US bars friends over Twitter joke
thesun.co.uk
thesun.co.uk
Truthfully, I wouldn't have expected this from America, they're the kind of jokes I could imagine myself making on Twitter, but will be careful not to before future trips there..
This is pretty much what I think of when going to China, and what makes me specially careful not to say anything the Chinese could take as a threat. Heh, last time I went we were doing some IPTV streaming from an event, and where given a list of words which, if anyone said on air, would have us all deported within hours.
edit: To people complaining about The Sun - yes, it's a crappy rag, but this is basically a story that no news outlet would hear of unless the people involved sold/gave their story, and there's no reason they wouldn't go to The Sun, where they could reasonably expect to get a little more $$$ than if they went to the BBC.
Whenever I see the heavily armed and militarized police in US and how they react to protesters, it's like I'm watching news about Russia or something.
Certainly not perfect (especially not if you were black, Japanese, gay or communist), that would be a silly claim, but freer.
I'll agree with you that the civil rights movement beginning in the 1960s was necessary for the United States to extend the benefits of freedom to all its citizens. But universal suffrage for women came significantly earlier in the United States than it did in Switzerland, for example, and black people in my state (Minnesota) have always been able to vote and to own property and to marry whomever of whatever race and so on since before Minnesota became a state (which, indeed, was one of the points of the Dred Scott case, in which a slave tried to become free by claiming that his passage through the free territory of Minnesota should end his condition of slavery). The Civil War was a necessary reaction to totalitarian denial of basic human rights by the Confederate states, and the civil rights movement after World War II was a necessary response to the deplorable segregation that still occurred in those states long after the Civil War, but everyone in some regions of the United States has long recognized that slavery and Jim Crow segregation were both aberrations, gone in some states from the beginning, and always contrary to the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (and the bills of rights in various state constitutions).
I do hope that we can make a better future, but it is not like the past was the greatest thing either.
It's as if Mother Liberty was the Goddess herself: for whenever two nations come into a fight, people in both are always saying that "God is on our side"...
This is also why the concept of free will is so problematic: how free does will have to be to be called free will? Does it have to be free from the laws of physics? Does it have to be free from coercion?
I think there are more concepts where we have it the wrong way around like this.
I feel like free will doesn't have much to do with the kind of freedom we're talking about, though. If some other human being (or group) has the ability to make you do something you don't want to do, that's a problem of freedom, not free will. (After all, you could decide not to do that thing and suffer the consequences).
Free will is much more about things that you have no ability whatsoever to actually make that decision in the first place, whether because of the manipulative hand of some supernatural force, or via some radical rationalist explanation of decision making.
I understand the distinction you're making between freedom and free will; I mentioned it because the compatibilist notion of free will is what you're calling freedom here. But yeah, it's probably not too relevant to the original discussion.
Edit: thanks for the clarification, koningrobot,
By 1930, of course, the KKK had a significant political presence in Indiana, and at this point, white rural Hoosiers hate blacks with the best of them, but I was surprised to learn that that attitude came well after the end of the Civil War.
Point is, it's always been a fight.
What's especially depressing is that the commitment to paranoia and the dismantling of due process, civil rights, etc., is 100% bipartisan; there are no serious political voices taking a stand against it. Bush was of course bad; Obama -- my last great hope -- has extended and amplified everything that Bush did. And Obama's opponents are essentially unified in their position that Obama's chief failure has been to not dismantle due process and civil rights quickly enough. At this point, I think that Obama is probably still the lesser evil, but that's too damned evil for me to vote for.
I don't see any prospects for this reversing itself. Carry this trend out another decade or two, and it means the end of the American republic. There's nothing extraordinary about this thought: over long enough timeframes, great nations collapse all the time, and this is more or less the blueprint they follow when they do it: increasing paranoia about being beset by enemies both external and domestic; dismantling of internal political apparatus and centralisation of political power with a single individual; increasing inability to balance a budget, tolerate dissent, maintain infrastructure, etc. I fear that the present era will be remembered alongside Rome in the late 4th century, Spain in the early 1930s, etc.
I hope I'm wrong, and that those who stay can somehow turn it around. But at this point I'm glad I left.
In any case, a belief in civil liberties shouldn't even be a discrete political position; it should be the bedrock on which all political positions are founded. When one candidate defines themselves as "pro-liberty" -- as opposed to all those other guys -- the game is already lost. Should they win power, they'll need to claim extraordinary powers in order to reinstate "liberty" -- undermining democratic institutions in the process, and thus the actual mechanisms that guarantee liberty.
In fact this is more or less exactly what happened with both Bush and Obama, and I'm pretty sure that the same thing would happen with Paul. His message is: "I will give you liberty" -- not "I will ensure that the institutional checks and balances which act as guarantors of liberty are maintained and reinforced". In fact he rarely shows anything other than contempt for those institutions. Therefore I do not believe he would be a friend of liberty.
There is no reason to assume that Paul will turn evil as soon as he gets the Presidency. This is a different question from whether he will be able to be effective or not, and my belief is that he would not be able to do almost anything he wants to do, and that a Paul presidency would accelerate our plunge into chaos and anarchy, but I don't believe Paul himself would be corrupted and start ignoring the Constitutional stipulations on executive power.
[citation needed]
You are way off base on this one and have nothing to back this up. Ron Paul has consistently been for every American. He is for repealing Roe v. Wade and allowing states to decide on abortion rights, he has been outspoken on the bias of prison sentences and the death penalty on minorities, and is against a federal mandate on marriage. Those positions are exactly contrarian to the ones you are attempting to assign to him.
I'm not sure why you think his understanding of economics is "loony" as he is the ONLY member of congress that predicted the housing collapse YEARS before it happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc)
Neither Bush nor Obama ever championed liberty. Ron Paul is a completely different animal. He isn't promising to GIVE you anything — he's promising to reduce government to get OUT of your life. Big difference.
Abortion rights... well from this side of the pond we think it's nutty that anyone in your country can want abortion to be illegal, literally crazy. But whatever your view, pro-choice can argue that they're fighting for woman's rights, pro-life cannot - you can argue you're fighting for the rights of babies, meaning it's an issue not relevant to whether Ron Paul is good for women.
In the past he has somehow tried to blame those sexually harrassed in the workplace for being sexually harrassed - something that is far more a women's issue than not.
Overall he's a far-right (shockingly not the furthest right thanks to batshit teapartyers) Republican. I get that there are Americans who agree with his views, but don't try and argue that his views on these topics are universally considered correct - even in America.
Whether abortion should be legal or illegal is another discussion I guess.
No candidate (actually, no party) really gives a f* if you "happen to be female, non-white, or gay". It's just a market niche they are milking, with the Democrats appealing to the "progressive" masses and the Republicans to the "conservative" ones.
In actuality they could not care less. Blacks, hispanics, women, gay, is not where the money (contributions, under the table, campaign funding, post-congress job waiting, etc) come from.
People voting with those issues in mind (either pro or against) are sucked into this false dichotomy.
I'd rather people voted for the ACTUAL issues, which mostly amount to FREEDOM, the ECONOMY, and FOREIGN POLITICS.
(Using tinyurl because the "real" url ends in a colon, and HN has a problem with that).
You get used to it.
It sucks, very very badly. I wish I could stop going back. But all of my people are there, almost without exception.
The US may be far from perfect, but it's important as a country founded upon the right ideas. If it crumbles, we all lose, regardless of where we live.
There's no un-ratcheting the loss of freedoms there. It no longer has basic liberties or the rule of law, and it's actively dangerous to anyone trying to bring about changes to that status.
And then there was perception --just not being aware of what was allowed and not. I do recall people telling me that mocking the president was not allowed. Anyhow, I'm back and I feel ok. It could be better, idealistically, I suppose, but it's not as bad as it would seem, vis a vis other places.
Good luck getting rid of stupid when stupid has a budget.
I love that line. Catchy.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Upton Sinclair
Being French, I've always wanted to visit the US, and I'd love to come work / build a startup in the Silicon Valley. I'm really interested in American culture: I read mostly american books, and hang out on various English communities (reddit, HN, ...).
But, over the last few years, I've been following closely the various US policies (TSA, press freedom, wikileaks), and I have decided this country is not for me, at least for now. If I were to emigrate, I'd go to Germany or Canada, not the US.
That said, I might be biased by all the stories I see on Reddit...
I highly recommend San Francisco in particular. We have a decent sized French expat population, and the city is fairly multi-cultural and liberal, even by European standards, I think. Once you arrive here, you're in driving range of stunning natural beauty--redwood forests, SF Bay, Yosemite National Park, Big Sur, etc.
To be fair, I realize my impression is probably slanted because of the origin and type of foreign news I'm exposed to.
This does not represent the people US who generally like tourists and will be delighted and impressed by your accent, and helpful to show you around our country. (Yes, even in New York City!) Don't be put off by a few assholes, unfortunately we have them here too.
It's funny but I feel much more comfortable visiting China.
The list itself was really short, it was more interesting for the fact that our video game streams would be watched closely and that we would get kicked out of the country, than for it's content.
We called it "the Ts", off the top of my head the banned words/topics were Taiwan (call it "Chinese Taipei"), Tiananmen, Tibet.. and there were two others, both (I think) beginning with the letter T.
Refusal of access means that they'll never get in on the visa waiver program and any employment in the future that might be with a multi-national will be limited by their ability to travel. They just won't be able to enter the USA without going through an arduously long process every time.
I've been telling my friends for the longest time to moderate everything that they say on the internet, in private and in public. Little of it will be used in your favour, and all of it can and will be used against you.
It's not far from the way you would have to think if you were living under the Stasi. You'd have to think about how your public actions could be perceived, and you'd have to consider whether you trust any present parties for private actions.
The biggest difference between people today and people under the Stasi is the awareness of it. Those under the Stasi knew to change their actions.
The only thing to which these two are guilty of, is a failure to understand that this is not the world they thought it was.
I wholeheartedly agree with that XKCD comic. However the thing is... speaking openly and care free, accepting the consequences of your actions into the future.... those are things that you need to know you're doing.
That is: If you put your foot in it because you hold beliefs about the freedom of expression, then you do so knowingly. If you put your foot in it because you believe the world to be innocent, then you pay the price disproportionately.
I just don't think people should be innocent about the world around them and how it (their government, big business, everything) works.
This debate brings to mind this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_com...
If we don't know we're constantly being interrogated, then how can we prevent ourselves from defecting by accident?
Interesting read, thanks for that.
Brings to mind forum flamewars and the like. I wonder how a community would evolve if the default post were a private reply, instead of a public one, or if public replies were throttled in some manner?
Also, sometimes I feel that working in a stack-ranked group encourages defecting behaviour.
Really? Are you sure? They've never been before and it doesn't look like they'd even want to go after this. I haven't been to the US since 1999 and I don't feel screwed in any way shape or form.
Plenty of multi-nationals don't require you to travel to the states, even here in the UK. Travelling to the US is expensive, holding conference calls in the afternoon is much cheaper.
> It's not far from the way you would have to think if you were living under the Stasi.
You'll have to forgive me for finding this a little hyperbolic. Not as hyperbolic as I'd like, but still fairly hyperbolic.
There are quite a few billions of people who never went or will go to the US - with little effect on their life.
"Welcome to America, home of the corrupt and the beuracrats"
Airport security stuff annoys me to no end in other places too because half of them, or more than half, seem to literally be standing around doing nothing and the other half do their jobs rudely.
I ended up visiting anyway (I really wanted to research Philly Cheesesteaks, Maine Lobster and see the colours of the New England Autumn/Fall), but I definitely thought long and hard about it and was apprehensive.
I also made sure my medical travel insurance was solid.
Now, maybe I live in a paranoid white-male bubble that reads about this stuff, and that informed my apprehension, but I personally think it would turn off many, many people from visiting.
That's only true for countries under the U.S. Visa Waiver, which are maybe 5% of the world's population (basically European Union and Australia).
For the remaining 93% of us, we have to think long and hard and plan far ahead before visiting the U.S., and that means being aware of all the issues or risk deportation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program
And yes, I believe it does affect conversion significantly, but, coincidentally, we're the poorer 93% .
"Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush Administration decided to tighten entry requirements into the United States"
I even was a few meters from the U.S. (Niagara Falls) and avoided going because of all the visa complications and expenses plus the security measures (if it had been a given I'd be accepted I would have gone, but they don't like young unattached people saying they want to do "tourism", they expect we'll want to stay).
It wasn't the case in SFO, after a 12 hours flight from Paris, the agent was OK but far from welcoming.
I have to apply for a visa, and at the time there was a significant chance of it being denied - and forget about being refunded, and chances of it being accepted after re-applying drop dramatically. So it isn't worth it.
I could probably be accepted for a visa now since I "settled down".
And Canadian customs and inmigration were very friendly, I don't doubt the U.S. people might be the same (though they did fingerprint my father the time he was there, and he reported a few not so friendly times, and he is a frequent visitor).
Europe had terrorist incidents involving planes long before 9/11. As a consequence air travel (domestic or international) had greater security checks but nowhere near the level we see now in America.
Here is the problem, no amount of security checks can guarantee that there will not be a terrorist incident on a plane.
Even accounting for 9/11, other terrorist incidents on airplanes and plane crashes, the likelihood of you being killed in one is very small.
But the politicians are faced with a decision, respect civil liberties and relax security to common sense levels or ratchet up security to ridiculous levels. If they do the first and a terrorist attack occurs they will get the blame.
Ultimately it is a risk problem, and it is the voters that need to tell those in charge that they understand the risk and won't blame the government for "not protecting them" if something bad happens to them.
It has been reported here in Australia that the US tourism bureau (or whatever they are called) is very concerned about it. Numbers are way down over the last several years. They will be running an ad campaign this year
Amazing quote from the girl in this piece though:
"We just wanted to have a good time on holiday. That was all Leigh meant in his tweet. He would not hurt anyone. He is gay.'
Wondering if I can use that as evidence that I wouldn't hurt anything if I ever have any problems with the TSA..
Worst part is that these documents exist in the first place.
If they're going to use "tweeter" as a information source, they should as least get it's name right.
Furthermore, how did DHS match up a twitter handle with a passport number?
Granted, the tech exists. Google has been doing it for a while now. Anyone who's gotten the little "is this you?" thing when doing a search knows what I'm talking about.
This also makes me super freaked out about Google+'s real names policy, since it will literally be providing the United States Government with a massive surveillance network.
True, if caught with a fake name, your @facebook.com e-mail will probably be deactivated, but not as many people use @facebook.com as do @gmail.com
If people get locked down and refused entry based on a few tweets, I'm worried that my background check will get me a special four S treatment from airport security officials.
I would not consider going to the US for a vacation. Thankfully there are five other continents to visit.
Minor quibble with your last sentence:
> I would not consider going to the US for a vacation. Thankfully there are five other continents to visit.
Mexico, Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras all share North America with the United States. And Antarctica is a continent too (7 total, not 6).
Besides Canada, the rest on your list don't scream "freedom" or "welcoming to foreigners" to me. I'm not saying Cuba isn't an interesting place to visit, but a Cuban vacation isn't really comparable to a US vacation in terms of sight-seeing and luxury.
Though as an American, my viewpoint of Cuba might be skewed. There's a lot of unwarranted and false anti-Cuban propaganda in this country, it makes it hard to tell the truth from the lies.
The food's terrible, smog in Havana is the worst I've seen anywhere (most cars don't have mufflers and are poorly tuned), the locals try to screw you over any chance they get (Beijing Tea Room type scams are commonplace, especially in bars - just don't talk to anyone who acts friendly and tries to bring you into a shop, and NEVER EVER accept local currency or any gifts), and the whole place is so dilapidated (except for the small touristy section of town) that it's amazing the buildings are still standing (most balconies in concrete buildings have long since collapsed). I watched in Trinidad as local workers dug up part of a cobblestone road, then filled it back with plain dirt. Most of the roads people have worked on are completely washed away from the rain (the ones they haven't touched are still fine).
You can have good food and a pleasant stay if you go to a resort, but then what's the point? You could be at any resort in the world and have the same cookie-cutter experience.
Oh, and if you do go, bring a currency OTHER than USD because the Cuban government controls all currency conversion, and trades USD at a severe disadvantage compared to other currencies.
I have been to Panama, came in on a boat from Mexico. The advice I received in the port was to not set foot in the port in the first place and avoid law enforcement even if I got into trouble. Of course I received the same warning on the trip back to Mexico, so...
Like the whole system or not, America and their buddies do a pretty decent job of keeping street thugs to a minimum.
I'm guessing that's because of your own ignorance, not because of the places. Costa Rica is superb in terms of freedom, and almost all of those places are more welcoming to foreigners than the US. If you want luxury, México has first-class resorts.
Are there true Mexican resorts I should visit?
Likewise, you have an perfectly valid excuse why you cannot go the USA.
They are the by far the worst paper owned by the Murdoch empire and is an embarrassment to the whole of the UK.
Anything written by the Sun can be discarded as total balls. </end rant>
You seem to be contradicting and confirming your parent at the same time.
1) Where did they get the pictured Homeland Security report if HS "declined to comment"? If accurate, it looks like the sort of communication that an agency that refused to comment on an story would not be too quick to divulge. There is no mention of a FOI application, which I'm not even sure two foreigners are entitled to.
2) The two posing clowns are just that kind you would expect to be the butt of jokes. They're so insanely benign, they must have been created for the sole purpose of harmlessness.
3) It's the Sun.
The Daily Mail article captions it as "Paperwork handed to Mr Van Bryan".
May be shenanigans, but I don't see any particular reason to think so aside from the fact it's reported by the Sun/Mail.
Nah. Simulation.
Good point. Though fabricating imagery like that is so much par for the course for Sun that it doesn't tell much about the truthfulness of the rest of the story.
Similarly, that photo isn't necessarily them either.
And perhaps neither their names ...
You know maybe you're right :-)
As a story though, it's completely plausible. In most countries customs you can get in serious trouble for joking about bombs. Adjust that for America's larger-than-life paranoia culture and tweeting about "destroying America" (not even a real threat) is a perfectly logical thing for them to get all worked up about.
I think it's important to respect people's cultural norms, even if we do not understand them. Just like you wouldn't order a glass of milk during an Italian business lunch.
(They get seriously offended if you do that and no I don't know why)
“Avec deux lignes d’écriture d’un homme, on peut faire le procès du plus innocent“.
Unfortunately, this wasn't representative of a time of utmost personal freedom...
"With two lines written by a man, one can arrest the most innocent."
Of course if it comes from Richelieu it's more interesting since he actually could have people hanged, their castles destroyed, their properties confiscated, etc.
They're mostly to show the U.S. that we're cooperating on anti-terrorism and avoid being put on blacklists, no-one expects us to catch anything.
But I can't, because sadly they are.
serves them right for putting up stupid comments like that on a public site where the world can see
At least the yanks have got it right. If that was here, it would be completly different... they would be welcome even more with a brass band waiting for them at arrivals with hand outs, benefits and housing all sorted for them
Perhaps if they spoke or 'tweeted' to each other in proper English........................... Or is it just me getting old? : )
No doubt that Twitter has replaced Facebook as THE medium for proving yourself to be a prime CHUMP....
How are Americans supposed to know that its British Slang. They did the right thing by detaining them as they believed they were a threat. The problem is that since Facebook, Twitter etc, people enter their whole lives on the internet, when 99.999999% of people really dont care. Its acutally good to see that America's Security is high that two ordinary brummies saying something on Twitter was picked up and they were questioned about it. Wish Britain had that kind of security.
Twitter/Facebook is not private, its public. Get some common sense people.
serves them right, the bloody idiots. what kind of morons post those kinds of statements ?
After the amount of people who died on 9/11, of course they are twitchy when it comes to intercepting perceived threats. Terrorist don't come with a big sign on their head! So if a couple of idiots who thought it was funny to 'joke' about destroying someone’s country on a 'public' network lose their holiday that's hard luck, but the US probably feel that, better safe than sorry, is the more important option. Not really for us to preach when we can't even deport those we know to be a threat!
This is terrifying. It's like Idiocracy!
>>"This is* The Sun we're talking about. It's hardly representative!" > "Hardly representative? More than half of The UK read it."* >"crap"
Would be nice to hear from anyone who can confirm or deny this hypothesis.
The Sun is a rag newspaper from The UK, it is barely factual at best.
I have for some reason lost my ability to flag stories, but..."flagged" in spirit.
This particular article falls into the Jingoism style articles that the Sun is famous for. It's readers are, by and large, xenophobic bigots obsessed with reality TV and C-List celebrities.
They're the closest thing with have to Fox News here in the UK, (that's no coincidence as it's owned by Newscorp) and as such, articles in the Sun about other countries should be given the same level of credence you would give Bill O'Riley's comments about anything.
Other british tabloids you would do well to dismiss entirely out of hand are
- The Mail - The Mirror - The Express - The Sport (often hilarious)
You really think Freddie Starr ate that hamster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Starr#.22Freddie_Starr_...
The Leveson enquiry has already shown that they have done, regularly.
US immigration officials have always taken a hard line on visitors. I had a very similar experience several years before 9/11 when I was denied entry because they suspected that I MIGHT be intending to marry my then-girlfriend (a US citizen and now ex-girlfriend).
Often, when I've related my story, I've heard similar first-hand accounts of travelers being accused of trying to smuggle in drugs, etc. for no apparent reason and being denied entry, interrogated or worse. Any flimsy pretext seems sufficient. I don't know if the officials need to fill quotas or if they are trying to set examples. I'm sure some are on a power trip but in my case they seemed decent people, just determined not to be swayed by evidence or common sense.
As much as I like America (and it's people in particular) I have no desire to return.
Someone could ruin your life based on just your name just by impersonating you or simply having the same name on social networking while acting in some way an authority finds offensive, even if you yourself have never used it!
It would seem you are actually safer to be the first to create closed and private accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, of your actual name - even when you never ever want to give out your private information, including your name, and will never use the accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
Even senator Edward Kennedy had trouble with that one.
(but also, this is the Sun and linked from HN? Really?)
It's so ridiculous that it's not even funny anymore and I for one will not conduct business with, nor visit the US before things change for the better there.
They have to treat their own people better as well as visitors, not only the rich.
I know there are still worse countries, but only just, and it's never a good thing to measure oneself against bad examples.
Deleted comment
It's very easy to blow off incidents like this with a 'not much harm done' attitude. The truth is that a paranoia and senselessness from authority is what makes a regime like Russia or China and the US is quickly going in that direction.
The first time I visited the US (this was after 9/11), I was surprised to see the extent of security checks at airports. In my mind, I had notions of people getting into airplanes like they get into a buses or trains. Now there were lots of armed security, queues, list of things not to do. And I had no clue why elderly women were getting frisked.
I stood wondering what would have happened if they just did away with these checks. If the money and time saved could be put into health care, it would have saved way more lives than would be lost in terrorist attacks. And people could have generally had a better time.
As a more general statement contrary to the main thrust of comments here, I have no fear that the United States of America will lose out on immigrants or business visitors any time soon. Any time here on Hacker News that we have a thread about United States visa policies, dozens of participants complain that they wish it was easier to come to the United States to do business, to visit, or to settle permanently. The United States is still a huge draw to people from all over the world, as I was especially aware when I lived in an international dormitory with students from all over the globe in another country. The rate of immigration to the United States has ups and downs, with the downs coming especially at times when the United States economy is in depression or recession, but on the whole the United States is one of the few countries in the world that still count on sustained, large, long-term population growth from net immigration alone, even if the rate of natural increase falls below replacement levels. (And it could be argued that the below-replacement birth rates of many countries are parents' expression of little hope for their countries' futures, as they are not even willing to have children in those countries. The United States still has an above-replacement birth rate and thus also enjoys natural increase in population.)
So, yes, let's criticize the United States whenever any liberties of persons in the United States are curtailed, but let's be realistic about where else people can travel and kid around about socially harmful or illegal behavior. If one is to leave the United States for more freedom, where would one go? (Fewer examples have been named in other comments than I would have expected, so far.) Considering ALL the trade-offs, which places are really, truly plainly better places to live than the United States? Which places are better to visit for tourism?
You're talking about how it's perfectly fine for a country to ask you questions and make sure you don't intend to break any laws while you're visiting. And how US won't suffer from a lack of tourists and immigrants. I'm telling you that's not the problem here: the problem is we're more and more inclined to look at Americans as idiots by extension. I checked twice while reading the article that it's not on Onion - I did not expect the first comment here to be from somebody saying basically "we don't care about 'them foreigners, they shouldn't come if they don't like it".
Of course, we don't know all the facts. I'm inclined to guess that when the customs officials talked to them they found independent reasons to deny entry, but either they kept them confidential or simply they wouldn't make such a good story.
I apologize for using the word "idiot". It is not meant as a personal insult, but to express what this article makes non-americans feel about this kind of stories. I definitely do not mean to use it as an insult here, so please do not take it as such.
US is still a country of nice people, and my interaction with border official has been nothing but pleasant. Although there is a lot more security theater than when travelling to other countries, the officials from TSA, CBP and other agencies have been courteous and professional. However, it would still be a bad idea if you think that denying entry on jokes is fine.
As to your claims of US being #1 in freedom and no place for anyone else to go, I am pretty sure that countries in Europe will be more receptive to your entry even after all your jokes, because they usually don't pretend to have a security theater to "protect" themselves from "terrorists".
[1] http://www.aclunc.org/issues/government_surveillance/u.s._ci...
Considering ALL the trade-offs, which places are really, truly plainly better places to live than the United States?
I haven't been to the United States since 1999. However I have been to a lot of other places, some good, some bad and I can honestly say that most of Canada seems to be fine, albeit a little colder than most of the US. The UK (although I'm biased, as I live here) has a lot to offer while still being culturally close enough to the US. Australia is a wonderful country far better than most, but culturally somewhat coarser than the US. New Zealand is also good and slightly more reserved than Australia.
Outside of that I've had good experiences in the Netherlands (lots of English spoken too if languages aren't your thing), Spain, France and Turkey (aside from the actual bombings that happen relatively often without the government losing it's shit, but then the government losing it's shit and doing stupid stuff like trying to block youtube). I would say that Greece is probably not a good place to go right now which is a shame as it's a lovely place.
Australia and Turkey both have fairly good economies, Canada's not doing too badly either on that front. The UK has a thriving tech/hacker community in most major cities and while the economy is shaky London's still a great place in Europe to launch a startup.
Which places are better to visit for tourism?
Again, I only have limited experience of America and it's caught in a bubble from two decades ago. My memories of America are incredibly friendly, wonderful people, good service in restaurants, everything being too big (from portion sizes to highways to the distances between things) and some really impressive modern art and culture.
Canada I'd highly recommend but it isn't that different (although Montreal is wonderful and Vancouver is great too, although I've never been to Seattle so I don't know how similar it is). Anywhere you go in Europe you're going to find history, art and all kinds of stuff.
The UK is a great place for Americans to go on holiday, as is France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Italy. London and Edinburgh offer a host of things to see and do, and places like the Brecon Beacons offer the most amazing walks.
If you were to go to Istanbul I promise you an experience unlike anything you will have ever seen, heard, smelt or tasted in a 3,000 year old city that's seen earthquakes, ransackings, churches, minarets and wars over time.
The catacombs in Paris are really something else, although I always tell people to ditch the Louvre and head to Montmartre for fine French culture from la belle epoque.
Bavaria has the most amazing mountain air and there's a whole load of beautiful walks through Ludwig II's old garden, not to mention the beer and food.
Andalucia in Spain offers incredible history, art, food and fiesta from bullfighting and tapas in Seville to the Mesquita in Cordoba and the Al Hambra in Granada. Barcelona is one of the most laid back beautiful cities I've ever seen with wonderful people.
Of course all this is academic. You asked a set of questions at best seeking validation that the US is the best place in the world or an opportunity to challenge it. If I hadn't made a conscious decision not to go to the US while the DHS and TSA still stand (foolishly believing it'd all be sorted out in a few years) then I wouldn't have seen half of these places. Sure I'd have seen New York, Vegas, LA and maybe a few other places but would I trade that for Paris, Barcelona and London? Tough call to make, each to their own I guess.
My sister left Minnesota for Australia 7 years ago and lives down the street from the beach, it's sunny 300 days a year, temp never below 50 degrees. She makes 2.5x what she did in the USA for the same job, only has to work 4 days a week, husband makes six figures as a tradesmen, family gets paid $5K whenever she has a kid, mandated 18 weeks of maternity and PATERNITY leave, government supported superannuation retirement fund, free health care, and savings accounts are getting 6%. Politics are mainly an afterthought, taking up little time on the news and almost never a divisive topic in daily conversation. There's very little religious influence; you're never in a situation where "because the bible said so" is considered a serious argument. She's surrounded by "mate-y" people who take friendship seriously and invite neighbors over for BBQ, and you can get an excellent cappuccino even from the guy in the trailer set up next to the construction site.
Seriously though, what they said was stupid, and obviously not protected speech (if said here in the US), but it seems a bit overzealous to ban them from the country based on a bad joke. This, to me, seems analogous to those unfortunate people who mention 'bomb' or something while in line at the TSA - usually saying something to the effect of, 'I really can't take my cupcake through security? It's not like it's a bomb or something.' I think that we should be spending our resources dealing with serious threats, not people with a poor sense of humor.