Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

daniel.haxx.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#41

Post by ashtonkem »

zimpenfish wrote: post #38
setpatchaddress wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's getting to the point where one must ask why someone wealthy enough to fly internationally would want the hassle of entering the US. It's been bad since 9/11, but it's insane now. I can't imagine the TSA is treating people better than they did pre-Trump. Maybe things will be better next year.

> It's getting to the point where one must ask why someone wealthy enough to fly internationally would want the hassle of entering the US. Sometimes it's the only sensible option - e.g. as far as I know (the Kiwis I know all go via LAX), London to Auckland via LAX is cheaper, quicker, easier, etc. than going a non-US route like Singapore.

I don’t think you need a visa to travel through the international terminal in America, do you?

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#42

Post by jdright »

dwheeler wrote: post #4

This is absurd. I'm a US citizen, so I'll contact my Congressman to have his staff look into it. I don't have any special power, any US citizen can contact their congressman, but maybe that will kick-start something.

The funny thing is that if he had gone work as a temporary worker in Canada, two years would have given him permanent resident status. Then two more years he can become a citizen, then he would be free to enter USA. This would be faster and better solution overall. But anyways, I don't think it is ever worth the trouble going there.

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#43

Post by ashtonkem »

q3k wrote: post #30
kortilla wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The network effects of intelligent people in your country are positive. On average, you want their voting behavior, their parenting skills, their risk assessments, their economic and tax contributions, and their cultural contributions.

It's the 'than anywhere else' part that I have an issue with. If that's the way you see it, you're doing this at the explicit detriment of everyone outside your country. There's ways to grow that 'intelligence pool' locally, without having to see the rest of the world as just a pool of immigration candidates. Not to mention, just because someone travels to the US doesn't mean they want to actually immigrate there...

From an economic perspective, having a specific person in your economy is zero sum; either they’re in your country or they’re not in your country.

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#44

Post by petschge »

ashtonkem wrote: post #41
zimpenfish wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's getting to the point where one must ask why someone wealthy enough to fly internationally would want the hassle of entering the US. Sometimes it's the only sensible option - e.g. as far as I know (the Kiwis I know all go via LAX), London to Auckland via LAX is cheaper, quicker, easier, etc. than going a non-US route like Singapore.

I don’t think you need a visa to travel through the international terminal in America, do you?

You do. The US does not do "sterile transit". That was a major hazzle for (former) colleagues from South Africa.

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#46

Post by konbaji »

snazz wrote: post #24
konbaji wrote: post #19

I am a strong supporter of the current administration's restrictions on immigration. The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. Moreover, we need less "white immigrants" to come here in order to maintain diversity.

> The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by this statement? Are you referring primarily to jobs and government assistance?

> but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint.

Given my downvotes it seems others here are not so interested. Nevertheless, I will give you an example.

Housing. I am a bay area native and through my lifetime I have seen certain immigrants from Europe and South Asia, push up the cost of housing. Those tech H1B workers only serve to exacerbate this issue.

I can no longer afford to buy a property unless I work in tech or win the lottery. Others like myself have grown resentful, rightfully so, of these transplants and immigrants.

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#47

Post by petschge »

vageli wrote: post #37
snazz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by this statement? Are you referring primarily to jobs and government assistance?

> > The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. > I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Is there any country with unfettered immigration?

Svalbard might fit the bill. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Svalbard

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#48

Post by ashtonkem »

vageli wrote: post #37
snazz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by this statement? Are you referring primarily to jobs and government assistance?

> > The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. > I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Is there any country with unfettered immigration?

Depends on your timespan. In the modern era only failed states that can’t actually secure their own borders have unfettered immigration; but it’s pretty rare for people to want to go into such countries.

Scroll back a few centuries, and what we’d consider to be “open borders” was much more the norm.

Then again, a few centuries before that and the vast majority of residents in Europe couldn’t legally leave the land that they were on, forget the concept of immigration. Leaving town could make you an outlaw, let alone your country.

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#49

Post by MattyMc »

Canada is benefiting substantially from the recent US immigration policies. My Ai team at Microsoft Canada was stacked with talent, all immigrants, and most expressed to me that they would have “normally gone to the US.”

I don’t have to remind this community of the laundry list of tech giants started by immigrants. However, if anyone outside the US is reading this we’d love to have you in Canada. Come here, please.

Re: Daniel Stenberg (curl) has been denied entry to the US for 870 days

#50

Post by CamTin »

vageli wrote: post #37
snazz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by this statement? Are you referring primarily to jobs and government assistance?

> > The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. > I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Is there any country with unfettered immigration?

The United States before 1924 for one. Passports and travel documents didn't really exist at all until Napoleonic-ish times and weren't widespread until about WWI.

I personally feel that defining "citizen" in any other way than "people who are currently living here" is a form of apartheid and antithetical to our constitution.

Post reply on HN