Another awesome US immigration experience | Hacker News Reader

Another awesome US immigration experience

seldo.tumblr.com

211 pointsnphase234 comments

As long as you feel the benefits outweigh the downsides the only person you can complain to is yourself. You're still going there aren't you?

I've had an episode quite comparable to this one and it was the last time I visited the US. I don't bitch about it, I don't begrudge the border guards their jobs or attitude (I assume they get a lot of shit heaped on them every day, not an excuse for a non-professional attitude but I'm sure that it eventually wears you down). I simply took my few-hundred-K per year benefit for the US elsewhere, their loss.

Don't like US immigration? Good, don't emigrate to the US. Once enough people do this that it starts to affect the US GDP I'm sure there will be some change. As long as everybody accepts it this will continue or it will even get worse.

I had a pretty lucrative offer about two years ago to become involved in a company. The catch: the work had to be done in the United States. No thanks... But call me when the TSA is abandoned and the border guards are no longer treating immigrants like shit. You know, the way it used to be before everybody went crazy.

And on an off-topic and non-related note, additional conditions would be that Guantanamo is closed, the US ceases its drone program and the CIA gets thoroughly reamed for their 'renditions' program, including full exposure of all parties that were involved domestically and abroad.

Until then the US will have to do without me, I'm quite sure they don't care one bit.

> I don't bitch about it, I don't begrudge the border guards their jobs or attitude

Is it because of lack of time? It seems like those are general problems and highlighting them in some form might help improve the situation.

Sometimes it just takes a model story "An investor is turned away by power tripping and unprofessional immigration officer" or something like that. Maybe it won't be the story but one of thousands out there.

I really don't think it is my problem to solve. There is no upside to me from writing that. Such blog posts you can find by the thousands, and yet nothing changes.

When Obama first became president I had some hope that things would this time change for the better. But he's as much a chip off the old block as the guys before him.

Let's just say that I'm disappointed in how the US has squandered its goodwill and potential over the last decade and a bit but it's entirely theirs to squander.

China and India are the entities that stand to gain the most from this and in another few decades you'll learn just how much was lost. The US is still #1 in exporting its IP (and is trying hard to get proxy laws enacted the world over by using the WTO/WIPO/Worldbank triumvirate as a means of strong-arming the unwilling), they've outsourced an irresponsibly large portion of their manufacturing capability and they're in debt at a level that can only be described as reckless.

This will go on for quite a while but it won't go on forever, if the US does not learn to play nice and responsibly with others then in the longer term this will take care of itself.

Look at what's left of the former superpower known as the UK to see how fast you can fall.

My writing or not writing a blog post is not going to make one shred of a difference in this respect, these wheels are moving and have an inertia of their own. Stopping them or reversing their direction will have to be done from within rather than without.

When I quit going to the United States I essentially gave up, thinking that within my lifetime things will not be getting any better.

  Let's just say that I'm disappointed in
  how the US has squandered its goodwill
  and potential over the last decade

Perhaps your goodwill was misplaced? It appears as though you had hopes about politicians. But no politicians deserve your goodwill, whether you are a citizen or not.

You're right: I'm here because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. But this kind of stuff is what tips the balance the other way, not for me, but for other people like yourself.

The problem with the US immigration system is that none of the people suffering in it can vote to change it. The purpose of my story is to raise awareness amongst US citizens who understand the importance of immigration to the economy that the system is broken, at nearly every level. I can't fix the system by complaining, but they can.

> But this kind of stuff is what tips the balance the other way, not for me, but for other people like yourself.

I made my decision independently long ago. You really should ask yourself: if this is not enough to tip the balance for you (who has experienced it firsthand) why would it tip the balance for someone who only gets it second hand?

Nobody is going to fix anything because of this blog post, but you can make a statement that really carries weight.

But if you feel that your greencard is worth more than your dignity or principles then you've made your own bed and now you must lie in it.

Understand that my native country, Trinidad, has laws still on the books that make my sexuality illegal. You have to be pretty shitty to be worse at respecting my dignity and principles than that, so the US has a low bar.

But yes, I could pick some other first-world country to move to. In fact, I lived in the UK for seven years: in that time, I made as much progress in my tech career as I did in my first six months in the US.

I think America really is a land of amazing opportunity, and I believe action to change the system from the inside says more than staying out does. And I believe that America is full of decent, compassionate people who genuinely believe that fairness and justice are bedrock principles of their nation, and would be horrified to learn that this is how their country treats some people -- and I'm right, because I can see them saying so elsewhere in this thread.

This is indeed my bed, but I think I can change the sheets :-)

>>In fact, I lived in the UK for seven years: in that time, I made as much progress in my tech career as I did in my first six months in the US.

Can you elaborate on that?

Let me guess. In the UK you are promoted based on years of experience, in the US based on competence.

I went to college in the UK. Before, during and after, I worked at a series of startups. I gained experience in PHP, MySQL, etc.. -- a slow but steady accumulation of skill. Then I got a job with Yahoo in the UK, who despite their (many!) flaws as a company are a world-class web development organization -- I learned more, but at much the same speed.

After a year, Yahoo moved me to the bay area, and the difference was shocking. The demands made of me professionally, the density of smart and talented people everywhere, the intensity of the focus on tech culturally and socially: it blew me away. I went from feeling like a spectator of internet technology to a participant at the leading edge -- in terms of the skills I had, the people I met, the sense of the industry's direction.

The bay area is where people invent the next big thing, continuously. London has improved substantially as a startup environment since I left, but it's still nowhere near the same league.

> But this kind of stuff is what tips the balance the other way, not for me, but for other people like yourself.

Says who? How do you speak on others behalf? No offense, but your post (like many others) just sounds like someone who is upset that were inconvenienced for a day. If you have all of your papers sorted out (and nothing is fishy), what's so mentally anguishing about having to wait?

The problem is, as you say, "the benefits outweigh the disadvantages". So, the US will continue to act this way until that statement gets less and less true. I'm not disagreeing with your premise, I just think your opinion would be a lot better served if you formulated your response to the actions against you in the proper way.

> The problem with the US immigration system is that none of the people suffering in it can vote to change it.

Your spot on with this comment. Until the people who are American citizens start suffering, you won't see any reform in this area. If you are actually serious about reform (and I hope you are, I believe it's needed) than you'll need a much more of a powerful argument than "I can't be inconvenienced at customs". Put some data together about how immigration is needed to create new jobs in America, and if those who are inconvenienced continue to be pushed away, then these jobs are a lot less likely to be created. Maybe it makes sense to create a sub-community of foreign entrepreneurs in the valley who all share your same thoughts?

I think your faith in the electoral process changing things is simply that; faith. Hypothetically, what if this policy did impact large numbers of voting Americans, but both parties supported it? How would your vote help to change things then? I ask these questions because there are plenty of examples of laws that adversely affect voting Americans but fall into this category of policy supported by both sides.

> No offense, but your post (like many others) just sounds like someone who is upset that were inconvenienced for a day. If you have all of your papers sorted out (and nothing is fishy), what's so mentally anguishing about having to wait?

It's not just 'waiting'. The problem is every time you cross the border there is the very real chance that the mistaken opinion of a border guard would cost you job and your ability to enter the USA for many years. The USA is also an air hub, and many flights would be closed off to you. It's not just an inconvenience.

They have some of the nastiest attitudes I have ever encountered in people too. I've never encountered a group that seemed to be so callous and seem to have a complete lack of human empathy amongst a good chunk of their members. They don't have to, they have a near complete power over you when your at the border.

> very real chance that the mistaken opinion of a border guard would cost you job and your ability to enter the USA for many years.

I'm not sure I understand. If you are granted full legal rights to work, live, and breath in the US by the US border patrol organization (i.e. you have a visa), then there is zero reason a border guard can "mistakenly" not let you in. They can certainly "question" your ability, but that doesn't mean they have any right to immediately deport you without due process. Can you cite a source of this actually happening?

Having a valid visa does not entitle you to the entry to the US. The border official can deny you entry for any reason.

IANAL, but apparently there is a distinct difference in between being denied entry and being deported. I think it's called 'expedited removal' (http://www.borderimmigrationlawyer.com/expedited-removal/).

If you are told you are being deported rather than denied you should state that you are 'withdrawing your application for entry' if you're under VWP, otherwise it can/is a 5 year entry ban.

http://www.borderimmigrationlawyer.com/withdrawal-of-applica...

I am trying to sympathize but I agree 100%. You seem to be complaining about being inconvenienced for a few hours as a result of your inability to be on-point with your profession for the few seconds that it matters most during your re-entry to the country. The world is full NOT bright people. You can't really expect them to know the difference between software and web developer. You just need to solve for that and make sure you make it easy for them to let you back in.

I did not write the article. It's not about being 'inconvenienced', it is entirely about the incorrect opinion of a border guard causing you to lose your job, income and whatever personal connections you have established in the USA even if you have been doing everything correctly.

Typically you have to pay for these 'inconveniences' with another flight (that you pay for), immigration lawyers and so on if it gets really bad. There is a complete power imbalance in that situation and due process, if any, is minimal at most border crossings. ANY record of shit going wrong at the border will result in you getting extra attention EVERY time you cross.

> If you have all of your papers sorted out (and nothing is fishy), what's so mentally anguishing about having to wait?

You are right, if you're sure you haven't done anything illegal, it will all be OK.

But the problem is that those people can really cause you trouble. Not only they can keep you waiting for hours (is there even a maximum amount of time they can hold you for at the border?), which can result in lost connection flights, etc. that won't be reimbursed, but they can also allege that there's something wrong with your data and threaten deportation. There's a comment in this thread from a reader that almost saw his wife deported to her home country for apparently no reason. Yes, you'll get to be heard by a judge, but not until you've spent a considerable amount of money, time and patience.

The problem is that those people don't seem to be penalized for their faults. Immigration/customs personnel bullying passengers is seen as OK by central authorities, as homeland security and the struggle against terrorism are the priorities. If in order to catch a couple of terrorism suspects we have to give the rest of the population a bad time, it's still OK. Better "safe" than sorry, right?

  The problem is that those people don't seem 
  to be penalized for their faults.

Precisely! There appears to be very little feedback on the quality of their work.

I think there are problems other than inconvenience. You might have a job or property or family within the US. Being denied entry without the protection of due process where you are innocent till proven guilty can be a BIG deal.

> Don't like US immigration? Good, don't emigrate to the US. Once enough people do this that it starts to affect the US GDP I'm sure there will be some change.

Less immigrants would negatively affect the GDP? I've heard the opposite many times, but I'm not an economist. Why is that so?

I wrote a long, long blog post about why: http://seldo.com/weblog/2012/11/29/why_all_americans_should_...

But the TLDR is: immigration brings skilled workers into the country, who produce more than they consume, raising GDP. So stopping the flow of immigrants causes GDP growth to slow.

Not only skilled workers, but also unskilled workers that are actually economically needed.

Both because there is a lack of workforce in some areas (farms, low-end services) and because, in some countries where inequality is higher, part of the population feels these jobs are "bellow them" but somebody still needs to do them.

And last, even illegal immigrants contribute to move the economy. Everybody has to pay some level of taxes (even if only sales taxes) and has to consume goods. And illegals usually will try to "hide" and not use as much of public services.

I'm not advocating in favor of illegal immigrants. However, in my view, this is one of the main hypocritical reasons people in power complain about illegal immigration and, at the same time, don't do much to stop it nor to legalize those immigrants.

Because immigrants represent work potential, realizing that potential will increase the GDP.

More people -> higher GDP.

I really dislike quoting the Bush administration on anything but here it goes:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigrati...

Where did you hear the opposite? An increase in the number of low-skilled immigrants might negatively affect GDP per capita, but it's hard to see how it would negatively affect total GDP.

There's no realistic situation in which having another person working in a country decreases its GDP. GDP is simply the sum of all goods and services after net exports and investments. Given that a working person is, by definition, producing a good or service, their contribution to GDP is always positive.

Not always true - see Wall St circa 2008.

I understand the argument you're making. From the perspective of the United States, they don't need to care unless it adversely affects the United States. As such, the US can make whatever immigration it wants and it writes its own destiny and people can take it or leave it much like many offerings we see in life from companies, other people, etc. If a company is putting onerous conditions on its product, we'll switch. If a government is being a jerk about immigration, they'll lose out on great people.

However, I think a difference is that with a product or service, we generally all start from the same place. One day you don't have a cell phone, then you evaluate different services and choose one. Great. With citizenship, most are born with one. I'm lucky enough to be born with three and entitled to a fourth. Am I a better person than you? Why should I get out of this nonsense? (I know this isn't a great metaphor, but hopefully it makes some sense).

Now, these states have determined that I'm a member. However, I didn't really do much to merit membership. I just lucked into it. Basically, on this planet, I have more rights than most people - and that doesn't seem right to me. If I want T-Mobile service, I generally have the same rights as everyone else. Maybe there are discounts for people with certain employers, but it's more equal than unequal. With citizenship, I get a step ahead. While one can argue the merits of citizenship, I think a bit of respect in the process is warranted given that millions are allowed in by no merit of their own.

In this case, US policy is denying someone respect/dignity in accessing something they want: a job, a location, etc. Ok, so you can avoid that by giving something up (the job, location, etc.). What if the US decided that your state was "harbouring terrorists"? Well, you could give up that place as well and avoid the perils of living in a place being invaded/liberated. There is a slight distinction between something you already have and something you want to gain, but when you have a green card, it's kind of something you already have.

I guess my point is that libertarian ideals work great when there's lots of competition, a lack of strong power dynamics, and clear metrics. Here we see a situation with minimal competition (few "elite" economies), a clear disparity in the balance of power, and the cause and effect between treatment of individuals like you and macroeconomic policy is murky at best.

In this case, I think it's fair to call out the problem. Maybe American people don't know that they're losing out on awesome people like you. They should know that. People should know that you would be a great person to have and that US policy is making it so that you won't even consider the US. People (including leaders) can be oblivious to problems. Shining a light on problems like this can lead to change.

From a pragmatic point of view, there's the world-as-it-is and we need to choose between our options as you did. However, I think it's also important to try making things better. Should we not complain when Gmail makes a change we dislike? Google doesn't owe us anything and there are alternatives, but we care about it and want it to be better. We care about Google. We care about our friends who also use the service. Google is important and so it's natural to care about it and for Google to be the best it can be. Similarly, many of us care about the US. It's important; its policies affect hundreds of millions around the world (if not billions); many of us are American or are friends with Americans. I think it's natural to want the US to be better. It's nice when things can just take care of themselves, but sometimes that isn't the case.

If you feel like levelling the playing field a bit with respect to your accidents of birth then I'm quite sure that those countries would be happy to strike you from their registers if you asked nicely.

On the other hand, since you were given this for free and it wasn't your fault you might as well enjoy the privilege. Personally I think all immigration controls should be abolished. The world will be hell for about a decade, after that we'll all be much better off. Good luck finding a politician that will sign off on that.

Borders are bad.

I'm somewhat of the feeling of the second paragraph. However, in some ways it is happening in the EU. As the EU enlarges, it generally creates a larger area of free travel/work/residence. Heck, if the US and Canada opened up immigration 100%, there wouldn't be hell because the countries are pretty similar. Some might prefer Canada or the US, but it would likely be generally equivalent. In those cases, I guess I don't see the reason why controls are still strict. I think that's what the EU mitigates: as it expands to include countries as they attain a close enough level of development and other goals, movement/work/residence freedom doesn't mean mass chaos. If the EU, Aus, NZ, US, Can, Japan, and a few others offered open immigration between them, I don't think there would be a lot of chaos. So, it's genuinely possible to make significant progress from our current situation without the hell stage that complete abolition would involve.

Since I have the option to ask, I'm wondering if you see criticizing immigration policies as different from criticizing about anything else?

I've yet to see a border that made sense to me. It looks like there are people on the one side, and people on the other. And then there are people that would like to be on the one side or the other that are being stopped from going where they want to by people in the middle.

By what right those people in the middle are obstructing the people that want to move is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Let's just say that borders have a special place in my heart and that immigration policies by extension do as well.

"Some might prefer Canada or the US, but it would likely be generally equivalent. In those cases, I guess I don't see the reason why controls are still strict"

Well, are they? Border control at US/Canada seems to be more for everybody else rather than Canadians/Americans.

Most people are 'waved' through. Except for the need of a work permit, I'd say it's pretty non existent.

Of course in the EU this is much better

Depends on the side... when crossing into the US (as a Canadian) everyone in my car was taken separately into a tiny room and grilled by an agent, and our car was searched extensively. The whole process took about 3-4 hours, all of us had clean criminal records and were just passing into the US for a day to be tourists in Maine. On our way back the Canadian agent waved us through.

Yes, I understand there are cases like these, and even worse.

I guess it also depends on the location, I crossed only once, through Vermont

My experiences in airports entering the US (as someone who needs a visa) have been without hassle, thankfully.

I've been through many airports' passport control and customs. I haven't had a major issue. With the Canadian/US border in NY. Thats another story. I've had to park to the side and go to a different area while the car got searched and they grilled me about everything I did during the weekend [US side]. The Canadian side was worried I'd steal all of their jobs during the weekend. This was all for a quick weekend trip to toronto.

I'm curious as to how much longer the Schengen space will subsist. As EU-skeptic parties rise in opinion polls again, it will not be long till all conceivable social issues are blamed on immigrants.

You have to take a bit longer view.

Several generations ago it was normal that Europeans had a major war once a generation. Every village in Germany, France, Britain has a monument in it with long lists of names of men who died. Today we can all move freely, work together, share ideas, in many cases even share the same currency, etc. That sometimes causes friction, people like to complain, and newspapers run the occasional sensationalist headline to sell copies. The reality is literally millions of EU citizens now travel in, do business with, interact with, study in, and (in the case of EU elections) even vote in each other's countries. We've come a very, very long way. It has become so normal it almost isn't mentioned any more. Does that mean everything is perfect when different cultures meet? No, of course not. But at least we're not killing each other anymore.

I hope next year when we reach the 100th anniversary of WWI (the sheer scale of the carnage is difficult for us to even fathom today) more is made of how far we've come. And if you think that this progress was all inevitable, consider as a counter example that in our lifetimes there was still ethnic cleansing happening in Europe in Yugoslavia. Peace is hard work, we should all be very thankful.

I totally agree with your view. As an european that sae the EEC become EU and (most) national currencies being replaced by the Euro, I am myself a supporter of tighter european integration and increasingly closer relations between neighboring countries. And I am sure that most of my fellow europeans will not like it if they ever have to start using their passports again just to go next door.

I believe the problem right now is that most european politicians fail to understand your last paragraph. They simply do not remember (as I do not, but I make an effort to imagine) what it was to be at war and the damage that this caused to Europe and the World in general.

When german leaders are quoted as calling southern europeans "lazy" and greek politicians evoke the Nazis as a defense thesis... you feel that something went really wrong. It's old wounds opening again and each one looking for the best way to put the blame on their neighbor.

Thank you for mentioning this. I was asked once in an interview (for a scholarship to business school) "do you think the EU is a success?" the answer of course is a resounding 'yes' for the reasons you mention. The primary goal of the EU is European peace and that is has delivered wonderfully. Politicians can fight over fiscal this and fiscal that, but so long as they fight with words not guns we can live in peace. We owe the founders of the EU a great debt of thanks.

No doubt that the EU is a success. I'm just saying that there's a (high) risk that it will degenerate if political discourse doesn't change. Words may lead to hate and hate may lead to war.

I hope human progress will keep this from happening, but these are probably the most critical times for the EU since its beginnings as ECSC.

Bah. Immigrants always have been blamed for everything bad, in Europe as everywhere else in the world - but the Schengen Accords work both ways, and Germany and France want those markets. They'll never go away.

Many people (like myself) don't consider the US and Canada "pretty similar/equivalent".

I've have thought about these lines before. Free movement of people is the final freedom. First they freed up the movement of goods (once upon a time you couldn't just order a product freely from another country). Then they freed up the movement of capital (likewise once upon a time you couldn't freely invest your money in a foreign country). If they freed the movement of people then you'd have a sort of anarchistic democracy. People would vote against war by leaving (most do already, but just end up in refugee camps on the borders), vote against poor economic policy by leaving, and vote for free enterprise by emigrating.

But over time I've come to see that these are the reasons this final freedom WONT be allowed any time soon. There is great power and profit in the hands of the state when you restrict the free movement of people. For instance, do you think Assad would be all for an open border around Syria at this point in time? Would that strengthen or weaken his power base? Likewise for all countries. Opening movement across borders is good for all free citizens of the world. But very bad for politicians and their cronies.

On top of this politicians in democracies have at their disposal an amazing vote winning tactic. They can at any time exploit the in-group/out-group evolutionary bias, invoke a terrible, external threat, and most of the fearful masses will fall for it and vote for them and their get-tough-on-the-immigrants platform. And so, although I share your vision of a more free world, it just isn't going to happen any time soon.

I completely agree with you. That's exactly what would happen, people would vote with their feet against dictators and abuse.

Borders are either to stop people from leaving or to stop people from arriving. In the first case it is dictators creating a captive audience they can fleece and manipulate. In the second it's the haves that desperately want to avoid being confronted with haves-not.

Take away the borders and you'll reach a natural state of equilibrium in a very short time. A lot of holy apple-carts will be upset by such a move.

How we could make it so that there could be the free movement of people? What would we need to do?

In my own personal experience I've crossed the US-Canada border many times, and I remember several times when the wait at the border was hours long. On top of that, I'm very frustrated with the immigration process to get into the US; it's something I think a lot about and I don't think this is for the better for anyone.

How could we make the free movement of people happen?

I'm going to think about this today and see what I come up with.

> Borders are bad

Then why do you live in a country that has borders? As per your own policy, you should be in a boat somewhere in international waters.

Things like this seem to come up often on HN. Why can't we speak out against a system while participating in it for lack of a better alternative currently?

You certainly can; that's what the OP is doing; but the parent says you shouldn't. I'm just pointing out that he's not really living by his word, contrary to what he says.

I think the problem is that some (most?) people are born with a disadvantage, not that the he has some advantages. I don't see how giving anything up is going to do any good.

Actually, United States citizenship doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I have a dual citizenship, so I can compare entry procedures. I was always baffled when US immigration asks me questions about what work I do or where I'm headed when I'm entering the country. I couldn't see how it was any of their business.

In most (if not all) of the EU, an immigration officer being presented a native passport has exactly two choices: a) let the person in, b) get the police to arrest him on the spot. In both cases the person is under the local jurisdiction.

It seems the United States has a legal gray area around its borders, and a very black area outside of its borders (think Guantanamo). There are reported cases of people being detained or harassed. So being a US citizen doesn't let you travel worry-free either.

They ask these questions to me all the time and I'm a (non-dual) citizen. The EU and especially the UK is more intrusive about their questions. Switzerland is/was the least intrusive. China never asks me any questions, but Thailand and Japan might.

My experience in the EU is that, even for EU citizens, the UK and (a somewhat distance second) Spain can be quite intrusive. For the rest of the EU and Switzerland, they almost never ask anything.

But I definitely agree that China seems to be the "easiest" in this sense. No questions at all. :)

When I crossed over from Kazakhstan into China I got the most thorough luggage search I've ever had (never been to the US). Everything taken apart and went through; I was carrying the card game Citadels and had to struggle a little to explain what it was (my fault - I speak neither Kazakh or Russian nor Chinese, he spoke a little English). It was all very professional and courteous, and actually over quite quickly, but it was thorough, and having soldiers in uniform going through your stuff while you stand there in your pyjamas is always going to be a bit intimidating.

Good to know. That's actually a border crossing I'm planning to do relatively soon.

I've only ever had my luggage searched at customs in the states...multiple times, very thorough. I think they were looking for pirated DVDs or something.

With my nonexistent grasp of the flows of illegal goods I guessed Kazakhstan-China was a heroin route, but I really have no idea.

Subversive Uighur material is more likely, or maybe guns?

It was only afterwards that I realised I'd been reading the hunger games on my kindle at the time (which they did get as far as turning on); pretty sure that's illegal. Oh well.

Entering Switzerland: "What are you doing here? How long are you staying?" (5 minutes tops)

Entering France: takes my passport, opens it, stamps it, no questions asked

Entering UK: tons of grilling, return ticket, etc, etc

That's with a non EU passport.

I have never been asked a single question at Swiss immigration (at Geneva airport), but its been 5 years since I lived there. It was just wait in the foreigner line for about 5 minutes, get through.

Yes, if you are registered by the immigration authorities they skip the questions.

Even if you are registered by some other country in Europe (which was my case, they asked that before I said that I was registered)

I'm a non-resident Australian citizen (ie, i've lived overseas in a variety of places for 15+ years). When I go to Australia I fill out the visitor card (because i'm non-resident) and use the Australian Citizen line at immigration.

The last few times i've been they essentially ignore the visitor card, (literally) say "Welcome home" and let me in within 30 seconds.

Hearing that after being away for years (for me) and arriving jetlagged after a long flight is pretty emotional. The immigration officers probably just have a game amongst themselves to see how many people they can get to burst in to happy tears.

Yes. Every time I enter the United States, I'm asked very specific questions about why I lived a year in Canada. I have never lived in Canada, but my very unique name (Michael Roberts - just try Googling me) obviously leads to considerable suspicion.

And they don't ask it like, "Oh, you lived in Canada, what was that all about." They very specifically are questioning my loyalty. Their attitude says if they were legally allowed to deny me entry, they'd love to.

I also get this as US Citizen and there is nothing stopping you from entering the US except your patience. You could refuse to answer and then be detained for further interrogation. but eventually they'll have to let you go. Most people, myself included, have an event to attend or plane to catch so we answer to get it over with, quickly.

One time I was going to a wedding and I didn't know where it was because my family sent a cab to take me to the hotel. Border guard told me to go to the payphone (hadn't used one in years) and get the address. I complied then asked her what was preventing me from walking out the airport. She told me absolutely nothing. Although I imagine some information would probably be enterred in the USCIS database.

If this is indeed the case (I heard otherwise, scary stories about the legal immigration gray area, but don't have the time to hunt down relevant URLs at the moment), then why do people put up with this sort of harrassment?

I mean, the land of the free, and all that — and border guards tell you to go to a payphone to get the address of the place you're going to? This just doesn't make sense.

Like I said, timing. Most citizens clearing immigration know they have a legal right to return. They don't know how long CBP can detain them. I think the rules say a "reasonable amount of time" without actually assigning a hard value.

This isn't unique to the US. In the 5 years I had my green card, I received the best service from the USCIS and the worst from Canadian customs (despite being a citizen).

I love entering my home country, NL. I hand my passport over, the agent looks at it for 5 seconds, hands it back to me with a smile and welcomes me home.

No fingerprinting, no taking pictures, no questions as to what I am doing or where I am going or how long I plan on staying, or what work I do. Nothing. A smile and a welcome home.

I think it's really weird when people argue that the only acceptable response to problems is to quit.

Complaining is a valid response, too!

"Albert O. Hirschman makes a basic distinction between alternative ways of reacting to deterioration in business firms and, in general, to dissatisfaction with organizations: one, “exit,” is for the member to quit the organization or for the customer to switch to the competing product, and the other, “voice,” is for members or customers to agitate and exert influence for change “from within.”"

-Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States

Most people start with 'voice'. It's when they're told to STFU that the strategy is shifted to 'exit'. This immigration situation would fit this. How far do you think you'd get in this situation with a complaint?

This makes me like the US needs "a day with immigrants" day where every business founded or run by an immigrant suspends service to demonstrate to xenophobic Americans what they are losing when you remove the immigrant element from the country.

"If you want our money you better accept that we'll treat you like sh-t. If you won't, please f- off".

I'm not so sure that every citizen agrees that this is a good face to show guests and new members of society.

> As long as you feel the benefits outweigh the downsides the only person you can complain to is yourself. You're still going there aren't you?

Albert O. Hirschman actually discusses many nuances of this idea in his book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, which is about the conditions under which people choose to express dissatisfaction about the way things are going. His book is far too nuanced and complex to describe here, but one counter-intuitive point he makes is that exit, and the threat of exit, can make voice less powerful by making sure that those most dissatisfied with a situation (a corporation, government, etc.) can simply leave, without needing to resort to voice.

You're essentially arguing that exit is superior to voice, but in many circumstances voice might be more useful.

The book itself is highly recommended, and once you read it you'll see its ideas applicable in all sorts of unexpected situations (like this one).

> As long as you feel the benefits outweigh the downsides the only person you can complain to is yourself. You're still going there aren't you?

I disagree with this line of reasoning.

It is fully valid to complain about injustice and unfair policies. It's not a binary choice between complete avoidance and submitting to some arbitrary humiliation.

I might also add that you are speaking from a position of considerable privilege. Many of those who choose to emigrate to the US don't have as easy of a choice as yourself, in that they may hail from less friendly countries of origin.

You are correct.

Sometimes the choice is between risk of "secondary screenings" in the US and high chances of harm and hostilities in the home country.

And maybe you just want or need to visit the US, most likely for business reasons. Still, I spent my last vacations in the US and it was great.

People shouldn't take the whole country for the government.

Couldn't possibly agree more. This is one of the more trifling among many other reasons why I have no interest any more in emigrating..

Jacques, I like and respect you, but if you think that the impact on the US GDP of immigrants leaving will ever in a million years be ascribed to immigrants leaving, you are living a fantasy.

I don't blame you for boycotting, though. Not a bit.

There was a stat here from a while back saying that half of all Silicon Valley startups were founded/co-founded by immigrants. There was another saying that all net job growth in the US in the last ~30 years was because of growth in the small/medium business sector.

So while it would take some time to see the results, and the casual factors probably not be put down to immigrants leaving (or being denied/not applying to enter the US to begin with), you would see an eventual impact on job creation and economic growth.

Perhaps the slow recovery after the 2007 crisis could be partially put down to the post-9/11 paranoia and making it more difficult for smart people to enter the US? It's total speculation on my part (something that occurred to me as I typed this comment), but an interesting idea nonetheless.

Also, the Economist published a list of best countries to be born in: http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lo...

The US is 16th, behind Australia, Canada, and many European countries. Years ago America was on top.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it will have a serious impact on America's economy, and I will be the first to agree that we deserve it. A shake-up will be healthy (maybe I'm a closet Trotskyist after all).

What I'm saying is that it will make no difference whatsoever in a free-market sense, because the free market presumes perfect information. The reduction in America's fortunes will never be ascribed to our lousy immigration policy - in fact, quite the opposite. It will be used to justify even worse policy. As is, in fact, happening right now.

So while it's nice to think "That'll show them," it won't actually show them. We're the country that originated Hollywood. We're really good at lying to ourselves and each other.

Also, America was on top because the Economist arbitrary invented a couple of metrics like "yawn factor" to put it there. Stupidest damn article I've ever seen. Come to the Rust Belt; I'll show you where it's not a good place to be born. In fact, if your parents make less than about $400K a year, you're better off in any industrialized country in the world.

As a U.S. expat, I can only agree with you. I emigrated to Canada fourteen years ago…and I don't ever see moving back for any reason whatsoever. I visit, because I have family there, but I don't enjoy it.

I'm happy here—happier than I ever was in the U.S., and much happier than I think I could be under the current U.S. political system and polarization. There are only a few places that I could see living in the U.S., in any case, and I don't like any of them enough to move from Toronto.

> Don't like US immigration? Good, don't emigrate to the US. Once enough people do this that it starts to affect the US GDP I'm sure there will be some change.

No, there won't be much change, because those who make and enforce the laws are completely different from those affected by them.

No Customs & Border Protection officer will suffer personally if high-skilled immigrants don't (re)enter the US. And they can't change the laws anyway.

One of the main USCIS Service Centers, which processes Green Card applications, is in Nebraska. That's about as removed from where immigration happens as you can get.

I'm a Canadian citizen and get this type of treatment all the time. Every time I enter the US, which is about once a month or so, they send me to a back room for secondary screening. The reason? Their system thinks I overstayed my visa once back in 1995. What actually happened was my family took a road trip to New England, and nobody bothered to check our passports on the way out, so there was no departure record.

So for the last 18 years, they've sent me back for questioning every single time, wasting countless hours of both my time and their time. They always ask me if I worked illegally in the States in 1995 and I just tell them, "No, I was nine years old." When I ask them if they can remove the flag on my account, they say it's impossible because only the government department that created the flag can remove it, and that department no longer exists.

"they say it's impossible because only the government department that created the flag can remove it, and that department no longer exists" -- omg, real-world Kafkian anecdote...

I think Kafka foresaw all of this. The man was a Genius.

you needed a visa in 1995 to come to the US? Why? Could you not get a waiver? o.O

It was before I became a Canadian citizen, but yeah, it would have been on the Visa Waiver Program. So technically they think I overstayed my visa waiver.

I'm a Canadian citizen. I live in the States.

Without getting into too much detail, I pretty much go around feeling paranoid. When I think about it logically, I really have absolutely no reason to be this way.

I sometimes ask myself why I'm here and when the day I finally leave will come, if it ever comes.

Over the years, I guess you've tried various different approaches talking to the staff at immigration. Friendly, apologetic, assertive, and so on.

What worked best? What would you recommend for someone else in that situation?

Say as little as possible. Speak clearly. And if entering the UK, have a bank statement with you. They like people with money (this is not something I made up, it's in the immigration rules, called "maintenance").

If you have no money then you may be there to make some (is the thinking).

If you can show you have enough money to support yourself and get out again then it will make your life easier. However they will already need to be suspicious of you to take an interest in this.

From what I've heard, Australia does the same and so do a few other places. The question is often framed as "and how much money have you brought along for your holiday?", which is doubly loaded as there's a right answer and two wrong answers (nothing and X, where X is bordering on enough to kick start a new life). Immigration sucks.

100 bucks a credit card :)

I'm allowed into Oz with as little or as much cash as I like, for the next few yeas at least, which is quite nice.

Australia has an actual dollar amount (AU$3000 I think) that you have to have before getting a one year work visa. A friend went there recently and that was his experience.

For me personally, I am friendly. Ask how their day is, ask how busy it has been, depending on the time of year happy new year ... and small talk about the area.

Last guy I had when coming into the US used to be a software developer as well (Fortran, Cobol, and Pascal) and was interested in what kind of work I was doing.

Haven't had an issue yet. I am on a green card, and even-though all my paperwork is in order I still find myself nervous while waiting to enter the US. Also, the whole fingerprinting/picture taking makes me angry and I feel like I am being treated like a prisoner rather than a tax paying citizen.

Look at it this way: at least they get to spend money and resources on you every single time. So they are practically shooting themselves in the foot every time you enter the country.

Maybe you could trick the system by entering without a passport check and then leaving with one. So score is 1:1 and the database record from 1995 get's the flag "departed" = true... Maybe :)

More like cavity_search = true on the way out!

My full legal name is longer than average and seems to get truncated by lots of computer systems (and/or will be abbreviated by data-entry people, etc.). It means that my ESTA record doesn't 100% match my passport, and i'd always get a raised eyebrow a couple of questions, and it would normally be OK.

One time a guy said "I don't have time for this" and sent me to secondary. After waiting about an hour I saw the secondary inspector and he told me the front line guys would send anyone back that they couldn't process in a couple of minutes and to expect it to happen again in the future.

I had many similar run-ins with immigration when I worked for Microsoft in the Redmond area (brown guy with a beard, likes to travel the world [sometimes taking trips as short as one weekend]). I've missed more than my share of flights (at one time my name was in the do-not-fly list because it partially matched the name of someone they wanted).

Final straw came when one time I was returning from an international trip with my x-wife and kids when the immigration officer decided she didn't qualify to accompany me (we were married at the time).

"No big deal, she'll just fly back to Canada" (we're Canadians). We were told she couldn't do that, she had to be deported to the country she came from. "But sir, we just had a single entry visa and cannot re-enter". "That's not my problem, the law is the law. You need to be deported back to countryX". "But sir, we have no ties to countryX. We dont have visa to countryX. We have a Canadian passport, if you dont want to admit us then let us just turn around and go to Canada". "Oh y'all can come in, but she can't".

So I ask for a supervisor and he refused (I later learned he wasn't allowed to do that). Had us sit there for many hours with cranky kids after a transatlantic flight and then said:

"You can take her now (take her??) but I'll hold on to her passport. She can come before the judge in 30 days with the document and collect her passport or she'll be deported to countryX".

I had to unnecessarily waste time and money hiring a lawyer to figure out what the heck went wrong. She showed up 30 days later with our lawyer and the judge couldn't figure out why she was there. Gave us the passport. My x-wife dropped me home, told me to pack up and drove up to Toronto the same day. Even though I was about to get my green card (everything including labour cert was done) I told my employer to halt the process and moved back. For next few years I continued to work for US companies but remotely from Canada and pulled in close to $1 million in salary and stocks over the years that IRS wasn't able to tax at all. Canadian economy (not the American economy) benefited from my well over average spending over these years.

I can wrap my mind around "your name is similar to xyz we are looking for [even though xyz was a different ethnicity with a different age, height and everything]. But for me this made me realize how vulnerable non-citizens are when it comes to US immigration and border patrol. To this day I have no idea what ticked that guy off to single us out like that but I decided I did not want to live in a country where I had such little rights. I am well educated, make a lot of charitable contributions and spend a lot of time volunteering in the local community. Everything the US used to benefit from but now Canada does.

I have no idea why you got downvoted.

I don't either especially since I am not even bitter about the experience. I am just confused.

The irony is that since then I've crossed the border 12+ times a year and the experience is always pleasant (now I enter as a Canadian citizen for either vacation or a short business trip). One would think they'd have preferred me when I paid taxes there (and by the virtue of being on visa, they knew a lot more about me).

As a US citizen, I, on the other hand, am extremely bitter and angry about these kinds of offenses. It makes me sick to my stomach and I really do believe every day is one day closer to me becoming an expat.

Some of your countrymen - and women - do just that. I have the privilege of knowing a few of those and they are doing quite well outside of their native habitats.

American go-getter attitude abroad seems to be a winning combination.

http://www.reddit.com/r/igotout

Your government at work trying to make that as unpleasant as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATCA.

That is - for want of a better word - an astounding piece of legislation. What's next, a deal with the hereafter? I figure that the only thing this will effectively accomplish is that a lot of American expats will go all the way and will ditch the American nationality and that a lot of people in the United States will be denied access to services. Brilliant move, the world-stage equivalent of the schoolyard bully mentality.

But an expat where? These immigration policies have an aspect of retaliation. Other countries often mirror draconian policies seen elsewhere. I am concerned that all this can only lead to one inevitable conclusion: extremely locked down borders with only the very rich allowed to migrate. The UK is actively working on this now, though so far they do allow EU and commonwealth members in more readily.

Even Singapore has been raising the bar for entry lately. We may see in our lifetimes a world where one can only easily migrate to third-world countries.

I agree with SoftwareMaven and jacquesm. Sounds like an awful experience, and you're cool about it.

I'm confused as well: which path in the system should be credited as most wrong? The intersection of you being Canadian, brown, and in a better profession than customs agents seems rife with opportunities for them to F you over.

Hell, I'm a white guy and despite this privilege I ass-kiss too much whenever I travel because they can decide to do the same to me. Not nearly as likely, but since we gave up our rights to opaque government security services, who knows. Not to be US-bashing, I do the same when I have gone international.

I hate how hostile and incompetent the US immigration process seems to be for foreigners. It's sad to go by an embassy basically anywhere in the world, see the fortress that is the US embassy, and the huge lines and amount of documentation needed for people to get US visas. Even worse is the non-deterministic hell on actual arrival.

I'm glad I've never had immigration or customs problems anywhere, despite going to some really sketchy places (flying into Iraq as a civilian at the civilian airport with no visa a few times after the invasion...) or otherwise bending the rules ($200k in computers, including 6 big 21" CRTs, on my way to set up an office in Anguilla...).

Whats the backstory?

I'm a US citizen, and recently visited my embassy abroad. I was denied entry and told to make an appointment. The first available was about 10 days away. This was for a simple document I needed signed by them. And I was leaving this country in less than 10 days. The guard who turned me away said they used to take walk-ins but not since mid-2012.

So as far as embassies go, being a citizen doesn't help too much.

My experience with US embassies (both the one in Brussels and Dublin) has never seen them refuse entry to a US citizen and tell them to re-schedule. They usually have separate entrances as well with different procedures.

Well this was in London. It's a large embassy obviously. They do have separate entrances--we went to the US Citizens one. We were blocked from even entering the security lobby at all--the outermost door to the street was locked and the guard who cracked it open gave us a postcard with the embassy contact information to make an appointment. I called them immediately and explained I was in front of their building and could I make an "appointment" for right then, but they said I had to use the website. Which told me there was a 10-day wait.

As I said, apparently this practice was instituted just last year.

From my (albeit limited) observations I thought they never turned away citizens but obviously I was wrong. Getting appointments with the US embassy can sometimes be a challenging ordeal. They do however make allowances for emergency appointments which can be very helpful at times.

Yeah, in general they help citizens pretty well, and help citizens a lot more in dangerous places. Although to get US citizen services in Baghdad was really complex; despite it being inside a fairly secure area (the "Green Zone"), I wasn't allowed to carry inside, had to make an appointment a week in advance, etc. I ended up just making friends with people at a nearby heliport who had badges to escort me in. It turns out most of the extra security was because they had slightly better quality food than the nearby military bases, and were trying to keep military people and contractors from eating all of it.

The Embassies in Bangkok, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, etc. were all excellent, however.

If you have a green card you can avoid this by signing up for Global Entry[1]. Then you can avoid customs lines and just swipe your card at the kiosk - enter the country without ever talking to anyone. As an extra benefit the kiosk is always empty so you are through in minutes... hmm maybe I shouldn't be spreading the word about this :)

[1] http://www.globalentry.gov/

Serious question: can you be non-white and get one of these?

Uh, yes. A (non-white) friend of mine has it. The program also allows South Korean and Dutch citizens to enroll.

"Global Entry is also available to citizens of the Netherlands who are enrolled Privium, Canadian NEXUS members and Korean SES members. Global Entry is also available to citizens of Mexico." [1]

Mexicans and Koreans tend not to be caucasian, so at least some non-whites can get one of these.

Not sure whether you would want one, though. It sounds pretty intrusive.

"Travelers must be pre-approved for the Global Entry program. All applicants undergo a rigorous background check and interview before enrollment." [2]

Also, the system relies on a fingerprint scanner. Since I have no fingerprints (due to medication), I would receive a big ole 'X' on my receipt every time.

"If the kiosk receipt has an “X” printed on it, then you must report to a CBP officer. Please report to the nearest staffed CBP passport control station. You do not have to get back in line. The CBP officer at the passport control booth will review your documents, determine the reason the “X” was printed on the receipt and either release you from there or refer you to “secondary” for additional processing.

The “X” can mean many different things: random inspection; you have items to declare; you have duty to pay; you have agriculture products that need to be examined; your membership may need review; your fingerprints may not have matched, the system may have trouble completing the transaction; you may have timed out on one of the screens, or other issues. "

[1] http://www.globalentry.gov/faq.html

[2] http://www.globalentry.gov/about.html

Why would you think otherwise?

Because ICS uses racial profiling as one of their main tools.

The same reason the "random checks" line at security isn't really random?

In Canada their "random checks" seem to be via a machine/automated process. You stand on a mat and an arrow either directs you into a line or to additional checks, so there can be no racial or otherwise profiling.

It is a great system, I really enjoyed it when I was there.

Global Entry is open to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, Dutch citizens, South Korean citizens and Mexican nationals. Canadian citizens and residents may enjoy Global Entry benefits through membership in the NEXUS program.

OK, I like Dutch people, but how'd they get into this sweet deal ahead of classic US friends-and-allies like the UK or Australia?

High-level cooperation/reciprocity of some kind

Further poking shows that American travellers on the Global Entry program can use our "SmartGates", but Australians don't get any advantages going the other way.

On the other hand, the AUSFTA gave us all sorts of other goodies; the E-3 visa being the biggie.

Australia is more like the lapdog of the US, not an equal allie...just my opinion ;)

A number of people have recommended this to me; I'm talking to my immigration lawyers now about what happened and the best way to prevent it happening again, but this is a strong possibility.

Most of these programs require retina/iris photographs, which I feel extremely uncomfortable with.

Why? I've had that done, it is literally just a web-camera pointed at your eye. Takes two seconds, doesn't hurt, and is really no worse than having a "normal" photo taken (since it is a normal photo, just of your eye!).

Global Entry is just fingerprints.

As a Canadian, I have to go through NEXUS, which requires the iris photograph.

This is precisely the sort of nonsense that made me decide to leave my job a few years ago. I used to work for <household name Internet technology company>. After some re-structuring I would have had to travel to the US a lot more often, or possibly even move to the US. For me it wasn't really worth it. The dehumanizing experience of subjecting myself to dangerously stupid, underpaid, over-empowered, assholes on a bi-weekly basis made the decision easy.

While I do love California, and the Bay Area in particular, it is still inside the US. And I do not enjoy travelling to the US. To get to the US you have to go through the twilight zone that is immigration and customs. Not to mention the TSA.

I can remember travelling to germany as a kid during the Baader-Meinhof terrorist era. I can remember that I felt it was somewhat unpleasant being pointed at by germans with sub-machine guns. But you know what: they were not even half as frightening as the sort of personel you encounter when travelling to, from or within the US. Because with the germans you at least have the sense that the people holding the gungs are not the lowest life-forms of their society.

But I am not complaining. Taking this choice meant that I had to figure out what to do. And now, some years later, over 100 people have jobs because I don't want to travel to the US ever again.

I am a US citizen and I had a similar experience. About a year ago I spent a few months in Asia while working remotely for my US employer. Reentering the states (after an almost 24 hour trip), the border agent really didn't like the fact and went out of his way to find a hole in my "story" - "So you did work in Asia?", "But your company did not send you there?" This dragged on for a while.

This was the climax of the confrontation:

- "Have you been in trouble with law enforcement before?"

- "No, but you make it sound like I am now. Am I?"

- "We'll see"

- "I am a law abiding citizen and I've been giving honest answers to all of you questions. What can I possibly be afraid of?"

Ever since, I DREAD reentering the states. I have dual citizenship, work flexibility, and friends and family all over the place. I find myself spending less and less time in the US.

So I've experienced something similar minus the overcrowded room with British immigration. I watched the immigration official turn from apathy the moment I handed my passport over into passive agression with loaded questions ("When was the last time you were deported?" answer: "never") into apologies ("Sorry for making you wait sir there clearly has been a misunderstanding") to vague answers to the question of future prevention.

After being told "and there's nothing you can do to stop this happening again", I tell every British immigration official I stand before briefly what happens every time I want to come back here and they're usually understanding about it all.

British immigration are as bad as US immigration.

They aren't even polite, which as a Brit' myself I am both shocked and disappointed with.

I'd like to see changes there...

Until you Brits do away with the requirement for me to go through the porno scanners I refuse to visit the country. Sorry, but just because I am traveling from your country doesn't mean I want to go through a machine that to date still hasn't been verifiable been tested by a 3rd party to not have negative health risks associated with it.

As someone who goes in and out of the UK on a regular basis, this is news to me as I've yet to be subjected to full body scanners.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/no-optou...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca6c8bd4-142b-11e1-b07b-00144feabd...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/despite-eu-ban-uk-makes-radiatio...

>They keep taking breaks to crack off-color jokes about each other’s sex lives, and moan about how hard they’re having to work tonight.

The jokes might be uncalled for, but you just told us they were under-staffed and had hundreds of extra people to process. I can see why they'd be upset. Especially when absolutely zero of the hundreds of people they talk to in a day are happy to see them.

I get the impression you've never worked in the service industry or in retail. The immense fuckup that is United States immigration is not the fault of its lowest level employees.

One of the first rules of service industry is that you don't complain about your job in front of the customers. I haven't worked retail but have done plenty of years in restaurants.

I'm not sure how you can use "you've never worked in the service industry" as some kind of trump card, as this kind of behavior could easily get you fired from any half-decent service industry position.

That's in a private company. Here, for all practical purposes, there is no incentive for things to get better. There is no one to complain to since the "customers" here are completely antagonized and have no power, imagine on top of all this complaining! There really isn't anyone to be held accountable, period.

And no, "voting" is not the way these things get fixed. if it was, the DMV would have stopped being miserable ages ago:

1. As mentioned above, the people most affected can't vote.

2. Even if they could, it's not clear at all how to use your vote to affect change. Which candidate exactly represents better service at government agencies?

3. Even if you knew, you get effectively four federal representative choices that could affect this (president, 2 senators, and 1 house representative). In those 4 choices you must weigh all your grievances. How high on the list is immigration staffing going to be?

The reality is that our system is not set up to deal with this kind of particular issue well. There's no good gradual feedback loop. Things have to get really bad, beyond where it's clear exactly what caused the problems, to the point where huge sweeping changes get made, probably over zealous and too far in the opposite direction then.

Isn't the whole DMV thing largely fixed? In Manhattan, they even have "express" DMVs. I have to assume the idea came about due to voter pressure rather than some altruistic bureaucrat.

I can't speak for New York but going to the DMV in California often means committing an entire work day.

Sounds like California.

Government employees in certain agencies, as I understand it, are practically impossible to fire. There's so much red-tape and bureaucracy that you practically have to burn the building down to be terminated, and even if that happened, the employee would probably sue the state - which would settle the case for undisclosed millions.

That is a shitty attitude. Just because an organization is badly run does not mean bad behavior and laziness are excusable. In particular not when the organization in question represents a nation. Just because it is a shitty job does not make it okay to do a shitty job. And it sure as fuck does not make it okay to behave like an asshole to other people.

If you worked for me with that attitide I would make a point of ruining your day every day until you quit.

It is the fault of the "lowest level employees" that they're rude, hostile, and short with everyone.

Unfortunately I don't think most American citizens really get to see the true face of their immigration officials. I've actually had them talk to me in a way that in any other "service" industry I would have made a complaint (but you cannot due to the power inequality, and the risk that they would add a "note" to your file).

So I eat it. But they're really rude, and it has nothing to do with their job. Most other countries manage to get just as much information about you and make exactly the same decisions without acting that way.

But police/immigration/etc in the US is kind of militaristic and authoritarian even at the best of times...

His experience doesn't seem all that bad. It looks like they were merely doing their jobs trying to ascertain that they aren't making a mistake letting him in. If the immigration officer isn't sure of something (either because of an unclear answer to a question or a nervous vibe), it's not abnormal for him/her to ask for a more thorough check of the person. I wouldn't expect them to clear everyone with a quick, cursory glance of a passport or a green card.

I sympathize with him, but it doesn't look like his rights were violated in anyway.

You're setting a very, very, low bar for "doing their jobs". The reason we employ human beings at border points is so that they will, theoretically, use good judgement to allow the free flow of legitimate goods and travelers (i.e. not create massive delays without a clear reason).

I like particularly the sneering attitude of superiority towards the initial immigration officer in this article. I'm no apologist for the US immigration system (Canada's, on the other hand, I have nothing but good words for), but Jesus creeping Christ, having to deal with that sort of entitled horseshit ten hours a day would turn the Buddha into Dick Cheney.

I can see why you'd think that, but I was totally polite and respectful to the immigration officer at all times -- like I said, I'm a very nervous immigrant, so I would never do anything to jeopardize my processing. I don't fidget or roll my eyes, or indicate impatience. While I'm no fan of the staff of the USCIS, I would never say anything to them to indicate it. Apart from it being very impolite, it would be stupid, and I am TERRIFIED of these guys.

I understand the terror, particularly of the US ICE people, who are unnecessarily militarized at the best of times. But why the puerile jab at the officer's "educational attainment"? Needed to feel big? Story wasn't "punchy" enough?

Partly because I think it's a relevant detail -- I think he genuinely didn't understand that a web developer is a type of software developer. But partly because they scared the shit out of me, and the system is stupid and unnecessarily hostile, so, yes, I'm angry at them.

It's not only insulting and juvenile, it's irrelevant. I've met PhDs from the LSE who wouldn't know the difference between email and snail mail, but that's not material to a) how good they were at their jobs or b) whether or not they were good people.

The system is stupid, and hostile, and (in my opinion) totally self-defeating. And people -- normal, decent people -- will act like petty little tyrants in that sort of system. Isn't that sufficient to call them out? An asshole is an asshole, regardless of their eduction, no?

EDIT: Too, it may very well be material that you gave a different answer. There's only one word different between "landscape architect" and "naval architect", and those are significantly and materially different positions. How is J. Random Tyrant supposed to know that a is a member of the set b for all given a?

EDIT the second: Man, I was in love with the word "material", eh?

You're not wrong. On further consideration, I've edited the post to reflect that it was a rude and unnecessary observation.

Well, it's the person's job to be able to judge if someone's trying to falsely represent themselves in that area, so he should be familiar with what common job titles mean and which ones could be mistaken for others.

Thanks for the edit. I'm sorry if I came down on you too hard. Late nights, long weekend -- no excuses ("an asshole is an asshole, right"?)

The systems should be designed to guide the people to act like humans, I think we can both agree on that.

I find it funny because I worked part-time as a border guard with the Canada Border Services Agency doing exactly this job at YYZ while in university getting my engineering degree.

And just because you don't need a degree to be a border guard, cop or soldier doesn't mean that none of them have post-secondary education.

I'm not entirely sure, but he may have taken exception to the following from your piece:

>Of course, you and I know that the latter is just a general form of the former, but somebody whose educational attainments have qualified them to sit behind a desk stamping passports doesn’t.

Yup, making it tortuously elegant doesn't somehow un-make it a put-down. Just because you have more formal education than someone, doesn't entitle you to look down on them.

Just as you having less formal education but more authority in a given situation does not entitle you to behave like a dictator.

Easy to be righteous when you are not the one who was wronged.

I don't mock people's level of education, no matter how I have been wronged.

...he took exception to something I wrote about him 2 days later? As I've mentioned in another reply, I was scrupulously polite at the time.

Well it's a relief to know you only belittle people behind their backs.

... as opposed to how you are compassionately honest and direct with people who can ruin your life-as-you-know-it based on which brand of bigotry pill they ingested that morning? (Clearly, this applies to many other aspects of life, not just international travel!)

Sure, insulting people behind their back is unethical. So is the treatment OP was subjected to.

It's not hard to be honest with people when I don't look down on them because they're not as educated as I am...

If an officer is being disrespectful and you dislike him, that's fine. If he's being disrespectful and you immediately think "Look at this idiot, if only he knew what kind of degrees I had" you've likely got a problem.

Action begets reaction.

When someone is a jerk to you you tend to react to that. This may be irrational but that's the way most people work and it is perfectly natural.

Not everyone reacts that way, which suggests to me it's not "natural".

Which airport?

IMHO, SFO is probably the best airport to arrive at immigration wise. LAX is a little bit worse, but that's more of a 50/50 on whether someone's having a good day or not.

JFK, on the other hand... Ouch.

SJU (Puerto Rico) is probably the most lax of any I've seen.

This was MIA. And yes, SFO is by far the friendliest airport I've ever arrived at (the others being Dallas/Fort Worth and JFK).

Dear god. MIA sucks even as a US citizen. Avoid it if you possibly can. (I used to live in Anguilla so I'd fly that route a lot, and always did a hop via SJU or to anywhere but MIA.)

Holy God, is MIA ever a donkey circus. That is the single worst place I've ever been (there's a peek into my knapsack of white male privilege for you all). That place would sour the sweetest vintage.

I would never do anything to jeopardize my processing

They can google your name and find the blog post next time you enter.

It would be awesome if they were allowed to Google me from their stations, since the Internet is very clear that there is only one male human being called Laurie Voss in the entire world, and Twitter provides daily records of my movements for anyone who cared to find out. Unfortunately, they are only allowed to look at the screen in front of them, and the few details in the USCIS database.

Actually one time, I was able to prove to one border officer that I really was the CEO of our startup by Googling our website and showing him the "about us" page. He even let me log into my Gmail account and show him proof of my company's existence (PDFs of lease agreement, incorporation documents).

Maybe it's just me but I have always had really good experiences with border officers and those guys have always been friendly to me. In the particular case described above I ended up chatting with the guy about random stuff for like a few minutes after which he wished me a great day.

Don't forget those people are human too, and unless you act like a terrified robot, they will more likely treat you in the same way.

Yes, this is something I can relate to. The worst I've had is being ignored when I try to make conversation ("Good Morning", "How's it going so far?" etcetc), but usually they seem happy to help.

What you described was unremarkable. It should not have been stressful, and it is certainly not worth complaining about.

Different people respond differently to the same situation. What's a walk in the park for one can be heart attack inducing stress for another.

The author considered it worth complaining about, I disagree but again, we're different people.

The fact that you think that it is unremarkable is remarkable, and is part of the reason why this nonsense continues.

Yeah, being an immigration worker would actually be kind of interesting and fun in a way, if you liked people. You get to meet a bunch of new visitors to the US, be the first contact they have on arrival, etc. I know in other countries (middle east, asia), it's a highly sought after job, and has relatively high status and decent benefits, if not high pay.

Customs, however, would be hell -- essentially on the front lines of the war on drugs and maybe terrorism in some cases (although I guess immigration is relevant to terrorism in limited cases too). Customs people tend to also be more corrupt in many countries.

> Customs people tend to also be more corrupt in many countries.

Ha! I was flying from a East European country. At the Customs at the airport someone was stopped over something they couldn't bring in. I overheard him tell the customs officer "hey let's step over to the side and 'figure this out'". 'Figure this out' is euphemism for "I'll pay you some money or drop some names and you'll let me in".

I remember hearing from someone I know intimately of an awesome deal worked out where someone could hypothetically "steal" his own packages from the airside of an airport, for $20, to bypass months of customs impound (no duty was payable, including the 5% reconstruction levy, since the actual items were going to exempt parties such as the national government).

I'm not seeing this? Maybe I missed something.

Ah. Okay, yeah, what's up with that dude? :)

"Of course, you and I know that the latter is just a general form of the former, but somebody whose educational attainments have qualified them to sit behind a desk stamping passports doesn’t."

on the other hand, if someone hassles you like that isn't it kind of inevitable that you'd end up feeling superior to them? from a sheer psychological perspective you can't help but feel "well, i know that there's no real reason to hassle me; if s/he doesn't know that, they must be incredibly stupid/uneducated/malicious/some other negative quality", because from your point of view there is absolutely no positive reason you can attach to their actions.

As someone who went though lengthy (10+ years) immigration process, from student visa to work visa to Green Card to Citizenship, with extensive travel in between - there is nothing particularly unreasonable about the experience described. OK, so he was delayed for a few hours, due to some error or inconsistency in the USCIS database... There's no reason to freak out.

And the condescending remarks about the officer not knowing the difference between "web developer" and "software developer" were unnecessary.

I completely agree with your feelings here. I, too, am a permanent resident with a green card. I live in fear of immigration deciding that "something isn't in order" and then my life is completely upside down. I've grown up in the US, my wife is a US citizen, my kids are all US citizens, yet dad always has that crazy worry in the back of his mind.

AND...for those of you who brush this off. Please contact my wife and ask her feelings about immigration. When I was going through my green card process she just about went nuts at the immigration office and destroyed a few of the workers. Eventually she had to stop coming to the appointments and just wished me luck. She is more frustrated with the process than I am.

The problem is that we're talking about immigrants here. No one is going to stand up for them. Citizens never have to deal with the these issues, and most immigrants, once they've gone through the process, never want to look back on it again, let alone try to fight it.

It's embarrassing how poorly people are treated when entering the US. We should put pressure on the government to improve that, but also pragmatically if we want to keep attracting talented people from around the world we really need to change this.

For the time being, I'd highly recommend to the poster to enter into Global Entry (people with PR are eligible: http://www.globalentry.gov/eligibility.html)

Second that. All you need is your papers, short interview in a closest major airport and you don't have to do this passport-fingerprint-photo stuff anymore.

Let's look at the incentives. The picture here is not pretty. There's a big incentive to squeeze budgets, of course, anybody who watches US politics knows you can't just get any money you want, especially when there's 2 dozen another 3-letter agencies competing for the same. There's some incentive to serve citizens better - since once in the country, the citizen can call his congressmen or his local paper and raise hell if he was mistreated, and if bureaucratic middle-management hates something it is being featured in bad press and asked unpleasant question by his superiors. But when it comes to visitors, there's pretty much zero incentive to treat them better. I'm not saying that immediately leads to bad treatment - I am a non-citizen, I crossed US border more than a dozen times last few years and always was treated with courtesy and respect, which I assign to the good nature of the people that worked there. But there always are bad apples, and there's very little that can keep those in check. If the immigration officer mistakenly denies entry or costs a person 5 hours of their life, there are no consequences, ever. So these things are bound to happen, unless some kind of incentive to become better will be found.

One of those incentives could be if US citizens decided to complain about the immigration system -- the point of the post is to attempt to marginally contribute towards that happening.

As sad as it may be I don't think the average US citizen is concerned about a 5-hour delay for non-citizens at the border. The ordinary Joe is likely to be OK with 200 people being delayed if that results in a few people being deported and 1 person being hauled off to jail (which is pretty much what the OP said happened). I have a feeling the "average" consensus would be that it was worth in in order to keep those 4 people out.

I'm not saying I agree with this whatsoever - I'm just saying my gut tells me this mentality is likely to get you more votes if you are running for office in a border state. The average citizen is not thinking about the relatively small number of skilled IT workers and entrepreneurs entering the country. They are thinking about all of the unskilled labor that is coming in and "taking their jobs" as some people perceive.

That, plus I'm sure there is an aspect of "doesn't affect me - I have my own problems to worry about".

Look at TSA. Did ordinary citizens defeat TSA? Not nearly. In ten years the most they did is to get kids excluded from patdowns and shoe removal. And with TSA it is pretty much obvious for anybody who looks closely it serves next to no useful purpose. What would you tell are the chances of US citizens to make serious change in immigration enforcement where everybody recognizes it does serve useful purpose? I am not optimistic, unfortunately.

Pointless, wasteful bureaucracy

I think few people would consider border controls to be any of these things.

You were flagged somehow and that sucks, but if you don't like the immigration procedures of the US you are free to either a) live elsewhere or b) try to take action to change it (we are a democracy after all). On the other hand, venting on a blog isn't going to do anything but irk people who wish they were fortunate enough to hold a US green card, or come back to haunt you if this happens again and some cranky overworked agent google's you.

FWIW I'm a former, now naturalized, US green card holder and this happened to me twice in six years. It sucks, but I considered it a very small price to pay for being able to freely travel and work (or not work!) in this country.

"Venting on a blog" is most certainly considered action in a democracy. That's basically what the Federalist Papers were.

Aye, they were just some guys blowing out their frustrations.

Or not.

There is nothing unique to the US about this in my experience. There is literally one part of the government that deals (by definition) with people who cannot vote and do not have elected representatives.

If you want to know what it's like dealing with government agents in highly undemocratic countries, it's precisely this. Except it's every day and it's in your own country.

I would not want to be a non-citizen in America. I love my country, but I agree with the general sentiment that we have things very wrong when it comes to treatment of non-citizens. I believe that much of it stems from fears about 9/11. The Bill of Rights does lots to protect US citizens from an agressive/repressive government. The spirit of the law is that there are basic human rights that the government can't remove without due process. Unfortunately those "human" rights in practice only barely apply to US citizens.

Perhaps when entering the country, and there is a risk of deportation, and the difficulty of immigrating legally puts far too many people on unsafe footing due to the constant risk of being reported, but on a basic, everyday level you have the same rights. If you get pulled over on the road, the cop can't search your car without a warrant, whether you're a US citizen or just a tourist.

This is true, but I would argue that it's only true because of the assumption that random driver being pulled over is a citizen (or rather that you can't ask a citizen if he or she is a citizen. This was part of the big deal with Arizona's new laws a year or two ago).

When writing my post, I was considering the "unlimited detainment", and lack of due process for non-citizens in too many special cases.

Was coming back from NYC (vacation over Christmas) and got the typical BS bully treatment by the security guy, I made a decision there, I will not go on vacation to US ever again.

As a non-US citizen, I've had similar experiences where I was taken apart and asked some more questions by border patrol. However none of those experiences, although very similar to yours, came over as unnecessary harassment. I don't quiet understand why you would be 'terrified' crossing the border if you have all your shit together, which it seems you have.

The people "whose educational attainments have qualified them to sit behind a desk stamping passports" were simply doing their job and from what you described they did it without causing more inconvenience for you than necessary.

Like some others commented, if you don't like to abide by the rules of your new country of residence, nobody is forcing you to be there. Oh, and downplaying other people's intellectual abilities does come across quiet snobbish :)

This story is true the world over. A friend got deported from India the other day for a mistake they (as in the Indian government) made on his visa.

There's somebody on the US no-fly list that has the exact same name as me. I can't check-in online with any airline, and checking in at the desk anywhere in the US results in some sort of warning on their computer, and a quick call to somebody to come out from the back and check it out. Unfortunately I have to fly at least once a month.

A quick look over the passport shows it's obviously not me (though I don't have any details of the real bad guy). Must happen to quite a few because I have a fairly bland, common British name.

Didn't they try to resolve this by issuing redress numbers or whatever? When I enter my passport on most airline's web-sites it gives me the option to add a redress number, which in theory should allow them to identify you as NOT the individual on the no-fly list.

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#DHS_Traveler_Redres...

Interesting. I've never really looked into it, I just get over the fact I have to check-in at the airport, and over time it's become less embarrassing since I just expect to see the assistants face drop in panic, and be pulled to the side.

It's never been mentioned to me either. I'm not actually a US citizen, so perhaps it doesn't apply. I'll look into it further, thanks for the advice.

Seems like you name might be similar to a name they had in their database who might have the criminal/arrest record. These are false hits and irritating but once the verify, they let you go. Hope they correct it soon for you.

Also, sometimes they randomly (not sure how random though) select individuals for what they call "secondary inspection". Here, you are just asked "extra" questions to ensure you are not a threat. I was pulled over once and the guy had a great time asking me all kinds of questions.

It's highly unlikely to be a name match -- my name is not very common, and combined with my gender is literally globally unique: there is no other male called Laurie Voss in the whole world.

See ... very suspicious. No MAN is called Laurie. Seriously.

Sorry for your experence. WIll try to avoid MIA, as this is not the first bad story I heard from there.

I am Canadian citizen and for two years I was traveling every second week to US on TN visa. In all that time I got 1 "bad" experience from US side and 2 from Canadian side. (it wasn't that bad just longer questioning with 'trick' questions) Question which confused me a most entering Canada was "How long you plan to stay ?" , WTF , I have Canadian passport ? It took me a moment not to say "Not your damn business." and just play nice.... But in general crossing border is 99% no issue

My first two attempts at entry to the US on my H1-B were simple, maybe one question and in I go. It was the third entry that they asked more questions and asked to see more paperwork (which I did have with me).

I guess it's to catch people who obtain visa/green-cards and then pass them off to others or their situation changes (and they no longer qualify for the visa). I'd also guess that frequent visitors to the US go through at least one of these increased scrutiny experiences every few years. I don't think it's unreasonable given the amount of problems they have with people trying to sneak into the country; I know that I don't have a right to be there so I expect some hassle.

The only other problem I had was coming back into the US after I'd gone to Canada for a friend's wedding (all on a VWP); so UK->US, then two weeks later US->Canada->US, and I wasn't due to fly back to the UK for another 2 weeks or so. I was nowhere near the 90 days of my original VWP, but they might have thought I was taking a quick trip to Canada in order to reset my 90 days with a new VWP entry. It just took a few extra minutes explanation.

Other than that I've done lots of trips to the US (20 on the Visa Waiver Program, 5 with my H1-B and another 10 or so since I moved back to the UK) with no problems at all.

Immigration processes millions of people each day. There are going to be mistakes.

This sounds like they got a false positive, investigated, and released him. That's how the process is supposed to work. Making this into some massive anti-American rant says more about the author than America. This experience sounds unpleasant, but like it was handled professionally.

I've spent an hour being searched by customs. I don't know why - perhaps because I was returning from India and hadn't shaved in a month. It was inconvenient, but also the job of customs. This did not bother me.

I fly domestically and internationally at least 20 times a year. I get caught up briefly in all sorts of different ways all over the world. It's part of travel, and it's really not that bad. This is how nations protect their borders and enforce their laws, because not everyone is a saint like you.

All you idiots saying you won't work in or travel to the US because of the TSA searches - give me a break. EVERY country in the world I have ever been to has nearly identical search procedures as the TSA and most countries have stringent immigration checks. Many asking far more probing questions than American immigration, including Netherlands, Israel, and Britain. I was nearly denied entry to Britain because I didn't know the address of a friend who I was staying with.

Sorry, I'm tired of all this false outrage about minor f-ups with the TSA and DHS. These organizations have some major policy and procedural problems, but a few hours one time while immigration officials do their job of making sure you don't have false documents is not among them. If you don't like it, go somewhere else where a $20 bribe instead of an objective investigation gets you admitted - which is most countries in the world.

When was the last time you had to wait in one crowded room for 3 hours without being allowed to use your phone, and without a seat?

The last time I was in a situation anywhere close to this was when I accompanied my girlfriend to get her visa renewed in London. We had to wait for about 5 hours in a fairly crowded hot room with pretty uncomfortable seats. But we had each other's company and while there was a sign saying we weren't allowed to use electronic devices, most people seemed to be ignoring it, so it wasn't so bad.

But still worse than anything I ever have to experience in my normal travel as a white British man.

This is not a competition for the worst experience one can have. I've had plenty of horrible ones. Ever been detained for several days in a crowded third world jail for no legitimate reason and extorted a large sum of money to be released? Ever been stabbed by thugs too powerful for the police to do anything other than write a lie-filled police report? This is what happens every day in the actual world away from privileged white developers with US green cards.

This is a privileged person, someone who travels internationally, writes a blog, was able to get a US green card (something tens of millions aspire to,) is in one of the most lucrative careers on the planet, and is the founder of a free enterprise despite being young and (presumably based on his caption) gay. In the grand scheme of things, this experience doesn't even measure on the pity scale, and to bitch and moan about such things reveals a major lack appreciation for what one has and a sad sense of entitlement.

Sorry, no go.

> This is a privileged person, someone who travels internationally, ...

... and who has gone through extensive scrutiny to get a green card.

Exactly the kind of person who should hit red flags at the border, right?

What's your point? Nobody is arguing whether this was a mistake, not even DHS officer when asked. Nobody is saying the DHS is the most competent organization on the planet or that it can't be better. In the vast majority of cases, people enter the country without issue and in a tiny minority there is some inconvenience.

Clearly many of the people in that room were there for a reason, as some was arrested and some were denied entry.

The guy had to stand in a room for 3 hours before entering the country because he tripped a false positive. We can hope that this won't happen every time - if it does, he might have something to complain about, though still not justification for the exasperation shown in this forum.

I know everyone hates on the US Immigration people, but as a fairly regular traveller to the US (normally at least twice a year, mixture of business and pleasure), I've never had a bad experience. The guards I've dealt with have never been less than professional, and some have gone out of their way to make smalltalk ("You have nice handwriting" (?), "Your birthday is the same as mine.") etc.

I even got let back through immigration from baggage control as I had a bad stomach and really badly needed to use the toilet, No guns were drawn on me.

Of course, it probably helps that I'm white and British, but I thought I would offer up at least one counterpoint.

I entered quite a few times under visa so far and my experience has been more than fine (in fact, it's even been pleasant). Hopefully, it'll never get to what you've had.

It happened a couple of times that the officer wasn't sure if I was doing what I said I was, for whatever reason, and they generally just asked a follow up question like "do you have an access card for this company and can I see it?" which resolved the matter every time. Didn't realize it was so close to "wait in the horror room for hours".

Ironically, it is poor security practice to print names on access cards. But it is fairly common.

I know what you mean. The bureaucratic establishment allows people in low ranking public jobs to have a disproportionate amount of power over pretty much anyone.

9/11 seems to have made things worse for pretty much everyone. Governments went paranoid and chose the easy way: delegating extra authority on people that were not prepared to exert it.

But border guards tend to be dumb and/or rude pretty much everywhere, so, don't take it too seriously.

This is why I choose citizenship.

I have kids so I cannot risk some guy having a bad day at the border ruining my life.

This is not an immigration issue. There is no place for common sense in government matters. Some day computers will take over the decision making and we will have a joyous experience coming in or happily avoid this country because the decision will be known.

I haven't seen anyone say it, but I can tell you that the experience of entering the US as a US citizen is only marginally better.

Leaving/entering the US is something I avoid at all costs. Sad but true.

Thanks so much for sharing this.

I think treatment of immigrants by border controls is shocking, and the biggest problem is how little attention / voice the problem gets.

Please continue to write about your experiences.

welcome to how germany treats their own citizen

I have a simple solution for not dealing with US immigration's bullshit. Too many trips marred by days spent in featureless rooms waiting for Godot, a full-time employee of your border agency.

Anyway - simple solution - don't go to America. Don't work with Americans.

Europe and Asia are big markets.

This is the biggest non-problem ever:

1) Did the author get in? Yes

2) Did customs do their job and scrutinize the person's paperwork? Yes

3) Was the person held for an inordinately long time? No -- 3 hours is not a "long time." If you can't deal with the fact that you just flew (potentially) halfway across the world in an airplane

4) Was the author unduly molested or given harsh treatment, perhaps by being denied food, water, medication, or otherwise harassed? No -- the author points out that there was a water fountain and snack machines, and the author was not strip searched, nor was he otherwise harassed/degraded. Sitting in a waiting room while your paperwork clears is "not a big deal."

Please stop blowing things out of proportion, and criticizing the US for no reason. I've immigrated to and lived in 3 different countries, and BY FAR the procedure described here is not difficult or tedious. If you can't deal with a a 3 hour wait, how can you deal with anything? Patience is a virtue.

BTW -- I was a paying awe.sm customer -- I just cancelled my account due to this overblown blog posting. Enjoy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com