhat) on foreign tourists coming to the US, I would rather lose my job than read these embarrassing stories.
That sounds a bit extreme. The US is bad, but it's not the worst place I have ever been. Also don't drag the rest of us in with you, it's selfish and petty that you would have people lose their jobs over what you perceive as a embarrassment from reading things on the internet.
All of which I am sure are lovely countries. I have only been to Romania out of that list and I loved my time there. You are free to visit and prefer wherever you want. I prefer spending my time in Hong Kong or Singapore if given the option. I just view the complete halting of tourist markets to a to a country for a political statement because less than 1% have problems with local authorities with what probably amounts to them misspeaking about the nature of their trip (work vs tourist visa debate) and the TSA being the right mixture of incompetent and evil is a bit hyperbolic.
Please don't encourage ill treatment of US citizens overseas. Americans who travel outside her borders are not the people making these decisions, tend to be much more worldly than the average citizen, and are the first to be horrified at these developments.
If you want to make the US change, speak the language we speak: lawsuits. Sue, sue, sue. Call your embassy and demand that they pressure the White House to retract this stupid policy.
This is, for better or worse, a populist decision.
I'd be all in favor of other countries holding up any Americans coming through on a tourist visa. Maybe if enough of their friends gripe about the way they're being treated overseas, Trump country will think "Oh, it's really not a very nice way to treat people." (To say nothing of ineffective)
I think that's a pompous assumption to make as it boils down to "If people travelled more, they wouldn't have voted for Trump." Which (even setting aside the economic assumption that everyone can jet off to Europe or Asia) is a pretty dismissive way to look at why people voted for Trump.
My takeaways were instead the following. (1) If one disagrees with the way the country is heading, one first has to understand the needs that drove people to Trump, and support people who fulfill those needs in a more positive way (rather than dismissing them). (2) Stop considering oneself absolved of blame if one didn't vote for Trump. One still participated in the environment that led to a Trump elector college victory, and is thus complicit.
They might not be making the decisions but they are the only ones who can affect them. How can foreigners demand that the US government changes its policy?
What power do you think the average citizen of the United States has to affect its government? A phone call to their senator (most likely ignored, best case you end up a tally in the nay yay spreadsheet, and either way it doesn't matter because they are going to vote the party line) and a vote on Election Day (hah!).
> Americans who travel outside her borders are not the people making these decisions, tend to be much more worldly than the average citizen, and are the first to be horrified at these developments.
They also most likely wield dis-proportionally large influence to get this nonsense stopped.
People who travel internationally tend to be wealthier and better educated than those that never leave their country.
They don't need to be a privileged political class in order to wield more influence since influence tends to be loosely correlated with wealth. See also: Trumps billionaire cabinet.
> Americans who travel outside her borders are not the people making these decisions
About half of them voted for the people making these decisions and all of them pay taxes to a government that does terrible things all over the world.
It's perfectly legitimate for any country to treat US citizens exactly like US treats that country's citizens. Don't take it as punishment. Take it as equality.
Literally almost nothing has changed in the real world at this point. Maybe it will change, but for 99.9% of people the US is still acting like the US always has when it comes to day to day affairs and I say this as someone who had family get hit by Trumps immigration ban.
I'm quite fond of Tabarrok's quote about bets being a tax on bullshit.
So, what are we supposed to learn from things that don't affect 99.9% of people? What exactly are you hinting at? If you've learned something from history that others haven't and that is germane to the situation, are you willing to bet money on it?
I'm sure someone will take the other side of the bet, that way we don't have to deal with the "kids these days" type of rhetoric that doesn't really prove anything about anything.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to understand. Some guy was unfairly treated at an airport. A common occurrence in the US, so it seems. Now that story gets blown out of proportions (there are many similar cases no one ever reports here), and suddenly we're on a the verge of a genocide. Let's assume that's true. What prediction would you make and how much would you bet on it that would confirm this hypothesis is right? How likely is it that it's just some TSA agent ego-tripping?
> How likely is it that it's just some TSA agent ego-tripping?
Very likely. And that's exactly the point.
Ego tripping and law enforcement should be kept apart at every opportunity.
For you this got blown out of proportion, because it does not affect you. But if it ever will affect you then I hope you will remember this thread and what it feels like when you're part of the 0.1% and nobody gives a fuck.
And everybody is part of some 0.1%, even if you haven't figured it out yet.
I'm Iranian American, you are being hysterical. This story is blown out of proportion and you are treating it like we are on the verge of Hitler rising up from the grave and donning the red white and blue.
- many tens of billions extra will be spent on armaments (America first, sure)
- nationalism is at a roughly 70 year high in the Western world
- as is xenophobia
- in many countries politicians of extremely dubious character are waiting in the wings with elections around the corner
You're treating it like it is business as usual. And I can assure you that it is not. I haven't seen this kind of alignment as long as I've been alive.
Now let's hope things will get better before they get worse.
I don't see what you being an Iranian American has anything to do with it though, for all I care you could be born in Brooklyn or Paris, it would not make any difference to me.
And if you feel this story is blown out of proportion then I hope that your family is with you and will not attempt to join you anywhere in the next couple of years, noting how Iran was part of the not-Muslim ban.
- The US is currently bombing 7 countries. Tensions are heating up in eastern Europe due to Russian aggression and NATO expansion in the region. This is happening no matter what just because the American empire is losing power and regional powers are attempting to flex more muscle.
- I honestly don't find nationalism to be an inherit evil. Nationalism is a tool in the political playbook just like any other. I am not saying that going from 0 to fascist is ok, but we have been sitting at about a 4 for a while now and it probably just got cranked up to a 6.
- The Xenophobia has always been there. Growing up after 9/11 my family stuck american flags on our cars as a precaution against vandalism. I think what people are seeing is the lower 'deplorable' classes finally got equal access to mass communication that many of us have enjoyed for years and we are seeing those old tensions getting pushed to the front of our political dialog. Before now people in well to do areas could just ignore it. Also xenophobia isn't a unilateral thing, race relations in the US are terrible and small groups of every racial demographic make life hard for non racists in other demographics. I also think a lot of this, at least on the internet, has to do with push back against what is viewed as an overbearing cultural force from the political left. It's now edgy to be an ironic neo-nazi on the internet and if you tweet nazi memes at a journalist you might end up on the front of the NYT.
- I'm fearful of Wilders more than anyone else up and coming on the world stage right now. Trump I think is overblown and I don't know much about Le Pen besides some of the questionable history of her party and her role in 'reforming' it.
Me being an Iranian american is relevant to this because we are one of the number one groups of people targeted in times like this in the US. Iran is a hostile geopolitical power to the US domination of middle eastern affairs. We are frequently singled out for likely 'terrorist' activities because of the mix of Islam, skin color and the past few administrations have been hinting that they are edging for conflict with Iran. If anyone is going to get rounded up into interment camps in the US it will probably be people like me.
As for the rest, I see one silver lining around almost all of the clouds which is that Trump & Company are absolutely incompetent. That's the only thing that's keeping things afloat right now, if they get their act together all bets are off.
Practically speaking, some first world countries might be able to hold US citizens in disdain. But for much of the third world the US tourists are big source of revenue and non tourists are usually important people on government or private business. So most nations can't afford to treat US citizens badly whether they want or not.
As an American, I'd also be more likely to vacation somewhere if I knew it had no rude American tourists there.
I could say the same of British, Russian, German, and Chinese tourists.
This is why, even when vacationing inside the US, I avoid the tourist traps. They're full of jackasses, regardless of individual nationality. But it should also be noted that those same countries that routinely make the list of the world's worst tourists also top the lists of the worlds best tourists. When a tourist is well behaved, you barely notice them, but when they act up, you remember it.
Lying down and taking it is a negative opposite action to take(which isn't suggested), of which there are a tremendous amount of alternatives that have better outcomes.
I agree. I work in the UK, and used to go to SFO twice a year. I am now telling my manager that I am not willing to take the risk to be arbitrarily detained for no reason, even if it's only a 1% chance (which sounds about the current level). Send me to any country, but only where the rule of law applies.
But this is the rule of law, unfortunately. While we (Americans, in this case) are trying to change the laws, the problem, or rather a problem, is that people who enforce the law at the border have too much power (and too much leniency for exercising too much power). This problem is not peculiar to the US.
Interesting idea, but probably the wrong decision. In my own life, I've noticed that this approach just doesn't work for me. Rudeness or cheating in response to rudeness and cheating doesn't win. The thing about the shameless (as James Bond mused about a cheater at tennis) is that they are curiously invulnerable. You aren't curiously invulnerable, so you'll lose at this sort of pissing contest.
A civil, coherent, deliberate, and assertive response is a very good idea, though. Just don't give up on your values.
I'm curious how good the translation is. I could read the translated article (the English version), but there were clearly some weird words. Is there anything off in the translation at a higher level?
The article gives me anxiety. It gives me anxiety that people can be held at our borders for hours and sometimes days (in my country non the less). All because some junior border officer did not understand the visa type well enough. How can they not even apologize? How can they not even acknowledge these types of errors.
Will they do this to us when we travel abroad on a tourist visa?
Will other countries begin to reciprocate? Will other countries/institutions begin demanding compensation for wrongful detention/deportations?
Perhaps my biggest concern is this: How long until this pushes someone over the edge? It's precisely this kind of persistent harassment that can convince an angry, disaffected young man that, yes, the system really is rigged against him.
These articles should have been written a decade ago. The media is being honest all of a sudden now that they don't like the government. These aren't new happenings.
Well, a lot of US people actually like it that foreigners are given a "special treatment". As I heard some respond to situations like this: Entering the United States is a privilege and not a right.
That's such an easy thing to say. People who are in US temporarily also need to rent apartments, rent/buy a car. Most of the H1B folks who are here for 3yrs don't live out of the bag for 3 yrs. If this attitude remains, the smart folks will avoid US entirely. You'll definitely see foreign companies competing and hurting the economy. Either you're with immigrants or against.
Edit - if people are uncertain about re-entry, how are they supposed to make daily decisions, as simple as leasing an apartment.
It feels like the age of the US is nearing to an end. I am not looking forward (on behalf of my children) for the transitional period that will follow.
Yes from the state of border control and not just this one. CBP is doing industrial espionage with their phone data seizures. I'm avoiding US conferences because of it where I have options elsewhere. I imagine many are doing the same. I probably have to bite the bullet this fall and go to San Fransisco for a conference. I won't be carrying any electronic devices for that trip as a security precaution that CBP asks me to unlock my devices so they can read data. It would be gross negligence towards my employer if I were to allow them to copy my email correspondence, some of which contains details about product development. I'm not being hyperbolic about it. I just need to mitigate the risk.
I consulted for a large non-US technology company, which enforced a policy of sending people to the US with wiped out laptops, and imaged at the destination with their standard software. That was more than 10 years ago.
UPDATE: "It turned out this whole story has nothing to do with Egypt or Holocaust. Historian claimed that he would give a speech for money. Incompetent CBP officer incorrectly concluded that its a work without a proper work visa."
"N'étant pas en possession d'un document fédéral m'autorisant à travailler aux États-Unis, je suis en infraction. La décision sera confirmée plus tard par son supérieur hiérarchique – que je n'aurai pas la possibilité de rencontrer."
It seems the decision by the officer was actually upheld by his/her direct superior (referring to the original. Translation: "Not being in possession of a federal document authorizing me to work in the United States, I am in violation. The decision will be confirmed later by his superior - that I will not have the opportunity to meet.").
These are practices that have been going on for a few years. Everybody is thinking this is a new Trump-era thing, which is not true. It is large scale confirmation bias. Making life decisions (not visiting the US) based off a knee-jerk reaction from reading a huffpo article is not helping.
I understand that for foreigners to see trump sworn into office and then all of these stories pop up would make them think america has changed so recently, but its not true. It like an episode of the Twilight Zone.
I was hesitating to visit the US landmarks for years now under Obama's administration -and even before that under Bush's- but under Trump's, his attitude and words only indicates that it would get worse...
I don't want to subject myself to questionning and genuflecting just to travel somewhere, live and work where I please, I am too much used to crossing borders as if they didn't exist. (I am French and travelled accross Europe, never went to the US)
I agree. But supporting what the US has become over the last decade isn't any better -- the fact that these issues are getting more attention now should not diminish that reality.
For everyone on HN that's afraid of being harassed for their politics because of how Trump support was received, this story and worse ones to come are exactly what we were afraid of coming from Trump. This was never just about policy, the current administration is giving license to treating people who don't look "American" enough with suspicion and they made that intention clear in their campaign.
If this was just about tax rates and government spending policies no one would be nearly as upset.
>this story and worse ones to come are exactly what we were afraid of coming from Trump.
To dial back the hyperbole for a second, we've seen this kind of story happening before Trump took office, and in countries other than the US. Crossing borders carries with it a non-zero chance that you'll be treated like total crap and even when you're lucky enough that the system corrects itself you'll almost certainly get no apology. Having said that, there is no reason why this kind of thing should be tolerated.
Edit: somebody else remembered the similar story from last year.
I agree that it's too early to be certain that Trump taking office makes a difference. I've certainly had concerns and bad experiences entering the USA well before Trump.
That said, I don't think it's all that strange to be extra worried now that Trump is in charge. It makes complete sense to think that things will get even worse under Trump, although I'm open to arguments to the contrary because I'd love to be proven wrong!
Love all the doom and gloom outrage. Just because trump got elected I feel like way too many people are in a mild form of hysteria, and use any excuse to vent their uncontrolled expression of emotion.
Look, this was a stupid decision made by a stupid officer. An officer who lives es in Aggie land too! (For those of you not in Texas, Aggies aka A&M people are known for being good old country levels of dumb, and are often the butt of jokes.)
Now, that's not an excuse, but this was an outlier fuckup that has happened for years before Trump, though I'm willing to grant its probably more likely to happen with overzealous people in this political climate.
Its funny that the UK has been doing stuff like this to vast amounts of US persons visiting the UK on the same bad understanding of people giving payed for speeches/debates, but everyone has suddenly forgotten about that.
Look, there is room for improvement, and officers in this position should be held to a higher standard by their superiors, but when all you have is a hammer(outrage mode), everything begins to look like a nail (outrageous action), so let's work on calming down and being a bit more rational and focused on practical ways to solve issues please.
The UK is actually an island off the continent of Europe. If we are being pedantic. It may belong to Europe culturally in some respects but geographically, it does not.
Member of the European Union, not member of the Schengen Area... UK has always been whimsical and not reflecting the "European" values... thus, UK is not Europe.
They're free to run things the way they like, but please don't keep telling that UK is Europe... especially after they chose and got the Brexit... not a single true european will endorse its mistakes.
The two are not equivalent. America is shorthand for the United States of. Mexico is short for Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Europe is a geographically defined continent.
If I were in Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Serbia, Macedonia, or the Ukraine would it not be appropriate to say I was in Europe?
Well technically I think it depends on which side of Iceland you're standing. To the west you're on the North American plate and to the east it's the Eurasian plate.
Consider that the only country within the North/Central/South American land masses explicitly having America as part of its name is the United States of America. It makes a lot of sense really considering the global dominance of the USA relative to its neighbors that "America" is colloquially understood to refer to the USA, and not Canada, or Panama, or all of South America.
Brexit is solely related to UK membership within the European Union. It is wrong to conflate being a part of Europe with being a part of the European Union.
Throughout history the ties between what is now the UK and what is now continental Europe are deep and inseparably intertwined (both culturally and geographically); it is absurd to to claim that the UK is "always whimsical" (whatever that means) and does not reflect "true" European values, whatever those may be. Look even closer within the UK and the Republic of Ireland...how is one European and the other not?!
The UK is and will foverver be part of Europe, period. This has no bearing on your opinion of who is or is not a "true European."
Yes, and it takes forever. At least it did the last time I came to the UK (Dec 2015). The line started well into the hallway, a hundred meters or so before the counter.
To you and my sibling posts: could you both elaborate?
I'm inclined to agree that the UK differs from mainland Europe in a number of ways. I can't judge if this is the case for border control, but it wouldn't surprise. I'd really like to hear both sides elaborate rather than the 'yes', 'but no' comments so far.
The problem isn't really about influent academics traveling to Europe or USA. Their problems will be solved soon and generate some indignant news articles. To quote the article:
"This incident caused me some discomfort, difficult to deny. However, I can not help but think of all those who suffer these humiliations and legal violence without the protections I have been able to enjoy."
>I’m not going to apologise. I’ve been fighting this brutal nonsense since I was an MP’s assistant in the late 1980s. At the time the system was that a Member of Parliament could intervene on any deportation and by contacting the Home Office get it stopped until any questionable aspects were resolved. One evening I was the last to leave the office when a call came through from Heathrow. Normally I left the immigration stops to the more experienced caseworkers, however there was nobody but me available.
> So I listened to a tearful South African chap explaining that he had flown to the UK to be at the wedding of his sole surviving relative, his sister, the following day. All his papers were in order, but the immigration people had made one attempt to contact his sister and on not having the phone answered (on the afternoon before her wedding) had told him he was to be deported to South Africa. I got out the instructions on handling such cases and having taken the chap’s number and all the relevant details, and instructed him to tell the immigration people that Stuart Holland MP’s office were in the process of getting the Home Office to put a stop on his deportation. I then called the Home Office and got them to agree to do their part of the business.
> Next I rang Heathrow to talk to the South African chap. I was told it was too late he was already on a plane to Luxemburg. I called the Home Office again and asked them to forward a further stop to Luxemburg.
> Again they agreed to do do. By now the senior caseworker had got home so I was able to get her to take over.
> I was distressed to learn from her that whilst the authorities in Luxemburg had received instructions from the UK Home Office to stop the deportation, they had ignored it and placed him on a flight back to South Africa anyway. Apparently the Home Office had also agreed to apologise “for the inconvenience” and if he wanted to come to the UK on the next available flight they would “ensure” that he would be able to enter the country. Since he had by this time already missed the wedding, and for the next couple of weeks his sister would be abroad on honeymoon, he naturally turned down this “kind offer”. I cried.
> It has not improved since then. It is now far worse.
Give small people a little bit of power and the results are very predictable.
Real lives > paper, that's the bit that people in uniform the world over seem to instantly forget the moment they put on their work clothes in the morning.
I've seen so many examples of this in my life by now that it hardly surprises me any more but I still absolutely boil at it every time I see another instance.
To be fair, this phenomenon is not exclusive to the uniformed. For example, I've talked to numerous freelancers who, after having a long discussion on the matter, basically admit to overcharging their small-business-owning clients in various ways.
They sell their clients 3000 euro WordPress sites with a custom theme where Wix/SquareSpace or one of the many solid $50 WordPress themes would suffice (or a plain custom theme for a few hundred bucks). A difference in money that is huge for a starting small business or freelancer!
Or worse, they sell a 3000 euro site with a self-built CMS and, when pressed, admit that part of the reason for not using WordPress or the like is that it makes the client rely on them more.
That's just an example in my field (or part of it). But based on the many odd jobs I've had and companies I've worked in, this is pretty common.
My impression so far is that when an interaction between people becomes an explicit transaction involving money, we sort of forget about the person and tend to think in more abstract measures like money or favors or whatnot. I don't like it, and (partly) as a result I'm making it harder for myself to get rich. Thankfully web development is enough in demand that I can make choices in the matter.
I think that interactions between - supposedly - consenting business owners and ordinary people at the mercy of those in uniform are not to be compared.
The first have plenty of options, the second have none.
I wonder how much the increased rates of unpredictable deportations is costing airlines, given that they're responsible for paying deportees' return flights.
I wondered why a “French scholar” would have so much trouble. Near the end, he reveals: “Maybe it's my birthplace, Egypt [..]”, which, if indeed he looks Egyptian and not French, goes a long way towards explaining it. Racism is a thing.
I was going by wikipedia "He emigrated to France with his family in 1956 due to the rise of antisemitism in Egypt.", but if we click through to the source for that statement we get
Wikipedia on the Nasser expulsions, didn't know about this before:
>As a result of the Suez Crisis, Nasser brought in a set of regulations imposing rigorous requirements for residency and citizenship as well as forced expulsions, mostly affecting British and French nationals and Jews with foreign nationality, as well as many Egyptian Jews. Some 25,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish community left in 1956, mainly for Israel, Europe, the United States and South America.
Something along these lines (although by far not that bad) happened to me when I traveled to NYC for vacation of New Years Eve 2016/2017(this was before Trump took office). At the border control I was asked to follow the officer and wait in a room. I was waiting with a couple of other people but most people there were only waiting because of small formalities with their passports and they could leave after a couple of minutes. I thought it will be the same for me. However in my case the officer who was also checking my passport at the border control asked me to follow him into a separate room where I had to do a 40 minutes interview telling him basically my entire life history (names of all my relatives, where they live, which countries I have visited, all my social media accounts). I did so and the officer was friendly and after the interview I asked him why such a thorough interview. He responded that this is above his pay grade. the computer spits out names randomly and this was a level 1 interview. If he had been more suspicious of my answers the interview would have taken much longer. This was probably due to my background and name. My mother is from Iran and my father from Turkey.
One month later (Trump was already in office) I had to travel again to the US (this time to LA) and I had zero problems but probably because they already had all the information.
> Something along these lines (although by far not that bad) happened to me when I traveled to NYC for vacation of New Years Eve 2016/2017(this was before Trump took office).
Incidents like this have probably happened hundreds of thousands of times throughout history, at customs checkpoints for many different countries. But now that Donald Trump is the president of the United States, a certain percentage of the ones that pertain to entry into the US will become international news stories that will routinely make it to the front page of HN.
Anecdotal incident: My friends and I were held for 2+ hours driving into Canada once, ~16 years ago. All 4 of us were questioned separately. Vehicle repeatedly searched very thoroughly. shrug
I've always chalked it up to it being a fairly boring and unrewarding job and they made a wrong judgement on who we might be or something.
I still think that it became "worse" over time although and that's started to happen way before Trump.
I February 2002 I traveled to NYC and back then I had a glaring visa stamp from Iran on the first page of my passport. At the border control the officer asked me about that visa and why I had it.
I told him that I was visiting relatives and he was satisfied with that answer.
Approx. 2 years ago I was traveling to Boston and then had another check at the border and this time I was asked some basic questions (where I go, what my purpose of visit, etc) for 10 minutes in a separate room.
The last visit to NYC in 2016 was a thorough 40 minute of questioning. So in my experience it definitely got "worse"
In 2007 I crossed the border on bus going from Montreal to NY. The girl I was travelling with was accused of illegal importation of fruits because she was carrying an apple for the trip.
Not your parent commenter, but I was on a bus once from Toronto to NYC. One of my fellow passengers had a coconut confiscated at the border. We all felt sorry for him, but when he got back on the bus, he pulled out a second coconut from his coat. :)
More interesting, my neighbor on that bus ride did not possess a passport nor even a photo ID! He was Amish and had no problems crossing the border. His papers (which I examined) included a handwritten description of his appearance.
It might seem silly to you but I think that the import controls to protect domestic agriculture make sense and preventing unintentional/incidental imports like this one is an important part of CBP's job.
They should spend more time on this and less time on rejecting visitors to the US.
Unfortunately government employees can be remarkably bureaucratic and power trip. They should quarantine or destroy incidental contraband like individual apples and let people get on with their business.
No, it IS silly. People carry little bits of food with them to eat while traveling, they've been doing that as long as there have been people.
Clearly this has nothing to do with importing apples at a level with which the border patrol needs to be concerned, it's just some lowlife official flexing his/her muscle.
They're not asking about fruit because they're worried you may sell that single apple and drive a farmer out of business. The spread of agricultural pests and diseases is a major problem.
Of course that apple will end up carrying a scary agricultural pest from Canada to the USA.
Really, this is totally over the top. It's not like we're talking about a an apple that you couldn't buy on either side of the border without any differences whatsoever.
And it could easily be that that apple was produced in the USA to begin with (or further South).
From a pest spreading perspective this makes no sense.
Going through the Southern barricade on foot I could see the point, going from Canada into the USA by bus with an apple it makes zero sense, especially since the pest you so helpfully linked here is widespread on both sides of the border anyway, besides the fact that it was extremely unlikely to carry that particular pest since it was sold as fit for consumption.
Or did you feel that because it came from Canada that there was some terrible risk that would not have been present had it come from any one of the other 49 states?
Are you arguing that agricultural controls at land border crossings are ineffectual and should be dismantled?
That seems to go against (what appears to be) global scientific consensus that controls like these are helpful in slowing the spread of invasive species.
Or are you just arguing there should be exemptions for small amounts?
I am arguing that if there is no clear danger one should not go overboard, proportionality is what matters.
The USA and Canada are to all intents and purposes one when it comes to this kind of control. There are some borders that have been constructed with a biological air-gap in mind but that's not one of them.
And it is effective because it is both deep and there are no easy ways around it.
I've visited places where there was definite risk of contamination and there are plenty of historic examples (of whole continents, for that matter, such as Australia) where eco-systems were upset by bringing in pests, diseases, new predators or animals without local predators so I'm well aware of the risk.
But border guards going overboard because of an apple makes zero sense to me, it is an over-reaction to something that is not a threat.
Yes, hypothetically you might be able to find a path through which a new disease might spread from one country to another because of a single apple. But since we allow animals to freely roam the Canadian/US border at will, since all the diseases that might affect your apple orchard as far as I'm aware are spread on both sides of the border since as long as we can remember in most cases and since that apple could have easily been inspected on carrying some kind of scary insect (which likely wasn't present or the owner would not have brought it) and everything else it might carry (some kind of blight) would likely not be carried past the point where it would survive normal indigestion and disposal the risk is so vanishingly small that it becomes a display of power rather than something useful.
Case in point: The many apples that I've carried from one side of the border to the other without so much as a batted eye. It's either consistent enforcement or you might as well not enforce at all and I highly doubt the US/Canadian border is so well established that it would not be possible to carry truckloads of apples across if one were so inclined.
Not all of the border is patrolled, even though you might believe other wise.
When the pig disease fear was in full swing the measures were laughably inefficient and inconsistent, and that was an actual threat with serious risk of contagion.
West Nile is another nice example: Mosquitoes don't see that imaginary line we call a border. Same with ant species, beetles and other big time destroyers of lives or crops.
Having the border patrol confiscate apples might sell a few more apples South of the border and it might give the official a boner but it isn't going to achieve much to keep a country safer, rather the opposite, it's going to cause people to find creative ways to get their stuff across the border with the chance that someone does smuggle a box with seed potatoes carrying blight across un-noticed.
And that would be a problem. An apple clearly intended for consumption is no more dangerous than any other item intended for consumption including sandwiches, liquids and so on.
If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
Well put. Thank you. Absolutely crazy to think sending someone back because of an apple is in any way justifiable between two countries with such a long shared border.
Sounds to me like you have a problem with the over-zealous enforcement of the rule, rather than the rule itself.
While I agree the enforcement can be over-zealous (I've seen it first hand), I think if it wasn't produce it would just be something else they'd nitpick. It's the mentality of the guards that's the problem.
And what type of system would you propose as an alternative? A threshold based on actual risk? Well then every type of produce is going to have different limits. And what about different sub-species of the same fruit? If Macintosh apples are a bigger risk than Red Delicious, surely they should have different limits. It's only fair. Now you're counting on a traveller (and border guard) to be able to know the difference between a myriad list of produce types. Good luck with that.
I'd argue, that such a system would lead to slower crossings, higher costs, and less focus on more important matters like security threats. The rule itself may be extreme but makes a lot of sense in the context of processing millions of travellers efficiently.
Just as with software, simple, easy to understand paradigms are usually better.
>If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. In the interest of balancing risk and expediency "no produce allowed" seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to me. Even children can understand it. Heck, even non-English speakers could be made to understand it with some well designed signage.
Anyways, there are way bigger issues with border crossing rules and procedures. It just seems like an odd issue to be so passionate about in this day and age.
It is not silly. People carry necesities of life while traveling, but there have been deadly plages since there has been long distance traveling too.
It is imposible to know in advance everything any traveler might have on their person at the time of crossing the border, so everything that is not explicitly whitelisted should not be forbidden by default; and it is travelers duty to know the list of permitted things well in advance. It this is not the case right now, it means airlines and travel agencies are externalizing the cost of educating their customers, and this is reflected in the form of needless risks to public health.
I don't know you, but I would hate to be a farmer that looses the family's apple orchard to a foreign parasite that got introduced by some dumb tourist, just because the fat-cat air industy need to sale cheap tickets to anyone with a pulse and cannot afford to send a damned brochure to the buyers' address.
Yes, we all would hate to be that farmer, unfortunately for you that farmer as far as we know does not exist and is a hypothetical. There are as far as I know no pests that exist North of the border that do not exist South of it (though the reverse does occasionally happen).
Of course all the good little boys and girls will only eat apples locally grown to make sure such terrible dangers will not befall the local farmers and to avoid 'needless risks to public health'.
It is obvious to you that apples cannot bring any pests. Last time I checked you were an IT professional, not an epidemiologist; so please forgive me if I am skeptical of you abilities to judge whether the assertation up there is true or not. Actually, I am skeptical of the abilities of the average tourist to judge whether the thing they are already biased to do for their own comfort is against the public good or not.
But anyways... we were talking apples, what about oranges? What about pets? Do we really need to go through the list of all possible things that all possible travelers might think they are entitled to carry on their person? Wouldn't you agree that a rule that is not simple enough to be executed by your random clerk is, for all practical purposes, unenforceable?
So, even if apples are sort of OK to bring in, they still should be banned until it is throughly demonstrated that they are OK to bring in. And the resources needed for that through demonstration can only happen if enough people want to bring those apples (and maybe pay a customs fare for it).
I can take an apple from where I'm sitting to the Turkish border 2000+ km away without anybody batting an eye but somehow miraculously an apple in the possession of a traveler from Canada to the USA or the other way around is a huge danger.
As for me being an IT professional: yes, that's my main occupation. But besides that I have a rather wide interest (as in pretty much anything that I can read that I can get my hands on) and have also lived on the Canadian/US border.
And the thing that I recall is that every so often the USA would come up with some trumped-up reason to declare Canadian products/produce/whatever to be so dangerous that they could not possible cross the border any more, and more often than not (in fact, pretty much all the cases) were simply protectionism under the guise of safety.
Fearmongering in the name of commerce, what else is new?
1) Buy a Tesla car an send it hidden to China.
2) Take a Tesla car in China an send it to USA.
Both are totally different cases
Apples not only can carry diseases, they have an economical value also and this value can be surprisingly huge. The american apple sector means more than 3 billions of dollars each year. New fancy varieties supported by research and heavy marketing can represent a big chunk of this and have a strict copyright. This protected varieties can't be cloned or exported without a license of the company. Losing the control and exclusivity over your product valued in several million dollars is all except hilarious.
The problem is that an apple carrying a new disease across the frontier can be the difference between having millions of loses in agriculture or not. Believe it or not, their economic impact is far much worse than carrying a bag of drugs or a bomb. The solution is easy in any case.
I realize this is exceptional but I've spoken to a few Canadian friends who aren't bothering to visit the USA anymore. Avid travellers and hikes a lot of them are going to spend more time within their country and Europe during this presidency.
The simple idea that we might have to give our social media passwords is revolting more than a few... this story just adds to this feeling.
In addition to that, I now place a premium on flights that don't have connections through US. They just seem more attractive, even if at higher price.
I realize I might need to go to US, e.g. for business, and that's fine. But for sure the random weekend hiking in the Adirondacks is now way less likely to happen.
As a Canadian, I absolutely actively avoid flights connecting through the US even if it's a few hundred cheaper. Not subjecting myself to the horror of US customs just to fly to Europe.
People are naive if they think this has nothing to do with Trump. I know friends and relatives whose visa applications are now being routinely denied for no reason. The executive branch provides guidance on how to implement laws that are pretty vague. So they have wide discretion and control over the behavior of the border agent. Let's face it, the tough guy border agent is a mall cop. Once you tell him that your priority right now is to do "extreme vetting" of foreigners they are going to step over their boundaries. This is only the start of such stories and there will be more to come. Yesterday I read that a computer scientist from Nigeria was similarly detained and asked to write code. There is an excellent NYT story about how ICE has been empowered to make wide arrests and I am pretty sure they are routinely violating civil rights and Constitution every day now
Question your president and civil servants: "if you love the constitution so much, why don't you extend it to the border, and to immigrations matters in general?".
They are perfectly free to apply due process (or even common sense) at the border, it's just that they have not been forced to.
Most Americans don't even know what an H1-B is (or how visas work in general). They think foreigners can just show up in the US and "apply for citizenship".
No ideological provocations in HN comments, please. The community is divided enough on such a hot topic as it is—we don't need flamebait making it worse.
265 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 394 ms ] threadEdit: now that I'm aware that the text I'm reading is a translation, I see the errors. I guess my brain just filtered it out. Still awesome though!
"Berates" feels much closer than "shouts at", "engueuler" is not just general shouting there's a strong component of scolding to it.
Also "policewoman" if you want to carry gender across the translation, but I'd say "police officer" is just fine, french requires gendering, english does not.
Gender is important when we talk about "beating" people though.
I was reading it in English when I read that line and thought that didn't seem right. I mean, that would have been the title of the article.
Or it did and did not care, "police officer" is a perfectly valid translation for "policière", French is a highly gendered language, English significantly less so.
Every single time I've had a run-in with CBP or DHS they have (with two notable exceptions) come across as a hoard of malicious little fascists, delighting in how much power -- and how little oversight -- they'd been given over another person's life.
I was traveling shortly after 9/11 and the National Guard was deployed to many airports. Fair, calm, and respectful, they were a comparative delight to deal with.
engueuler. (transitive, informal) to give (someone) a roasting, to tell someone off. (reflexive, informal) to argue, to have a row.
So I think the officer just gave her a telling off.
A more idiomatic phrase in the US would be "she was chewed out".
e:fb
But it's clear, my personal close call at the US border was under Obama, and that I am far from calling him someone in love with justice.
Trump, OTOH, is the kind of person who wants to throw out all the Yemeni in case one of them is another Timothy McVeigh.
You can't really prove this. Something being said in the front of the camera with a fake smile on the face is one thing, documents being signed that are not released to the public is a different story.
Any king can claim to be innocent when a bishop is killed in his realm, and may in theory be innocent. One that said "oh, won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest" before the bloodshed can't expect to be believed innocent, though.
"[...] the shift — and the new enthusiasm that has come with it — seems to have encouraged pro-Trump political comments and banter that struck the officials as brazen or gung-ho, like remarks about their jobs becoming 'fun.' Those who take less of a hard line on unauthorized immigrants feel silenced, the officials said."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportat...
https://twitter.com/JameelJaffer/status/835842617103503361
I guess we'll be seeing more and more of this in the near future. I and other non citizens are now silenced. A few more laws like this to silence a few other anti-trmup groups and the USA will slowly creep into totalitarianism for fear of losing everything they have.
I'm just glad my birth country is Australia and I can happily return there before it gets really bad in the USA. The biggest problem I'm having is where shall I draw the line where I pack up my life here and return.
If he "didn't want them to happen" it would have been trivial to stop them. Would not even need a new law, a presidential speech would be enough.
When I applied for... it doesn't matter precisely what. I've forgotten, actually, but it was some piece of paper that foreigners need, and only foreigners. Anyway, when I applied for that I chanced upon an official who didn't have much sympathy for foreigners. I got my paper in the end, but it wasn't because of his helpfulness.
Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech to make that official speak a understandably to foreigners? Slur a little less, swallow fewer consonants?
An example of what? That the POTUS, who appoints the Homeland Security secretary, could, if they so wished, absolutely influence behavior and/or policy in the TSA?
>Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech
How about something like: "Any malevolent behavior and unnecessary harassement to visitors from border officials wont be tolerated?"
Realistic?
“If only the czar knew!”
The part where he mentions three officials immediately shouted down a man in unison after he protested about their treatment of the woman with the child is a perfect example of the cruel and over the top behavior I was witness to. It's also quite cowardly to need three people to do that and pathetic. I should say I was not often the victim, but just watching other people being treated in this way made me feel sick and I think it's something that should be addressed by the citizens, you should say denounce this sort of treatment of anyone. Anyone who gets pleasure out of causing any sort of suffering of another person should be removed from their post, based on my experiences that would require a complete overhaul from top to bottom.
Nothing has really changed with regards to how people are treated.
Do you mean to say that you are the French historian Henry Rousso?
Google's dictionary (wherever it comes from) has
> conjunction 2: used to indicate by comparison the way that something happens or is done
I think you're thinking of
> preposition 1: used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has
I never anticipated anybody would be so moronic as to think that.
I think the author of this article made the classic mistake of admitting he was being paid for work, which is forbidden with a regular US tourist visa. It turns out that he did have the right visa (or the type of work he was doing is permitted - it wasn't clear in the article), but as soon as you say that you're being paid, it sets off alarm bells.
My understanding -- reading between the lines -- is that if someone has been to the US on a J1 they are more likely to return and work illegally.
CBP screen based on this. It sucks, and has for a long time. I've not personally experienced any change post-Obama. The major variability is in the CBP agent, not in top-down policies.
At the end of the day you have to choose between open and closed borders. If you want to close your borders then screening is a tough business. The main difference between the US and the rest of the world is scale and desirability. A lot of people want to go there, more than any other country in the world. That makes it difficult!
If you're going to get paid, you need an appropriate visa.
Unfortunately some institutions don't understand this/don't want to understand this/tell you "it's fine, we do this all the time." But if you say the wrong thing at the border, you'll be denied entry and it'll get noted down for the next time you try and enter the country.
So I think it's relevant to the article because that's probably what the CBP agent was thinking. And the fact that he'd have been doing it for 30 years doesn't change anything.
Otherwise as French we don't need a visa just to visit the US, we are on the visa waiver program (ESTA).
No. There are plenty of situations where you can get paid in the USA without having a work visa. As you mentioned, the scholar in this article is one example. Another example: my spouse has a H-4, which is not a work visa, but has received employment authorization (EAD) and can get paid. Another example: athletes can enter the USA on a B-1, which is not a work visa, and get paid prize money.
We could keep going, but the point is that a rule with too many exceptions stops being useful and just becomes a false statement. This led the first CBP officer to incorrectly detain the scholar in the article. This also led the author of the original comment I replied to to visibly stop reading the article halfway through, and post to HN that the scholar did not have an appropriate visa and that it was the university's fault, both of which are explicitly debunked at the end of the article.
Seems you can get limited payment called an honorarium.
There's some more details here: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Pu...
I've travelled to the US quite a few times on different types of visas (lived and worked there for a few years). It's important to know yourself what is and isn't allowed, as some people will try and tell you "things are fine, we've done it loads of times" when in fact they don't understand the restrictions properly, and it'll be recorded against you and not them when you get denied entry.
An honorarium is sort of a funny thing because it's not really a payment, or at least that's the fiction. The theory is that it's more like a thank you gesture, very possibly at below market rates. Who knows what he actually said to CBP. If it was something to the effect of "Sure, I'm being paid for my speech," it's not hard to see this raising a flag.
There really is a broader lesson here that has nothing to do with the current US president or the US in particular.
Countries in general have a lot of rules about visitors working and what constitutes "working" from country to country. And many countries have rules about just about any business activities if you're on a tourist visa.
ADDED: Furthermore re: "things are fine, we've done it loads of times"
I don't get paid when I speak at events. But it's also the case that when I travel to Europe, I'm not sure I've ever been asked that question. It's usually "I'm attending a computer software conference" "in XYZ city" "I work for such and such" etc. If someone were getting paid, I could see it not coming up for years and suddenly it does for some reason and it's a problem.
Yes, the answer was in the article, but it was toward the end. Since many of these days skim articles or read HN comments first or some combination _and_ getting paid to do something for others is a common, if not defining aspect of "work" [0], her question is logical.
As for FUD spreading, before she even asked the question, she started by stating, "IANAL" which indicates anything said about the law should be taken with more than a bit of doubt.
So take a chill pill. Yes,it is important to answer the question to remove doubt or ambiguity, but there was no need to be rude or disrespectful or to berate her for asking a question!
[0] The societal definition of "work", not the physical sciences definition.
edit for spelling and formatting
ISNT PUTTING SOMEONE IN A ROOM FOR TWELVE HOURS FOR NO FUCKING REASON A CRIME
Source: I grew up in the UK where you (still) don't need to carry a drivers license. Meanwhile in the USA where I'm now a citizen I get a cold sweat if I forget my wallet when I take a 10 minute drive to buy some milk in case I'm pulled over by the cops..
Neither curiousgirl or I said the prof should have been detained.
Neither curiousgirl or I said his detention was legal.
Neither curiousgirl or I said we shouldn't fight the current climate.
Neither curiousgirl or I YELLED AT SOMEBODY ON THE INTERWEBS.
I pointed out that someone had a reasonable question, and asked it in a reasonable and respectful way, in a forum that supposedly is about discussion.
Y'all need to pick your battles. It shouldn't have been with either of us!!!
There's a convenient arrangement, but strictly speaking you commit an offence if you don't, when asked, give your driving licence.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crosshe...
This is an important difference between US and UK.
We have bad laws and they're not often used. The US has bad laws and they're used all the time.
By not immediately producing the document you've committed the offence. (Section 164(1-6), unless section 164(7) applies (it almost never does)) It's a defence to produce them not more than 7 days later, this is in section 164(8).
Strictly speaking: you need to carry your licence and produce when asked. You commit the offence if you do not immediately produce the licence, but it's a defence if you produce the licence within 7 days to a named police station.
> Nothing bad can happen to you (e.g. you can't be detained) for driving without your license on your person.
That's not correct. If officers need to identify you and they can't from the information you give you're going to have a bad time. They most certainly can detain you until they identify you. (If you're the driver.)
Lots of US law enforcement experts from overseas on the Interwebs these days.
https://f2.washington.edu/fm/globalsupport/honorarium-paymen...
Note in particular that the VWB (Visa Waiver - Business) encompasses this type of payment.
I don't remember exactly how it works, but last time I visited the USA for a conference, I think I ticked the 'business' box. I still got the awful interrogation they do, but I think everyone's noticed that's been standard for a few years now.
I would probably not personally pay for a trip to the US now.. I don't want to pay a lot of money in order to be rejected at the border.
EDIT (what to do): https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/829855684636274688
Is this article seriously suggesting i can't travel without a device or can't wipe before i go, because these CBP guys are so easily triggered?
The CBP actions and incidents as described by first hand accounts do not seem to define an institutional directive guiding the decisions as to who warrants further investigation, and more importantly, who warrants having their entry denied. From the article earlier today on Henry Rousso's experience, the Immigration Lawyer that helped secure Dr. Rousso's release suggested that agents themselves are looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit. [1]
This isn't to excuse their behavior - it's deplorable, but to suggest there is a rhyme or reason to what's happening isn't really sensible. The issues is emboldened agents abusing power, not an institutional directive.
Quite honestly, travelers worried about drawing the ire of the CBP don't have many reassurances right now since you're not looking for what makes you suspicious or unsuspicious to the CBP, you're trying to guess what makes you suspicious or not suspicious to the individual agent you're reaching.
The agents' attitude absolutely needs to be checked and unfortunately this likely means there will be more of these cases until something institutional is sent down to curb the behavior.
[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/french-historian-de...
If you come in with a tourist visa, the explicit legal presumption (opposite to presumption of innocence in criminal law) is that you're not fulfilling the conditions of the visa and actually intend to immigrate or work in USA, and the job given to the immigration officer is to interview you until (and if!) they become convinced that you really do meet the conditions - and if they aren't sure one way or another, then it's their duty to deny entry. It's not a new change coming in with Trump, it's that how USA immigration (sadly) works by design.
[1] from https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0... -
(b) Every alien 10/ (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .
FYI that article has a number of errors. Most notably that anyone can any person can detect lying better than someone else. It is simply not true. I do believe that they are trained to give oddly-phased questions, which is a technique.
Is that really a bad plan?
Edit: Also, the same guy explicitly encourages lying about your social media accounts two posts prior to that one. Which is it, chief?
The only real solution is to change government policy.
And that's based on personal experience, not based on things read on the internet.
If you want to make the US change, speak the language we speak: lawsuits. Sue, sue, sue. Call your embassy and demand that they pressure the White House to retract this stupid policy.
I'd be all in favor of other countries holding up any Americans coming through on a tourist visa. Maybe if enough of their friends gripe about the way they're being treated overseas, Trump country will think "Oh, it's really not a very nice way to treat people." (To say nothing of ineffective)
My takeaways were instead the following. (1) If one disagrees with the way the country is heading, one first has to understand the needs that drove people to Trump, and support people who fulfill those needs in a more positive way (rather than dismissing them). (2) Stop considering oneself absolved of blame if one didn't vote for Trump. One still participated in the environment that led to a Trump elector college victory, and is thus complicit.
Every day, not just election day.
They also most likely wield dis-proportionally large influence to get this nonsense stopped.
They don't need to be a privileged political class in order to wield more influence since influence tends to be loosely correlated with wealth. See also: Trumps billionaire cabinet.
About half of them voted for the people making these decisions and all of them pay taxes to a government that does terrible things all over the world.
It's perfectly legitimate for any country to treat US citizens exactly like US treats that country's citizens. Don't take it as punishment. Take it as equality.
Many people are obliged to do so as part of their job.
Personally I have entered about 10 times with zero issues, I'll probably need to go soon and I'm kind of curious if the general attitude is changing.
/s
Really, don't we ever learn lessons from history?
So, what are we supposed to learn from things that don't affect 99.9% of people? What exactly are you hinting at? If you've learned something from history that others haven't and that is germane to the situation, are you willing to bet money on it?
I'm sure someone will take the other side of the bet, that way we don't have to deal with the "kids these days" type of rhetoric that doesn't really prove anything about anything.
Very likely. And that's exactly the point.
Ego tripping and law enforcement should be kept apart at every opportunity.
For you this got blown out of proportion, because it does not affect you. But if it ever will affect you then I hope you will remember this thread and what it feels like when you're part of the 0.1% and nobody gives a fuck.
And everybody is part of some 0.1%, even if you haven't figured it out yet.
- many tens of billions extra will be spent on armaments (America first, sure)
- nationalism is at a roughly 70 year high in the Western world
- as is xenophobia
- in many countries politicians of extremely dubious character are waiting in the wings with elections around the corner
You're treating it like it is business as usual. And I can assure you that it is not. I haven't seen this kind of alignment as long as I've been alive.
Now let's hope things will get better before they get worse.
I don't see what you being an Iranian American has anything to do with it though, for all I care you could be born in Brooklyn or Paris, it would not make any difference to me.
And if you feel this story is blown out of proportion then I hope that your family is with you and will not attempt to join you anywhere in the next couple of years, noting how Iran was part of the not-Muslim ban.
Me being an Iranian american is relevant to this because we are one of the number one groups of people targeted in times like this in the US. Iran is a hostile geopolitical power to the US domination of middle eastern affairs. We are frequently singled out for likely 'terrorist' activities because of the mix of Islam, skin color and the past few administrations have been hinting that they are edging for conflict with Iran. If anyone is going to get rounded up into interment camps in the US it will probably be people like me.
As for the rest, I see one silver lining around almost all of the clouds which is that Trump & Company are absolutely incompetent. That's the only thing that's keeping things afloat right now, if they get their act together all bets are off.
I could say the same of British, Russian, German, and Chinese tourists.
This is why, even when vacationing inside the US, I avoid the tourist traps. They're full of jackasses, regardless of individual nationality. But it should also be noted that those same countries that routinely make the list of the world's worst tourists also top the lists of the worlds best tourists. When a tourist is well behaved, you barely notice them, but when they act up, you remember it.
which is?..
A civil, coherent, deliberate, and assertive response is a very good idea, though. Just don't give up on your values.
So, the policewoman bawled the woman out. No beating involved.
To me, that is mind blowingly good.
Will they do this to us when we travel abroad on a tourist visa?
Perhaps my biggest concern is this: How long until this pushes someone over the edge? It's precisely this kind of persistent harassment that can convince an angry, disaffected young man that, yes, the system really is rigged against him.
We shouldn't. A trait of civilized society is that it doesn't reciprocates on the barbarians with their methods.
Edit - if people are uncertain about re-entry, how are they supposed to make daily decisions, as simple as leasing an apartment.
It seems the decision by the officer was actually upheld by his/her direct superior (referring to the original. Translation: "Not being in possession of a federal document authorizing me to work in the United States, I am in violation. The decision will be confirmed later by his superior - that I will not have the opportunity to meet.").
It's more subtle than that. If it hadn't been for the very specific exception for scholars it would indeed have been work without a proper work visa.
I understand that for foreigners to see trump sworn into office and then all of these stories pop up would make them think america has changed so recently, but its not true. It like an episode of the Twilight Zone.
I don't want to subject myself to questionning and genuflecting just to travel somewhere, live and work where I please, I am too much used to crossing borders as if they didn't exist. (I am French and travelled accross Europe, never went to the US)
If this was just about tax rates and government spending policies no one would be nearly as upset.
To dial back the hyperbole for a second, we've seen this kind of story happening before Trump took office, and in countries other than the US. Crossing borders carries with it a non-zero chance that you'll be treated like total crap and even when you're lucky enough that the system corrects itself you'll almost certainly get no apology. Having said that, there is no reason why this kind of thing should be tolerated.
Edit: somebody else remembered the similar story from last year.
That said, I don't think it's all that strange to be extra worried now that Trump is in charge. It makes complete sense to think that things will get even worse under Trump, although I'm open to arguments to the contrary because I'd love to be proven wrong!
Look, this was a stupid decision made by a stupid officer. An officer who lives es in Aggie land too! (For those of you not in Texas, Aggies aka A&M people are known for being good old country levels of dumb, and are often the butt of jokes.)
Now, that's not an excuse, but this was an outlier fuckup that has happened for years before Trump, though I'm willing to grant its probably more likely to happen with overzealous people in this political climate.
Its funny that the UK has been doing stuff like this to vast amounts of US persons visiting the UK on the same bad understanding of people giving payed for speeches/debates, but everyone has suddenly forgotten about that.
Look, there is room for improvement, and officers in this position should be held to a higher standard by their superiors, but when all you have is a hammer(outrage mode), everything begins to look like a nail (outrageous action), so let's work on calming down and being a bit more rational and focused on practical ways to solve issues please.
https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4#.1079ksb...
HN thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11876453
They're free to run things the way they like, but please don't keep telling that UK is Europe... especially after they chose and got the Brexit... not a single true european will endorse its mistakes.
If I were in Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Serbia, Macedonia, or the Ukraine would it not be appropriate to say I was in Europe?
These are all quite clearly defined. Some (many?) may think that the EU is the same as Europe, but this is plainly false.
Throughout history the ties between what is now the UK and what is now continental Europe are deep and inseparably intertwined (both culturally and geographically); it is absurd to to claim that the UK is "always whimsical" (whatever that means) and does not reflect "true" European values, whatever those may be. Look even closer within the UK and the Republic of Ireland...how is one European and the other not?!
The UK is and will foverver be part of Europe, period. This has no bearing on your opinion of who is or is not a "true European."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Europe
But how will a true Scotsman feel about it?
What the UK wants to do to its own citizens is their problem, they can vote to change it.
I'm inclined to agree that the UK differs from mainland Europe in a number of ways. I can't judge if this is the case for border control, but it wouldn't surprise. I'd really like to hear both sides elaborate rather than the 'yes', 'but no' comments so far.
"This incident caused me some discomfort, difficult to deny. However, I can not help but think of all those who suffer these humiliations and legal violence without the protections I have been able to enjoy."
>I’m not going to apologise. I’ve been fighting this brutal nonsense since I was an MP’s assistant in the late 1980s. At the time the system was that a Member of Parliament could intervene on any deportation and by contacting the Home Office get it stopped until any questionable aspects were resolved. One evening I was the last to leave the office when a call came through from Heathrow. Normally I left the immigration stops to the more experienced caseworkers, however there was nobody but me available.
> So I listened to a tearful South African chap explaining that he had flown to the UK to be at the wedding of his sole surviving relative, his sister, the following day. All his papers were in order, but the immigration people had made one attempt to contact his sister and on not having the phone answered (on the afternoon before her wedding) had told him he was to be deported to South Africa. I got out the instructions on handling such cases and having taken the chap’s number and all the relevant details, and instructed him to tell the immigration people that Stuart Holland MP’s office were in the process of getting the Home Office to put a stop on his deportation. I then called the Home Office and got them to agree to do their part of the business.
> Next I rang Heathrow to talk to the South African chap. I was told it was too late he was already on a plane to Luxemburg. I called the Home Office again and asked them to forward a further stop to Luxemburg.
> Again they agreed to do do. By now the senior caseworker had got home so I was able to get her to take over.
> I was distressed to learn from her that whilst the authorities in Luxemburg had received instructions from the UK Home Office to stop the deportation, they had ignored it and placed him on a flight back to South Africa anyway. Apparently the Home Office had also agreed to apologise “for the inconvenience” and if he wanted to come to the UK on the next available flight they would “ensure” that he would be able to enter the country. Since he had by this time already missed the wedding, and for the next couple of weeks his sister would be abroad on honeymoon, he naturally turned down this “kind offer”. I cried.
> It has not improved since then. It is now far worse.
Real lives > paper, that's the bit that people in uniform the world over seem to instantly forget the moment they put on their work clothes in the morning.
I've seen so many examples of this in my life by now that it hardly surprises me any more but I still absolutely boil at it every time I see another instance.
They sell their clients 3000 euro WordPress sites with a custom theme where Wix/SquareSpace or one of the many solid $50 WordPress themes would suffice (or a plain custom theme for a few hundred bucks). A difference in money that is huge for a starting small business or freelancer!
Or worse, they sell a 3000 euro site with a self-built CMS and, when pressed, admit that part of the reason for not using WordPress or the like is that it makes the client rely on them more.
That's just an example in my field (or part of it). But based on the many odd jobs I've had and companies I've worked in, this is pretty common.
My impression so far is that when an interaction between people becomes an explicit transaction involving money, we sort of forget about the person and tend to think in more abstract measures like money or favors or whatnot. I don't like it, and (partly) as a result I'm making it harder for myself to get rich. Thankfully web development is enough in demand that I can make choices in the matter.
The first have plenty of options, the second have none.
Let's not rule out that his skin color is on the lighter side of the spectrum.
http://www.jta.org/2017/02/25/news-opinion/united-states/u-s... (caution, stupid modal) which says
"He and his family were forced out of Egypt in 1956 under anti-Semitic measures instituted by the Nasser regime."
NPOV working about as well as it usually does there.
>As a result of the Suez Crisis, Nasser brought in a set of regulations imposing rigorous requirements for residency and citizenship as well as forced expulsions, mostly affecting British and French nationals and Jews with foreign nationality, as well as many Egyptian Jews. Some 25,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish community left in 1956, mainly for Israel, Europe, the United States and South America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser
Incidents like this have probably happened hundreds of thousands of times throughout history, at customs checkpoints for many different countries. But now that Donald Trump is the president of the United States, a certain percentage of the ones that pertain to entry into the US will become international news stories that will routinely make it to the front page of HN.
I've always chalked it up to it being a fairly boring and unrewarding job and they made a wrong judgement on who we might be or something.
I February 2002 I traveled to NYC and back then I had a glaring visa stamp from Iran on the first page of my passport. At the border control the officer asked me about that visa and why I had it. I told him that I was visiting relatives and he was satisfied with that answer. Approx. 2 years ago I was traveling to Boston and then had another check at the border and this time I was asked some basic questions (where I go, what my purpose of visit, etc) for 10 minutes in a separate room. The last visit to NYC in 2016 was a thorough 40 minute of questioning. So in my experience it definitely got "worse"
More interesting, my neighbor on that bus ride did not possess a passport nor even a photo ID! He was Amish and had no problems crossing the border. His papers (which I examined) included a handwritten description of his appearance.
They should spend more time on this and less time on rejecting visitors to the US.
Unfortunately government employees can be remarkably bureaucratic and power trip. They should quarantine or destroy incidental contraband like individual apples and let people get on with their business.
No, it IS silly. People carry little bits of food with them to eat while traveling, they've been doing that as long as there have been people.
Clearly this has nothing to do with importing apples at a level with which the border patrol needs to be concerned, it's just some lowlife official flexing his/her muscle.
They're not asking about fruit because they're worried you may sell that single apple and drive a farmer out of business. The spread of agricultural pests and diseases is a major problem.
Really, this is totally over the top. It's not like we're talking about a an apple that you couldn't buy on either side of the border without any differences whatsoever.
And it could easily be that that apple was produced in the USA to begin with (or further South).
From a pest spreading perspective this makes no sense.
Going through the Southern barricade on foot I could see the point, going from Canada into the USA by bus with an apple it makes zero sense, especially since the pest you so helpfully linked here is widespread on both sides of the border anyway, besides the fact that it was extremely unlikely to carry that particular pest since it was sold as fit for consumption.
Or did you feel that because it came from Canada that there was some terrible risk that would not have been present had it come from any one of the other 49 states?
That seems to go against (what appears to be) global scientific consensus that controls like these are helpful in slowing the spread of invasive species.
Or are you just arguing there should be exemptions for small amounts?
The USA and Canada are to all intents and purposes one when it comes to this kind of control. There are some borders that have been constructed with a biological air-gap in mind but that's not one of them.
This is one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap
And it is effective because it is both deep and there are no easy ways around it.
I've visited places where there was definite risk of contamination and there are plenty of historic examples (of whole continents, for that matter, such as Australia) where eco-systems were upset by bringing in pests, diseases, new predators or animals without local predators so I'm well aware of the risk.
But border guards going overboard because of an apple makes zero sense to me, it is an over-reaction to something that is not a threat.
Yes, hypothetically you might be able to find a path through which a new disease might spread from one country to another because of a single apple. But since we allow animals to freely roam the Canadian/US border at will, since all the diseases that might affect your apple orchard as far as I'm aware are spread on both sides of the border since as long as we can remember in most cases and since that apple could have easily been inspected on carrying some kind of scary insect (which likely wasn't present or the owner would not have brought it) and everything else it might carry (some kind of blight) would likely not be carried past the point where it would survive normal indigestion and disposal the risk is so vanishingly small that it becomes a display of power rather than something useful.
Case in point: The many apples that I've carried from one side of the border to the other without so much as a batted eye. It's either consistent enforcement or you might as well not enforce at all and I highly doubt the US/Canadian border is so well established that it would not be possible to carry truckloads of apples across if one were so inclined.
Not all of the border is patrolled, even though you might believe other wise.
When the pig disease fear was in full swing the measures were laughably inefficient and inconsistent, and that was an actual threat with serious risk of contagion.
West Nile is another nice example: Mosquitoes don't see that imaginary line we call a border. Same with ant species, beetles and other big time destroyers of lives or crops.
Having the border patrol confiscate apples might sell a few more apples South of the border and it might give the official a boner but it isn't going to achieve much to keep a country safer, rather the opposite, it's going to cause people to find creative ways to get their stuff across the border with the chance that someone does smuggle a box with seed potatoes carrying blight across un-noticed.
And that would be a problem. An apple clearly intended for consumption is no more dangerous than any other item intended for consumption including sandwiches, liquids and so on.
If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's not in any way common to be "sent back" for this.
While I agree the enforcement can be over-zealous (I've seen it first hand), I think if it wasn't produce it would just be something else they'd nitpick. It's the mentality of the guards that's the problem.
And what type of system would you propose as an alternative? A threshold based on actual risk? Well then every type of produce is going to have different limits. And what about different sub-species of the same fruit? If Macintosh apples are a bigger risk than Red Delicious, surely they should have different limits. It's only fair. Now you're counting on a traveller (and border guard) to be able to know the difference between a myriad list of produce types. Good luck with that.
I'd argue, that such a system would lead to slower crossings, higher costs, and less focus on more important matters like security threats. The rule itself may be extreme but makes a lot of sense in the context of processing millions of travellers efficiently.
Just as with software, simple, easy to understand paradigms are usually better.
>If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. In the interest of balancing risk and expediency "no produce allowed" seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to me. Even children can understand it. Heck, even non-English speakers could be made to understand it with some well designed signage.
Anyways, there are way bigger issues with border crossing rules and procedures. It just seems like an odd issue to be so passionate about in this day and age.
It is imposible to know in advance everything any traveler might have on their person at the time of crossing the border, so everything that is not explicitly whitelisted should not be forbidden by default; and it is travelers duty to know the list of permitted things well in advance. It this is not the case right now, it means airlines and travel agencies are externalizing the cost of educating their customers, and this is reflected in the form of needless risks to public health.
I don't know you, but I would hate to be a farmer that looses the family's apple orchard to a foreign parasite that got introduced by some dumb tourist, just because the fat-cat air industy need to sale cheap tickets to anyone with a pulse and cannot afford to send a damned brochure to the buyers' address.
Of course all the good little boys and girls will only eat apples locally grown to make sure such terrible dangers will not befall the local farmers and to avoid 'needless risks to public health'.
It is obvious to you that apples cannot bring any pests. Last time I checked you were an IT professional, not an epidemiologist; so please forgive me if I am skeptical of you abilities to judge whether the assertation up there is true or not. Actually, I am skeptical of the abilities of the average tourist to judge whether the thing they are already biased to do for their own comfort is against the public good or not.
But anyways... we were talking apples, what about oranges? What about pets? Do we really need to go through the list of all possible things that all possible travelers might think they are entitled to carry on their person? Wouldn't you agree that a rule that is not simple enough to be executed by your random clerk is, for all practical purposes, unenforceable?
So, even if apples are sort of OK to bring in, they still should be banned until it is throughly demonstrated that they are OK to bring in. And the resources needed for that through demonstration can only happen if enough people want to bring those apples (and maybe pay a customs fare for it).
I can take an apple from where I'm sitting to the Turkish border 2000+ km away without anybody batting an eye but somehow miraculously an apple in the possession of a traveler from Canada to the USA or the other way around is a huge danger.
As for me being an IT professional: yes, that's my main occupation. But besides that I have a rather wide interest (as in pretty much anything that I can read that I can get my hands on) and have also lived on the Canadian/US border.
And the thing that I recall is that every so often the USA would come up with some trumped-up reason to declare Canadian products/produce/whatever to be so dangerous that they could not possible cross the border any more, and more often than not (in fact, pretty much all the cases) were simply protectionism under the guise of safety.
Fearmongering in the name of commerce, what else is new?
1) Buy a Tesla car an send it hidden to China. 2) Take a Tesla car in China an send it to USA.
Both are totally different cases
Apples not only can carry diseases, they have an economical value also and this value can be surprisingly huge. The american apple sector means more than 3 billions of dollars each year. New fancy varieties supported by research and heavy marketing can represent a big chunk of this and have a strict copyright. This protected varieties can't be cloned or exported without a license of the company. Losing the control and exclusivity over your product valued in several million dollars is all except hilarious.
"Traveling for a scientific, educational, professional or business convention, or a conference on specific dates" is an intended use case of the visa type. (https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-visito...)
However, you cannot get paid for it. In addition the conference must not be about recruiting.
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Pu...
> Lecturer or speaker: If honorarium will be received, ... [list of conditions that the scholar in the article visibly meets].
It baffles my mind why multiple people in this HN thread keep suggesting that the scholar in the article didn't have an appropriate visa.
The simple idea that we might have to give our social media passwords is revolting more than a few... this story just adds to this feeling.
I realize I might need to go to US, e.g. for business, and that's fine. But for sure the random weekend hiking in the Adirondacks is now way less likely to happen.
The companies like FB give up your data freely anyway. That's assuming the NSA doesn't already have it anyway.
They are perfectly free to apply due process (or even common sense) at the border, it's just that they have not been forced to.
This would make most Americans really happy. We don't want H-1Bs.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745607 and marked it off-topic.