Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
The Globe and Mail had a piece on March 25th on the advice that lawyers were giving to their clients, often Canadians working on TN visas down south:
> York-based immigration law firm Dyer Harris LLP, which helps foreigners secure work visas in the U.S., sent an e-mail to their clients residing and working in the country to hold off on international travel altogether, unless in an emergency.
Lawyers advise Canadians working in U.S. to avoid travel amid border crackdown, The Globe and Mail, 2025-03-25. https://web.archive.org/web/20250325223021/https://www.thegl...
I found the commentary in the last post from him to be pretty meagre, whether it was because people were afraid to talk about this kind of stuff or they just didn't know, I'm not sure, but it seems like reality is quickly setting in for a lot of people in the US.
Things are changing and they're changing fast.
You won't be able to ignore this forever.
The scariest thing, and most absurd to me, is that even though I made that joke just 1 minute ago, now that I think about it, it is not completely impossible in this current political climate...
I dread to think about what the US will be 10 years from now. Trump is not the problem. He is a solution, or claimed to be, to the ailments that plague the US. The people here want change, they know something is rotten but they don't even know what is the problem with so many lies and misdirection and days to days burdens they have to bear. So Trump become their cry for help. It is just sad and tragic. Truly something for the history book, if we ever get there.
JD Vance wrote a cover blurb for a book arguing to the MAGA base that all the milquetoast liberals they know are actually "secret communist revolutionaries" who must be "crushed" by any means necessary.
My family is not the down and out, they never supported these things because they have financial stressors. If anything the economy of the last 20 years has been too good to them. They are relatively wealthy and have stable lives and good jobs. They listen to too many alt right podcasts and are too deep down the Facebook hole.
Two weeks ago I was relatively optimistic. Now I’m really scared, how do you cope with loved one’s who believe these things? We’re off to a really dark place.
The former is already in place to some degree in various forms including anti-money-laundry and sanction-prevention pretexts: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/texas-legislature...
The latter is far more overreach but US already practices Civil Asset Forfeiture in other contexts, even for US Citizens, nothing new.
It is too easy to view everything as "nothing new, already done in some way" and ignore the slow boil, especially when they are not directly affected or ideologically opposed to it. That is how we get people clamoring for the government to post pictures of chained people marched into extrajudicial prisons without due process.
All I can say is that while some people will be insulated from the consequences, if the situation keeps escalating, do not bet on you being one of those privileged few.
That is it exactly. The US legal/governmental system is a house of cards that has been running for at least 150 years on a bunch of wink-wink-nudge-nudge assumptions that both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge. An ounce of prevention might have been worth a pound of cure, but now we'll need the cure, and it's probably going to be painful.
At the end of the day, you have to not keep voting in criminals.
While that's not completely wrong, I find it fascinating that everyone seems to treat the Republican party as having no culpability. We have a Republican party that's had a policy goal of blowing up the government for a half century with varying levels of how far they were willing to take it, but it's the Democratic party's fault for not saving us from them and the voters that support them.
Also we as humans tend to assign a different flavor of blame to people who do bad things than to people who claim to be preventing them while not actually doing so. If a criminal is holding a victim at gunpoint and then they drop their gun and a bystander picks it up and hands it back to the thug, we tend to view that as wrong act even though it's dependent on the criminal's earlier wrong act.
Likewise when Republicans do bad things over and over and then Democrats argue that they'll do better but they just hand the same system back over to the Republicans, people are going to be dissatisfied with that. Added to this is the perception that Democratic politicians do this to protect their own political position and preserve what power they individually have, which makes Democratic inaction even more irritating.
How could one ever hope to make them feel guilty about wanting different things than Democratic voters? They do not want to be your friends, or your neighbors, or any other relationship where they should feel guilty for their voting interests. You might as well ask yourself why you don't feel guilty for leaning Democrat.
Yeah, why would the Democrats do this ? /s
Please let’s blame the actor
This is the same as blaming the people that don’t vote or the people that vote for that matter
The buck stops at the Resolute desk
Instead, democrats are blamed for what Republicans do.
Yes, democrats should have been harder on republicans. But again, the same double standards would cause them to be blamed for "gaming the system".
I think that’s harsh. I think the folks in government generally believed that the opposition was there in good faith and with the intent of strengthening the nation, even if they disagreed on how.
I don’t think that’s the case any longer and institutions based on good faith don’t work when the group in power is willing to light everything on fire.
Things have escalated quickly and recently.
to look at a completely different example: the internet was designed on good faith. year after year more things have been put into place to protect against those not operating in good faith. proof of work against AI bots is just the latest example.
what is really needed is a change in education. we need to teach the next generation that operating in good faith is absolutely essential for the future of mankind. we can no longer assume that good faith is the default. it isn't any more.
the laws only exist to the extent that the people that "control" it are willing to exert it. for instance, at any other point in time, everyone involved in the signal-gate scandal would have been fired (and i bet if you were an actual army officer you would still be fired) but the people that enforce the rules can just pretend this isn't a problem and move on.
there is no crime if no one is interested in sending you to jail.
laws can only cover the excesses. if you make laws to detailed then the enforcement of those laws will become to expensive and that will make them even less likely to be enforced. one example are social benefits. it has been argued (i don't know in which country) that being less strict in who gets benefits would save more money than the loss caused by those who should not receive them.
NIMBYism is also an outgrowth of that. another example, in germany large scale projects are taking decades and cost 10 times as much as planned because people are not acting in good faith. the US is not far behind in some areas. (the high speed rail project in california comes to mind)
yes, you can't rely on people acting in good faith. but there was a time when you could. and we need to get back to that.
But that's not rooting out bad actors, it's preventing bad actors. The problem with betting the farm on education is that bad actors who already exist will sabotage your efforts in order to lock in their gains. There has to be some plan for actually neutralizing the people who have already become bad actors and can't be "fixed" with education.
How can mankind have any future at all, when education is one of the tools used to indoctrinate children into not wanting children of their own someday? The first priority of any society/civilization must always be that of making the next generation of people... or else that society/civilization will soon cease to exist. And we no longer hold that as a priority. Whatever the solution might be, I do not think that it can use the education system, in whole or in part, without serious reform of the sort that would frighten those who most want to use it.
Furthermore, it may be the case that our particular nation is composed of two distinct groups who no longer have enough common values that we can effectively remain a singular nation. At least not without one coming to dominate the other decisively. Which is unfortunate given that there are many foreign powers that would take advantage of any possible divorce, amicable or hostile.
Education is in no way indoctrinating children into not wanting children.
You are conflating education with the current economical system, which uses education to have a trained workforce to generate value for companies. It's this system that is pushing people to not want kids, when kids are expensive in terms of time and money, where people work under a system that attempts to extract as much time as possible for production, it's just natural people won't be feeling any higher drive to have kids of their own.
You are blaming education while the issue is much more pervasive and systemic, we live in a world of abundant goods but precarious labour, we produce a lot but don't feel safe nor relaxed enough to tackle one of the most stressful events in someone's life.
Just look at workaholic societies like South Korea and Japan, societal pressures around earning money to support a family, showing status about your job, keeping a career as a mom, etc. eventually completely remove any desire to start families.
So, if we check the unemployed in Japan, they will be baby daddies to six or seven children? It's not workaholism.
>Education is in no way indoctrinating children into not wanting children.
You understand that this sounds like a lie not because I watch Fox News, but rather because I've had the kids come home telling me about how they were taught that the most important thing that they could do to lower their carbon footprint was to not have children, but that "adoption was just as good"? Granted, I'd agree that it's almost certainly not some official written policy somewhere, but the indoctrination is real and personally witnessed. And it's not just that, there are other examples.
>You are conflating education with the current economical system, which uses education to have a trained workforce to
If that were ever true, it hasn't been so since your grandparent's time. We don't need a workforce, not enough industry left to require it. Should I just ignore the fallacy where "education system" means whatever is most convenient for your argument rather than the government bureaucracy and social institution that always tends to have "education" either in the agency's name itself or in its official purpose?
ugh. i understand that this sentiment is going around. but i don't think it is coming from the school or the curriculum. it is more likely a teacher sharing their personal, misguided, opinion.
We don't need a workforce, not enough industry left to require it
that doesn't change the fact that companies demand trained employees. it's not just industry. every sector demands that employees are handed to them full of experience in their trade. companies don't want to invest into training themselves.
likewise parents demand that children finish school ready to get hired into well paid jobs.
I do not claim I saw it in a textbook. But it was spoken by an adult, by a teacher, and there is no evidence that in my case this opinion was ever discouraged. Furthermore, it played into a form of indoctrination that is now official policy (fight climate change!), and the views are prevalent and encouraged in various colleges of education where these teachers are trained.
To claim that just because it wasn't typed out on school district letterhead and filed with the state that it's not official policy is asinine.
>it is more likely a teacher sharing their personal, misguided, opinion.
That's also bullshit. In another thread on another day, that opinion could be expressed here on Hacker News, and it would be applauded. Climate change is real, it must be tackled using every available tool, etc etc. On reddit, it wouldn't just be applauded, they'd hold a parade and invite the person who said it to the Superbowl with free box seat tickets.
It's not personal, it is a growing consensus among that sort of personality and I'm told that once us old boomers are all senile the people who hold this opinion will all be taking over.
>that doesn't change the fact that companies demand trained employees.
Yes, and China, India, and the rest of Asia are happy to provide those for the companies' overseas locations. And have been happy to do so since the early 1990s if not before.
They want immigrants gone, but every immigrant they know is hardworking good people and THEY should be allowed to stay.
They want crime tougher but their friend who fell out of the world because of fent/mexis they wish could get help not prison.
They want capitalism but love their communal national forests and depend on it's deer/elk meat as a huge (normally the majority) source of their protein.
They want smaller government/less government services. But their mom is dependant on government services, and their cousin with a disabled kid wouldn't survive without government help/the school specialized help so that is needed/valued, and when they were kids were dependant at points on government food programs so those are needed.
But one party talks down to them, says they live in flyover country, and promotes people like Jon Stewart unfairly skewering people they see as like them as it's 'entertainment', while the other party pretends it thinks they have value. So they choose the party, eat up the propaganda, that treats them like people/with at least some dignity.
Immigrants are, in large part, hard-working and decent people. I'd laugh my ass off at the suggestion that I could outwork any day laborer I've seen as I drive past Home Depot. Some drink and get a little rowdy, but not to a degree that would bother me if a citizen did so. That doesn't mean that I'm happy for them to be here, though. Our costs go up as they need to rent and make purchases too. Just because I don't want to pick apples for a living doesn't mean that their presence doesn't mean fewer jobs for Americans in general. Our culture changes in ways that can't be managed. None of these side effects are the sort that can be mitigated without drastically reducing immigration, both of the legal and illegal sort.
I don't really want the Chinese setting up secret police stations in my country, or blackmailing every immigrant (even those naturalized as our own citizens) to perform espionage on their behalf. Russians do this shit too. Do you?
All the rest of your concerns I suspect I'm more in agreement with you, but the immigration thing isn't good for anyone. These countries are being brain-drained by those who could fix things at home. Who could stop wars and other large-scale abuses. Who could be building the businesses that would life their people out of poverty. But they're over here trying to make a buck.
Are you for government controlled population resettlement of American citizens within the United States to level out where housing demand is high versus low?
My family all spoke German and lived in a german speaking town in Iowa (a state that 'their people' flooded with their immigration without asking the American's that lived there) up until WW2, they are American and American culture, but your proposal would have deported them because they didn't speak English/were changing the culture in ways that can't be managed and banned them from moving there. My mom a descendant of 'non-assimulatable Germans corrupting culture in America' was a controller at multiple software companies in the Bay Area. Sun-bleached blond blue eyed me played high school football (a sport of immigrant kids arguing over rules of the british sports it ended up springing from), surfed (why are Americans importing polynesian culture and ruining America?), restored muscle cars (America is polluting it's culture popularizing the GTO, it doesn't even have an English language name), and wrote software in Santa Cruz (Bay Area software owes hugely to immigrants).
The amount of AMAZING people, the ginormous amount of talent capital the Bay Area gained when Tiananmen happened causing a huge portion of the Chinese students in the US to want to/be allowed to stay makes me call BS on whatever fear mongering you are putting in your China argument that you think can't be addressed by standard laws. I love chinese people. Heck I love China, have you been there? Yeah there are differences that need to be addressed, but how about we address them instead of using those issues/differences to delegitimize an entire population of people?
Immigration is HUGELY beneficials to the US. Do you care about money? It costs minimum $250,000 to the parents to have a child. Another $10-20,000 per year in schooling costs to the government Added insurance cost to businesses when children are born/added to the plan. Instead of more housing like you would like, families tend to prefer larger, more suburban homes, reducing housing density and therefor reducing supply and raising costs. To get a wholy formed new worker for free is a huge boost to the country.
There is a town in Santa Cruz called Watsonville. I'm pretty sure it would meet your culture whatever BS because it is heavily latino so wrongculture. Guess what, before that when you probably would have given it a pass in your 'culture' test, it was Polish. And guess what, it didn't meet the THEN culture America First test of being American because it was filled with eastern Europeans poles.
Also, it's harder to believe it was all good faith unless you ignore some quite egregious earlier situations that pretty clearly showed that festering issues were being swept under the rug.
Most obviously, after the Civil War the South was placed under military occupation. In 1877 it was ended as part of a political bargain, whereupon the South resumed the racist policies it had previously had in place, and which had been supposedly banned by the reconstruction amendments and laws. It should have been obvious to people at the time that many people in the South had not learned their lesson, and perhaps military occupation and strict enforcement of reconstruction would have been necessary for decades more.
The willingness of both parties to condone outrageous gerrymanders over decades also indicates a shared desire to look the other way rather than face the dangerous implications head-on.
Also, it is well-settled that visa is a discretionary benefit. Green card is more nuanced, but still not a panacea. Some of the "scholars" that debate these things know full well what the case law is but they want to stir the pot in the media.
But to (a) Revoke it with no warning (b) Instantly making your presense illegal, and you a criminal, and due to your new criminal status(c) immediatly abducting you by masked, unidentified "officers" in an official capacity and sending you on a plane anywhere but here, seems to, I don't know? "stir the pot" as you say?
These revocations could be done far more graciously than they are. It certanly reveals how the people in charge feel about their fellow humans. It's being done this way NOT to be efficent. They're doing it to send a message.
"See how quickly we can disappear you for dissent."
I am not aware if any other country behaves differently if they want a foreigner gone. It's not a right to be in another sovereign country.
Regardless, this has pretty much nothing to do with the resilience of the system at large.
(The steel-man for your case would be on TdA being tied to a foreign government, not that it is not a war--an invasion or predatory incursion is enough. We will soon see how SCOTUS rules on that.)
But the point still stands. Legal does not mean moral. And there is a legal obligation to represent the will of all the people of the country, not just those that elected you.
Clearly, the law needs to spell out exactly what legally needs to be done in the case of an expideient deportation, so it codifies some sense of common morality.
But to your point of resilience: The resilience breaks down when people lose their faith in it. Why trust a system that can act aribtrairily like this? Do we really want our guests to fear that speaking in solidarity with nearly half the country is grounds to be treated like a criminal, and be subject immediate and expedient deportation? That's not the way a "great" country behaves.
I don't want to debate my opinion on the merits of the current law; clearly we can agree/disagree on some of the points on how it should be written, but I will respond your questions with a different one: do you really believe that there are absolutely zero foreign actors/implants on student visas? If not, you should at least give some deference to the US government intelligence apparatus to know what they are doing. They have reportedly cancelled 300 visas? If it were 10x more, I would start to worry, but 300 sounds like security apparatus functioning properly.
Nearly all other countries behave differently. The kind of "immigration law enforcement" we're seeing today in the US is far outside the norms of liberal democracy.
Debating morality rather than legality, any policy that gives thugs free rein to grab people who are not harming others off the street, and imprison them, is immoral, and should be stopped. Even if it were the policy of every country in the world, it should still be stopped.
What's harm? Do they have to have harmful intent, or would you object if their presence was unintentionally harmful? Does the harm have to be grievous bodily injury, or is economic harm enough? Why am I allowed to evict trespassers from my home even if they're causing me no physical injury, but the government isn't allowed to evict trespassers to our country unless they can prove some violent felony? It isn't some fundamental human right to live within the borders of the United States.
No, because trespass refers to a smaller scale and a personal property sort of circumstance. But if we can extend that to the national level, just because they were invited (or in many cases overlooked and ignored) doesn't mean the property owner can't change his mind and uninvite them, or to decide that enough leeway has already been given and that they must be evicted.
>Instead of ending it in a reasonable fashion and showing them out sensibly
They were shown out sensibly. There's no need to give them extra time so they can go making public appeals and trying to weasel their way into staying. In fact, if they can do that long enough, a judge might just decide they're a tenant and allow them to stay indefinitely. No thanks.
>I never elected Rubio to decide on such things,
But you were fine with Democrats when they were elected? Isn't that just you being upset that public opinion swung a different direction and now the majority doesn't agree with your views?
Now? The same applies, but the current administration's attitude is "So stop us."
Almost always if your case is legit, you'll be fine in the end and nothing to worry about, just as your lawyer says, but it does not mean there won't be a bumpy ride. I genuinely doubt Trump administration is any worse or better unless you affirmatively have anti-Western ideas or from Travel Ban countries. In fact, the anecdotes I have heard so far on the consular processing of Immigrant Visas is better than Biden era.
You just pulled this from your ass. Absolutely not true.
I’m an old school free speech absolutist and would prefer unfettered free speech but when neither side of politics supports it I have to be realistic as that battle has been already lost.
If you don't like that status quo, that's fair enough, but that's not a proof of non-resilience. The system is supposed to operate based on some approximation of will of the people and it has been quite resilient in approximating it.
As for me, allow me to be skeptical of you having a coherent, well-thought-out alternative of an immigration system with all the consequences and corner cases covered, especially if you are not familiar with the basic terminology of the current one.
It was a bad idea then, it’s a bad idea now, but I would have much more sympathy for the left had they maintained a tradition of freedom of speech as a cultural value throughout and not only when its convenient for them.
I’ve already resigned myself to the reality that freedom of speech no longer exists and hasn’t existed for some time. I think only the times when we thought we had freedom of speech was when information was very tightly controlled and the few cranks in the periphery were not a threat to government legitimacy. An increasingly weak and illegitimate government cannot afford to allow free speech.
Good riddance. They are free to exercise their Freedom of Speech and Due Process under Sharia Law in their home country (or the UK).
Either do a ‘dewokification’ on the scale of Germanys ‘denazification’ or do not. This half measure is sure to fail, exercising power may be cathartic but it comes at the cost of legitimacy which in the long run will come at the cost of power. The Trump administration should focus on governing well not on capriciously punishing weak individuals in raids. The right wing is split on the issue of Israel and the pending war with Iran is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.
Sometimes I wonder if the only thing that could save the right would be if AOC gets the democratic nomination - I wouldn’t put it past them.
There is a judicial conservative majority. That doesn't mean they are a Trumpian, Republican or even conservative rubber stamp.
The court has ruled against conservatives numerous times already.
As an alien you would have generally been extra wary of your behavior. Civil disobedience and dedication to political action is not what you should expect of an average alien.
Some natural born citizens seem to have been introduced to the immigrant experience yesterday.
I haven't checked, but perhaps the other authors were citizens?
How does one square that with "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" though?
Absolutely amazing how the "freedom" party turns out to not care about the actual freedoms when they're used by the wrong people to do the wrong things.
It probably cost around $30,000 all up. Every visit to a consular office or USCIS cost about $100 in biometrics alone (each time). Fees for applying, fees for adjustments.
My partner and I had an issue where I was supporting her (she was in school). The system is not set up for that, and expects the US citizen to be financially supporting their prospective spouse. I realize that there are challenges around our situation in terms of providing a financial benefit to a USC that could be construed as paying for a visa.
I was interviewing for jobs in the US from Australia as my move date got closer (after the visa was approved). Siemens nearly torpedoed things when they wanted to start a H-1B or other visa app for me even after being repeatedly told I didn't need one.
My fiancees family ended up having to sponsor me, signing declarations of financial responsibility, that they could be made to repay any government benefit I claimed within the first 10 years of living here (tied to that previous issue).
Some of the evidentiary requirements (bona fide relationship) were reasonable and actually quite clever (separated, and asked questions like who usually does dishes, or takes out trash, and what day is trash day for that matter, and beyond) and others were onerous (I had to pay BoA an exorbitant amount to get all bank statements for 3 years, copied and notarized).
In the end, ironically we determined I would have been "adjusted" to a unconditional LPR more quickly, and more cheaply, if I had come here on a visa waiver, promising not to get married, and just got married and said "oops, my bad, can I be converted anyway?" than actually doing it the right way.
> "INA section 245(c)(4) renders aliens admitted under the VWP ineligible to adjust status to that of a person admitted for permanent residence. This provision, however, includes an exception for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Thus, an individual admitted under the VWP who is also an immediate relative is not precluded from seeking adjustment of status, even after the VWP period has expired."[1]
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/201...
What has changed?
From the freaking title: “Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.”
Can you point to a specific instance where this has occurred, and what laws you believe were broken? I'm not qualified to say if the El Salvador detention facilities are legal or not, but my understanding is that ICE has always had the authority to arrest illegal immigrants, and that a potential penalty for illegal entry is imprisonment.
See: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
All of the removals to El Salvador (before those were halted by judicial order) premised on the improper invocation (because there has been no invasion of the US by a foreign state) of the Alien Enemies Act, who had neither deportation hearings nor criminal trials.
> and what laws you believe were broken?
The 1st (because the actual basis was often protected speech unrelated to the asserted premise of removal), 5th (because of denial of due process), 8th (because of conditions in the prison where they are sent), and 13th (because the prison involves involuntary servitude, and they were condemned to it without a criminal conviction) Amendments, as well as the Alien Enemies Act, whose requirements were not faithfully applied.
> my understanding is that ICE has always had the authority to arrest illegal immigrants, and that a potential penalty for illegal entry is imprisonment.
ICE has always had authority to detail alleged illegal immigrants. Deportation for illegal presence has an administrative process which was not followed in these cases, imprisonment for illegal entry (which is not implied by illegal presence) requires a criminal conviction.
This sounds like you are talking about the students who were detained and deported. Were any of them sent to El Salvador? My understanding is that they had their student visas revoked on the basis of 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(C)(i):
> An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.
I don't know the specifics of the cases pertaining to the students, but from a plain reading this doesn't seem altogether unreasonable. I think it's obvious that this is being done at the behest of Israel, but it doesn't seem explicitly illegal.
> 5th (because of denial of due process) [...] 8th (because of conditions in the prison where they are sent) [...] and 13th (because the prison involves involuntary servitude, and they were condemned to it without a criminal conviction)
I couldn't find clarification as to what section of the prison the deportees are being held in. I understand that the prison is set up such that lower-level offenders are required to work or study almost every waking hour of the day, whereas gang members are segregated and not permitted to leave their cells at all. The key issue here seems to be due process, which is in turn dependent on a court ruling on the application of the Alien Sedition acts being improper.
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/timothysnyder.bsky.social/post/3ll5...
Did any of the people who were deported claim to have been citizens?
Read the site guidelines. You are breaking several of them.
Do you have any evidence of that? Have there been changes in legislation, specific directives issued?
> some countries are issuing warnings for people traveling to the US
In the case of Germany, it was emphasized that the change was not a travel warning, but instead a travel advisory [0]. Here are a few advisories from Canada, accessed 2025-04-02:
Germany: Exercise a high degree of caution in Germany due to the threat of terrorism. https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/germany
France: Exercise a high degree of caution in France due to the elevated threat of terrorism. https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/france
Italy: Exercise a high degree of caution in Italy due to the threat of terrorism. https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/italy
The State Department has a similar advisory on traveling to the UK:
> Country Summary: Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in the United Kingdom. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, local government facilities, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, major sporting and cultural events, educational institutions, airports, and other public areas. There is also a risk of isolated violence by dissident groups in Northern Ireland, focused primarily on police and military targets.
I will look at anything specific you have on hand that you feel merits attention, but I know that in the case of the German advisory, it was just updated to reflect that possessing a visa was not a guarantee of entry. So far as I know this did not come about as a result of change in policy. While the Trump administration has done a lot of chest-thumping on immigration, I haven't seen any indication that these sorts of refusals and detentions are unprecedented; they just seem to be receiving more media attention. In this instance, there were three high profile cases of Germans being refused entry and / or detained, which resulted in the advisory.
[0]: https://www.newsweek.com/germany-issues-travel-warning-us-20... ("But they also stressed that this change does not count as an official travel warning.")
A great deal of draconian control is actually implemented through employment and licensure law, and as with most things in real life, come bundled with a surprising amount of detail. Part of why I've become particularly dissatisfied with the U.S. as of late, as so much of it is predicated on actually keeping you locked into one geographical location.
Most of the digital nomad hubs have the same laws with regards to worker protections and tax residency; they're just too poor to enforce them. The same is true of the workers themselves. In the 2010s I remember seeing a lot of guys bragging about having virtual assistants in the Philippines. This was probably illegal on both sides of the transaction the way that they had it set up, the issue is that the people working these jobs do not have the resources to pursue a case against a US-based employer; that's assuming they have the knowledge and motivation necessary to sue the employer in the first place. I'm not as libertarian as I once was, but these kinds of arrangements are a no-brainer; it's all of the upside of the free movement of labor with none of the downside of that labor being physically relocated.
Where is the pushback against this from Musk and Ellison?
Vance recently tried to put a truce between them https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/20...
Pretending?
Dude, there are super public and well covered cases were the US did not only that but even worse, i.e. MEGAs illegal CEO abduction from their home soil in the 2010s for a particularly egregious example
I’m assuming you’re referring to Kim Dotcom since I can’t find any other reference to what you are describing. Kim was not abducted; he was arrested in by New Zealand police in 2012, and has since been fighting in court to avoid extradition to the United States. There was nothing illegal about this; it all went through the court system.
If you are asked upon returning the US why you have a burner phone with few contacts say that it is because you didn't trust one or more of those other countries.