My wife and I recently flew to New Zealand from London, we opted to avoid a transit via the US. Not just because of the political situation in the country, which isn't ideal, but because our bags wouldn't be checked all the way through. Having to offload our bags and re-check them in either JFK or LAX is a huge pain – travelling via China, Singapore or any of the middle eastern countries is so much more convenient in comparison.
Last time I did this through LAX (flying onwards to Toronto) it was pretty minimal. You pick up your bag, go through immigration, then on the way out of there drop your bag off with an airline agent and on it goes to your destination.
Before the latest incarnation of Trumpistan though.
It's still a pain; and what do you do if your bag and/or the inbound flight are late? Do you leave it behind or wait and risk missing the connection? And of course ~no other countries do that and nothing bad happens.
Musk should have gone after TSA et al first, he could have dismantled the entire rest of the government on the goodwill from that :)
If I didn't live here I wouldn't visit the US either even before all this recent crap. High crime rates, high poverty rates, poor education, expensive, and the 5th highest incarceration rate in the world on par with Turkmenistan and Brazil. 1.5% of the US population is either in prison or on probation and a short step away from prison.
Comparing the US with Brazil, especially with respect to some violence-adjacent statistic, is absurd in a way I don't think anybody from anywhere aside from perhaps South Africa could grasp big is your privilege.
Both Brazil and the US are huge and extremely diverse countries. On both you can see extremes of luxury and poverty. On both you will see violence and police corruption. In the case of the US, it's more heartbreaking because it's a rich country, and you shouldn't see people living on the streets of a place like San Francisco.
There are too many things that "shouldn't" in the US that just are and that is what makes me avoid visiting as often as I once did. The current descent into a quasi-fascist state isn't enticing either.
Brazil, on the other hand, is a poor country with rich pockets (chances are we both grew up in one), and poverty is kind of expected and hard to avoid. At least there (I don't live in Brazil anymore) we see a government dedicated to reducing economic inequality. I hope they succeed.
In the meantime, I guess I'll learn some basic Mandarin and spend more time in China. It's an interesting country that's now opening up to the world and with a lot of new things to be discovered by those who grew up elsewhere.
> and you shouldn't see people living on the streets of a place like San Francisco.
Taking a straight line on the map in San Francisco, we saw people in conditions as grim as I have ever seen, including South African slums. As you say, it's in some ways worse because the USA should not - there must be the ability to improve that, but not the inclination. The dire pockets are smaller in the USA, sure. But there were also extremes of luxury and poverty.
> In the case of the US, it's more heartbreaking because it's a rich country, and you shouldn't see people living on the streets of a place like San Francisco.
It is certainly not for lack of money all around that many/most live on the street. Money is the one thing that sloshes all over the place. Mental health care and friendly administrations of all kinds, on the other hand, not so much.
你说得对，你首先需要学中文。Otherwise you'll have a tough time out here.
But once you've got the language to a decent place, it's pretty nice. I'm hesitant to express how much I like it here, though… I look at what's happening with all the foreigners causing trouble in Japan, and really hope that the "scary" reputation of China helps keep those types of people from descending like locusts here too. Some secrets are better left kept…
What's good about living in China? Aren't the cities huge, unwalkable, polluted? Asking in good faith. I've never visited, but spent a lot of time in Bangkok and that was a dystopian nightmare to me. I'm assuming Chinese cities are similar?
+ what about the gov? I have a lot of friends who emigrated from China and they are complaining a lot about freedoms, social welfare, and work life balance back home.
It's naive to believe that the Brazilian government has the population's best interest at heart.
It is a Russian-style aristocracy with zero freedom of speech. I genuinely believe that Lula as a "people's person" cared for the "people" at some point, but that's long gone.
Brazil is a failed state with 52(!) GNI. That level of inequality signals a gargantuan failure of the state.
My hope for the country is that is gets split at some point, since as it is, it only "works" for a very small minority.
> The current descent into a quasi-fascist state isn't enticing either.
> In the meantime, I guess I'll learn some basic Mandarin and spend more time in China.
Yeah, take it from me, NYC and Boston are far more relaxed and friendly than Cape Town for walking or driving around.
But I find the airport border security in CPT Airport much more pleasant. The worst that happens is that they sometimes go through your stuff thoroughly, hoping to ding you some money for "importing" e.g. that second bottle of booze.
In all of these cities, there is crime and violence. Less so in NYC and Boston. In all of them, there are safer places and times, and less safe areas. If you know what they are.
You can't say "USA crime and poverty rates are terrible, therefore Manhattan will be very dangerous" - it just doesn't work that way.
I wouldn't want to roll the dice on being seized at the border by ICE for arbitrary and capricious reasons, detained and/or disappeared, to maybe get sent back to my country of origin.
Because that is a thing that can happen now. If I didn't already live here, I wouldn't come here for any reason.
I’ve been to the US several times and am not afraid to travel there for tourism or work trips.
But the homicide rate being ~10x higher there compared to my home country is definitely one factor stopping me from considering moving there with my family, despite good job opportunities. (As an European, the other big blocker is work-life balance.)
Usually the home country or other touristic destinations. I'd consider that US has been the country with the highest crime... and very obvious police presence compared to any other place visited (I've traveled fair amount)
In Canadian burning man discussion groups, consensus is pretty much that no one is going this year due to the tariff war (well that and criticism of the nonprofit that organizes it) . Out of hundreds who chimed in on the discussion threads, only one said they'd still go this year.
Many people I know have also cancelled travel plans and bookings. There are definitely some undeniable changes in how we're spedning our vacation time.
I guess you include the claims of "Canada is not a legitimate country" and "We will annex you" in the tariff war bracket. Those are the most pointed and serious policies that seem to have hurt the Canada-US relations the most. I think we need to mention them separately, so that it's understood by everyone.
Even if you could organize one with space for 100,000 people, it wouldn't be the same. For one, due to fire bans an effigy burn would be unlikely. And it wouldn't be in the desert which is a big part of it.
I'm not at all against the idea of another 7-day burn with a different name as an alternative to burning man though. Host it in BC where drugs are decriminalized and it'll probably be a lot safer for people too (in terms of legal repercussions).
Well, given Burning Man has grown so big that it is becoming a turn-off for some, and the chaos of people getting stuck for days last year (or was it the year before that), I wonder if the real reason for people deciding to not go this time is really tariff wars, or if that is more of a scapegoat.
"Airline travel between Canada and the US is “collapsing” amid Donald Trump’s tariff war, with flight bookings between the two countries down by over 70%, newly released data suggests."
A friend of mine from Europe was very determined to visit the US this year, travelling through several states, meeting up with me along the way. He would have spent a lot of money here, but now that is not going to happen. Now there is no way he will travel here due to the hostility demonstrated by the current administration. I agree with his decision, he should stay away or risk being incarcerated because of an overzealous immigration gestapo, as has already happened to at least one European tourist. The US has gone mad, with a mad king that seems to hate everyone and everything as well as his deplorable minions.
I would venture a guess that many Europeans share a common, predictable and negative view of what's happening in the states these days, unless they're something like a hardcore Orban or Le Pen supporter.
Entities within entities. I don't think it matters and I don't think it means that the person who wrote it doesn't know or care about the finer details of 'Europe' (I'm from "Europe" myself..)
I could have named the country but I'd rather not provide those details. I'm not sure why you chose to respond to that specific part of my comment, it's rather pointless.
My girlfriend wanted to visit the US once in her life, but we decided to cancel the plans due to the current uncertainty.
A German tattoo artist was detained because she had her work equipment with her. What will happen when I bring my phone and laptop as an IT guy?
IIrc the discussion about this (tattoo) topic made it apparent that, that artist was likely working in the USA before (without permit) and planned to do so again, and had posted so in the web.
But myself I wouldn't go to the USA right now as well. In the case that anything goes wrong, there is likely so much chaos in all the agencies right now, the danger of error is just very high and impact could be catastrophic.
You should always bring a burner device when traveling to a foreign country, US or otherwise
The border patrol can effectively do anything they want, for any reason. If they ask you to unlock your devices, do it. Let them take it away to be imaged. There will be nothing of value on a burner device.
1password has a travel mode which will remove vaults from your devices. Take this one step further and remove everything unnecessary for travel from your devices
I've travelled to 50+ countries and never considered bringing a burner device. This recent US thing of of checking your devices or social media posts and turning back people with wrongthink is kind of novel.
I worked for a government contractor and this was common guidance over a decade ago if you are in any sensitive role
It is not hard to imagine a scenario where a foreign government might surreptitiously plant a rootkit on a lowly IT workers device as they transit customs, as a means to pivot for corporate or other espionage
It is much more common to phish the administrative staff for a firm to get network access but you would have to be a fool to ignore the vector of customs simply using direct physical access for a much more effective hack
I just realized that the most restrictive border I ever crossed was a trip to Tel Aviv and it was well known even back then that they would inspect everything about you before you even landed
Given that there are precedents of people being detained (for weeks!) for no apparent reason, I assume that the parent is scared that it could happen to them.
A French citizen was denied entry because they found messages criticising Trump on his phone/computer. Not detained for weeks, but could well have been for all we know.
If you come here then, as a foreigner with no rights that will be respected by the current government, you can be snatched right off the street and deported to a prison in a country that's foreign to you.
I have guidance from my company to clear everything from my laptop and mobile when passing those borders. Funny thing is we don't do anything suspicious and its a large US company. They just don't want the liability of client data being copied by an trackable gov process...
Visiting New York for me now would be like a Jew going on holiday in Germany in 1938.
Ultimately my money would be going to a Christian nationalist regime and I have no illusions about what kind of "freedom" the US have in store for the world.
you mean with arbitrarily claiming they have "no way to get them back" to spread more fear and suppression in ways mirroring the evil methods of authoritarian governments through history
let's be real the only way in which they could have "no way to get them back" is if they didn't imprison them in El Salvador but instead murdered them (and I don't think the US is at that level today)
the only one who has no way to get them back is the court/legislative, i.e. the US isn't anymore a state of law
>let's be real the only way in which they could have "no way to get them back" is if they didn't imprison them in El Salvador but instead murdered them
Last time trump was president, his administration directed the separation of thousands of families at the border, and many of the children were "lost" and never returned. They are now somewhere in the US presumably with some foster family, but they purposely did not keep records of the separations and now there is no way to get them returned to their families.
Maybe they murdered the children, maybe they shipped them off somewhere else? Who knows? One thing is for sure though, trump 2.0 seems far, far worse and more vindictive and more authoritarian.
i think it isn't a trial run, it is just a natural progression of things when the power becomes more and more unchecked.
There is already 3rd term talk - Vance runs, Trump as VP on the ticket, Vance resigns after winning and voila. That way he can also do 4th and if medical science progresses well - 5th, etc.
Under Trump doctrine, IIRC, Vance could simply kill Trump as an official Presidential act, and the legal presumption would be that it's A-OK.
Actually, that's an interesting question: does the VP share that same presumption of immunity? If so, then Vance could just do the deed right now and get off Scott free.
I think that's unlikely, but also, Musk is much younger than Trump and planning the long game from his own point of view.
MAGA as a movement (and the people who prop it up) will need a successor. Musk knows trump will eventually go fully senile or have a stroke or just keel over dead from old age, and Vance is a good logical next person to step in and take the reigns.
> Vance runs, Trump as VP on the ticket, Vance resigns after winning and voila.
I dunno man; Vance is ambitious, but doesn't seem like such a sycophant. I'd say there'd be a non-negligible chance that instead of resigning, Vance has him "accidentally extradited" to an El Salvadorian prison.
> Vance has him "accidentally extradited" to an El Salvadorian prison.
why I don't agree on the prison part, yeah, IMHO the people "behind" trump see him as a manipulable but also volatile (i.e. problematic/bothersome/annoying/dangerous for them) tool to get and stay in power
Trump cannot run as VP as he's no longer a valid backup POTUS having already served two terms. VP candidates have to be "valid" (birth citizenship, age, not have served two terms).
The back door third term via VP trick only cleanly works for candidates before they've been elected twice.
Any attempt by Trump to run as VP will almost immediately be locked up in chaos.
It's another dead cat on table smoke 'n mirrors distraction play.
To quote another:
The reason Donald Trump is talking about this third term ridiculousness is very plain.
Second-term American presidents are lame ducks. That’s just how it is. And if they are unpopular lame ducks, after awhile their allies may start to look past them toward the future.
Trump is undoubtedly terrified of this—of becoming irrelevant before his term even ends, particularly once the race to succeed him heats up.
The way for him to keep the specter of lame-duckishness at bay is to tease the idea that just maybe, who knows, he just sorta might run for a third term.
That’s the play, and the media is being played.
The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution limits the number of times a person can be elected to the office of President of the United States to two terms, and sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.
The interaction with the twelfth has not been tested in any Supreme Court:
It has been argued that the 22nd Amendment and 12th Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the presidential line of succession.
Others contend that the original intent of the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service (age, residence, and citizenship), while the 22nd Amendment concerns qualifications for election, and thus a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president.
Neither amendment restricts the number of times someone can be elected to the vice presidency and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term, although the person could be prohibited from running for election to an additional term.
>VP candidates have to be "valid" (birth citizenship, age, not have served two terms).
Nothing about 2 terms. The 12th says:
" But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
One can see that "constitutionally ineligible" here can easily be only about things like being natural born citizen, age (ie. the things which apply even to the 1st term). At least when you have your own Supreme Court.
Haven't they already reinterpreted "two terms" to mean "two consecutive terms" anyway?
When you have your own Supreme Court it's easy. The next step will be to declare that two consecutive terms is actually just one long term, and so on. Every dictator does something like this - not always the exact thing, but something like it, some flimsy excuse and if everyone goes along with the excuse, they gain power.
>It's another dead cat on table smoke 'n mirrors distraction play.
I remember people thinking he'd never do something like try to overturn the 2020 election with fake electors. I mean it didn't work but he kind of gave it a shot.
Why? Because maybe they don't like to be detained just for the fact they have texted someone on Whatsapp that they disapprove of the current US administration.
> prompting Germany, the UK, Denmark, Finland and Portugal to issue travel warnings and advisories for the country
I'm glad they posted links, that is a lot better sourced than many media groups. But the links suggest that the UK's updated advice [0] is "follow US law while in the US, the form you want is an ESTA". That is something of a non-statement. In fact there is a lot in this article that on close inspection doesn't say anything. Like the rather generic Soligo quote for example.
[0] Bizarrely the source trail is via The Hill; I would have thought the BBC could go straight to a UK government website.
I am not an expert there, but my feeling is that if those countries made a change regarding the US (like it used to say "it's perfectly safe" and now it says "hmm, be careful with the paperwork"), then it counts as a warning.
My wife is a huge Disney fan and I accepted my fate years ago that eventually we will take our kids to Disney world when they are the optimal ages to get the most out of it. That time comes next year and we had already pencilled our visit for the spring but now we are considering our options and may look at going elsewhere, it's a real shame as it's been a long standing dream for my wife to repeat her childhood experience but it's a different world now.
no. that security theater have always been exclusive of the usa.
keep in mind if you're flying into the usa you might be passing thru usa-owned security screening even overseas. Britain, Ireland, have separate security screening, all with USA personnel.
Honestly if I was American, I think I'd be pretty happy about that. Less strangers, less tourists, more Americans in America.
And if people still want so desperately to come in my country, they got to follow the rules, whatever how stupid and outrageous they are.
I know it's also contributing to slowing the economy, not only tourists but new talents, qualified migrants may think twice before getting in, external investment may be lower.
But does it really matter to the American farmer or blue collar ?
Of course it does. The American farmer or blue collar worker uses government services just like everyone else, and those are paid in part by talented immigrants and external investment.
What I've seen in people supporting far-right politics is that they never, but never, ever, see themselves on the receiving end of the stick. It's really difficult to grasp how they are immigrants yet support throwing out immigrants, some receive social support yet are totally fine with cutting it, and I could go on. Americans but not only, Europe has such politics as well.
The way I read it was not if it had effects (of course it does) but mostly how it'd be perceived personally: "I was American, I think I'd be pretty happy about that"
The US had incredible soft power. You could travel the world and still hear US news, and locals discussing their opinion on the US. US entertainment was inescapable. Now people in other countries are starting to find ways to do without US influence, and the admiration and interest is dwindling.
The loss of soft power will hurt in indirect ways, but they will hurt.
