Mozilla Employee Denied Entry To the United States (gizmodo.com)

Reader Artem Tashkinov writes: Daniel Stenberg, an employee at Mozilla and the author of the command-line tool curl, was not allowed to board his flight to the meeting from Sweden—despite the fact that he'd previously obtained a visa waiver allowing him to travel to the US. Stenberg was unable to check in for his flight, and was notified at the airport ticket counter that his entry to the US had been denied. Although Mozilla doesn't believe that the incident is related to Trump's travel ban, the incident stirred fears among international tech workers, who fear they'll miss out on work and research opportunities if they're not allowed to travel to the US. The situation even caught the eye of Microsoft's chief legal officer Brad Smith, who tweeted at Stenberg to offer legal assistance.

Comments

I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

All Jill Stein voters are happy

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that you think Jill Stein voters cost Clinton the election. If that's true, then I guess the Democrats will need to come up with a more compelling reason to vote for them than "We're not the Republicans!".

Re:I sure hope

[B33rNinj4]

That's a weak argument. NO Green Party member would have voted for Clinton, ever. The DNC should have fielded a better candidate. As for the article, as much as people want to complain. traveling to the US is not a right. You can be denied entry for pretty much any reason.

Re:I sure hope

[ShanghaiBill]

as much as people want to complain. traveling to the US is not a right.

I don't think many people are arguing that these travel restrictions are illegal, just that they are stupid and counterproductive. My company has offices in San Jose and Shanghai. Since our employees in China have difficulty getting visas to come to America for meetings and conferences, the Americans go to Shanghai instead, putting money into the Chinese economy, eating at Chinese restaurants, and staying at Chinese hotels.

Since American employees incur these additional travel expenses, we are more biased toward hiring in China instead.

No country has ever thrived by shutting itself off from the world.

Anyway, I am going to Shanghai in July for 3 months, and my family is going with me. We plan to spend plenty of American dollars trying every new restaurant on Nanjing Road, all at company expense (tax deductible). Thank you Donald Trump!

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. And US citizens can be denied entry in any country too. But that's not how the world works, right?

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

1,457,213 people voted for Jill Stein.

Of that number, 879,105 voted for her in states that Hillary won.

So over 60% of Jill Stein's votes could have gone to Hillary, and it would not have changed the outcome.

Try again.

Re:I sure hope

[interkin3tic]

The DNC should have fielded a better candidate.

1. The "DNC" chose their candidate about as much as Russia chose our president. Democratic voters "fielded" their candidate. By a big majority.

2. You're obviously not talking "better" as in qualifications, you're talking about someone who gave voters the warm fuzzy feelings. Sure, Hillary did not. Speaking as a democrat who voted for Hillary in the primary, I'm very sorry I overestimated the average voter. No sarcasm, I can't fathom what I was thinking at the time. I guess I thought if the country willingly voted for a black dude twice they'd be capable of voting for a competent woman instead of a reality TV show host who has declared bankruptcy many times? My kids and I are going to be paying the price for that blunder. Next time I'll be sure to vote in the primary for whatever white dude I think will be the least offensive to the hick states and hope he picks competent people to actually do shit.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is against the TPP, about the only positive for either him and Clinton.

Re:I sure hope

[Rob Y.]

But the other 40% may well have changed the outcome. And those 60% spent months spreading the idea that the other 40% shouldn't vote for 'the lesser of 2 evils' and denying the obvious facts that that 'lesser evil' was essentially for most of the Sanders/Stein platform - and could've won and enacted at least some of it.

Look, a binary choice may not be the best form of Democracy, but in our system, that's essentially what we have. However it happened, 'the greater of 2 evils' got elected, a hard-right ideologue got onto the Supreme Court, and we may well lose a once in a lifetime chance to eliminate anti-democratic nonsense like gerrymandered districts. And Citizens United is now locked in for the next generation.

Stein voters had their reasons. Stupid, self-defeating ones, but hey...

Re:I sure hope

[vel-ex-tech]

Well, the DNC sure didn't help Sanders. Locking his campaign out of fundraising data it should have had access to for a few days there was lovely. What other internal politics didn't we hear about that contributed to the Coronation? I also wonder who decided to sick #BLM on Sanders?

Also, this bullcrap about the electoral college. Seems to me that states where Sanders won flopped and went for Trump. I don't think the DNC or Hillary's campaign were correctly playing the electoral college game.

In the end, I voted for Hillary as well.

<sarcasm>
I think that problem is that America just isn't ready for a Lizard Person-American as president yet. There are a lot of things that people don't understand very well about the lizard people, and I initially had some of the same misapprehensions when I voted for Sanders in the primary. For example, Hillary is a natural born citizen just like you or me, even if she's of Thubani heritage. That's one of the things that makes America great, imo. Whether one's ancestors are from thousands of miles away across an ocean or hundreds of light years away across a star ocean, we're all Americans together.

To paraphrase Chancellor Gorkon, I see that our two species have a long way to go.
</sarcasm>

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

we may well lose a once in a lifetime chance to eliminate anti-democratic nonsense like gerrymandered districts

Yes, more Federalism is exactly what we need.

Re:I sure hope

[fritz1968]

My company has offices in San Jose and Shanghai. Since our employees in China have difficulty getting visas to come to America for meetings and conferences, the Americans go to Shanghai instead

You do realize that setting up a video conference would greatly reduce your travel costs and still allow you to meet with you counterparts in China?

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting job rewriting history in favor of your chosen candidate you've done there. Speaking as someone who fervently hoped neither Clinton nor Trump would become president (And I wonder about the brainpower of my fellow citizens in voting for either. The excuse I'm frequently given is "you have to vote for one of the two, because one of them is going to win."), the DNC certainly tipped the scales to Clinton against the wishes of the primary voters.

To quote: "Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, abruptly said she was resigning after a trove of leaked emails showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

This according to that bastion of right wing ideology, the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html).

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you, snowflake.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like sore loser talk there... I voted for Trump based on the available choices. I'm not proud of it, nor am I ashamed. It is what it is.

Having said that, the guy hasn't filed thru on promises, has not become more presidential, and had continued to alienate his base rather than come up on promises to try and unify our broken country.

He's a moron. So we move on as a country and try to make the best of it while working on the future...

Too many people, including those very cost to me, spend their entire existence hating now rather than living their lives. It's sad...

Is also very sore loser'ish.

Had lying Hillary won (great reference by the way, even though Trump is the one who pushed it) I don't think we'd see the same from Trump voters.

Sure, there would be the outliers, but in general it's the liberals who naively thought that they were the superior ones, who cannot carbon they all others don't think like them. It is full of arrogance, and hyperbole to think that way.

Can't stand a lot of the things trumps doing, but if the election were held tomorrow, she the candidates were the same, I'd probably do it again.

Trump is brash and arrogant, but he loves the country in his own twisted way. Hillary tried to divide Americans, control what we could and couldn't say and do, and wanted to make America the global thought police.

Trump sucks ass and acts emotionally and childishly. I don't have a lot of good things to say about him other than he isn't Hillary, and at Americans we again have some control over our destiny.

Now is the time to make plans for the next election, and based on current progress, the democrats are going to blow it again unfortunately.

Is sad...

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

competent

Assuming a lot there...

Re:I sure hope

[ShanghaiBill]

You do realize that setting up a video conference would greatly reduce your travel costs

You do realize that using video conferencing instead of face-to-face collaboration doesn't work near as well in practice as it does in theory?

If Skype was a perfect substitute for commuting, the highways of Silicon Valley would be empty every morning.

Re:I sure hope

[thegarbz]

You do realize that setting up a video conference would greatly reduce your travel costs and still allow you to meet with you counterparts in China?

That depends entirely on the meeting. Video conferences are good for some very basic meetings. Yet there's a world of things that technology just won't change. Strong inter-company relationships aren't made over a video screen. They aren't even made in a meeting room. They're made at the coffee machine, they are made at the dinner table, in the bar, while walking to the car.

My company not only has a policy that specific things need to be face to face, but also a policy of a group outing somewhere when they happen. There's a good reason for it too. Knowing someone on a personal level helps a lot on the work level too.

Not every company counts pennies, some invest in themselves.

Re:I sure hope

[laie_techie]

Also, this bullcrap about the electoral college. Seems to me that states where Sanders won flopped and went for Trump. I don't think the DNC or Hillary's campaign were correctly playing the electoral college game.

The electoral college is a necessary compromise. It's the same compromise which gave all states equal voice in the Senate while more populous states get a louder voice in Congress. As long as states have a winner-take-all mentality, something like the electoral college is needed. My personal proposal is that there are 2 votes representing the entire state, then 1 vote decided by voters in each congressional district. Of course, the US Constitution gives states the right and obligation to handle elections (determine polling positions, determine how to divvy the electoral votes, etc).

Re:I sure hope

[ShanghaiBill]

This is why many tech firms provide free on-campus lunches. When random employees share a meal, the conversation often leads to sharing of ideas and opportunities for collaboration.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

You should look up the statistics of who voted for whom, you'd be shocked at how many non-hicks voted for not-Hillary.

Two demographics voted for Clinton: the young and the poor

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, considering that Gorsuch replaced Scalia, the court might be considered as having moved slightly towards the center.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

as much as people want to complain. traveling to the US is not a right.

I don't think many people are arguing that these travel restrictions are illegal, just that they are stupid and counterproductive.

Then WHY did they haul this issue into court multiple times? A LOT of people are/were making the "this is illegal" argument, especially in the press and on the left side of the isle. I don't figure Woppie Goldberg speaks for the majority, but she does represent a lot of people and SHE was making this claim.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, you are so full of cliches. How do you sleep at night, without Debbie Wasserman Schultz dictating what position to lie in?

You want one of two evils? I want neither of two evils, yet I'm the bad one. And what you consider more evil is sick; you would rather support the enabler of a rapist, rather than a blowhard that has a foul mouth.

Then you follow it up with gerrymandering,as if only one party does that. So priceless. And heaven forbid people form a group for political discourse without the government having a hand in it somehow. Do you want Trump telling you how to freely associate? No? Yet you want to tell me how to. Lesser evil indeed.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not a typical Trump voter... Most of us understand that he's actually doing a bang up job in the face of a UGE headwind provided by the media and the press...

In fact, I'm not so sure you actually ARE a Trump voter.... Most of us understood who he was BEFORE he won the primaries, he wasn't hiding it at all and he was very clear that he wasn't going to change. He hasn't. He wasn't my first choice but I'd vote for him again over ANY democratic challenger (Assuming the democrats don't swing hard right and forsake their base). I'm the typical Trump voter, and I'm NOT giving up on him yet.

Could he do something that would change my mind? Sure.. However, I don't see that being very likely and I'm NOT going to take the media's word for it (especially the "Fake News" known as CNN or the comedy shows on MSNBC).

With the above... I'm pretty sure that YOU really are NOT a Trump voter. I could be wrong, but I'd seriously doubt your claims otherwise..

Re:I sure hope

[Zak3056]

And Citizens United is now locked in for the next generation

It should be locked in forever The idea that people do not have the same rights when acting in concert as they do when acting alone is abhorrent, and that's exactly what you're saying when you talk about stifling "corporate speech."

From that point of view, the New York Times should not enjoy the freedom of the press. It's nonsensical.

Yes, there are absolutely problems with money in politics. Stifling speech doesn't fix those.

Re:I sure hope

[ShanghaiBill]

Then WHY did they haul this issue into court multiple times?

Those are DIFFERENT restrictions, aimed at keeping muslims out, not Swedes. Those were almost certainly illegal, especially since Donald tweeted that they were specifically aimed at muslims, contradicting his own staff who had claimed otherwise. Multiple courts have declared them illegal, and SCOTUS will hear the case soon, and will likely find at least some of the restrictions illegal.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

However, this is how the field is striped sir... You don't like to play by the rules, especially when you lose.

Democrats are loosing ground because of their advocated policies, not because the rascals on the other side of the isle are drawing your side out of the precinct maps. How do I know? Because, you are losing seats in elections which are state wide too, governors, senators, president...

Surely you see that your problems run deeper than what gerrymandering can account for..

Re:I sure hope

[Pfhorrest]

I'm not a Green Party member, but I usually vote Greens where available. I voted for Stein understanding that my electors would go to Clinton anyway because I'm in California (hoping to ever-so-slightly entice the Democrats to more Greenish policies in the future to recapture that vote), but if I lived somewhere that that would have made it likely my electors would have gone to Trump, I've voted Clinton in a heartbeat.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know left voters are never happy.

Re:I sure hope

[ChunderDownunder]

In my country we number boxes according to preference. There is no penalty for voting for a third candidate.
Scenario:
Don gets 42 votes, Jill gets 25, hill gets 33. Who wins?
Well a quarter didn't vote for either. But if 80% of Jill voters prefer Hill over Don then Hill wins 53 to 47.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Left side of what isle, mon?

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The democratic voters didn't field the candidate, the superdelegates did. It was designed to keep populist candidates out ever since Jimmy Carter.

2. You're mistake is assuming Hillary Clinton was competent. History and actual evidence are that she was neither a competent Senator nor a competent Secretary of State. And, if your estimation of the average voter is they select candidates based on skin pigmentation, appearance, chromosomes, or genitalia, then it's a good thing the average voter disappointed you.

Bonus: calling Obama the "black dude" who won shows just how little you thought of him or his presidency. It was just a checkbox for you to say you voted for a person of color.

Bonus 2: you and your kids will not be paying any price, so don't think for a second we believe that bullshit. You're as white as snow, and not in any position to claim some grievance. If that's your casus belli, then go fuck yourself and prepare to do real battle.

Re:I sure hope

[martinX]

IMO, Skype is a poor substitute for dedicated VC hardware (I have experience with Cisco and Tandberg) and a good internet connection. Skype video conferencing is better than a phone call, but nowhere near as good a Cisco conference.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for no candidate since none was the correct vote. All candidates began with a "morality aside" clause...which means they all had faults too big to ignore...but nonetheless people felt compelled to vote so that the "wrong" one wasn't chosen. Shame on the populace for choosing 3 candidates who shelve morality and wisdom for power. Humility begets humility, and consequently power begets corruption.

Re:I sure hope

[vel-ex-tech]

Ah yeah. I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to those things, so I didn't mean to give the impression I thought the electoral college was a bad idea. Besides being in a demographic that's supposed to make me beholden to the D team, Hillary was the first time I voted for either an R or a D for POTUS. I usually go Libertarian.

What I'd meant to express was that all this whinging about the electoral college is bullcrap. I don't think Hillary even showed up once to campaign in my state, which went to Sanders in the primary.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Or gossip.. and we take an hour and a half or more.. play on messager. Doesn't matter we are in the office therefore we are working harder than those remotes.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

"Multiple courts have declared them illegal, and SCOTUS will hear the case soon, and will likely find at least some of the restrictions illegal."

You mean the Supreme Court that just unanimously bitch slapped the liberal adjenda driven lower courts on the ban? That court? Please go back to China.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Jill Stein voters saw the headline and are disappointed that it wasn't Eich.

Re:I sure hope

[Pfhorrest]

And FWIW if Bernie had gotten the Democratic nomination I would have voted for him to reward the Democrats for a step in the right direction (and also because Bernie was actually a better candidate than Stein, having similar policies but more experience and effective passion).

Re:I sure hope

[Pseudonym]

Just as happy as the Garry Johnson voters, I'm sure.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Better federalism is what you need.

Re:I sure hope

[Pseudonym]

In the post-Reagan era, most voters aren't happy most of the time.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got 2 years to earn our votes back. Try not to fuck it up this time!

Re:I sure hope

[14erCleaner]

You do realize that using video conferencing instead of face-to-face collaboration doesn't work near as well in practice as it does in theory?

It's like phone sex vs in-person sex. Of course, most programmers wouldn't know that.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

5-4 is unanimous now? Go back to /pol/, /b/tard.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

The five thirty eight article is a gigantic straw man. The FIX had to do with a number of procedural choices and they ALL were made with the intent of helping Hillary. About the only thing they didn't do was scheduled the debates against the super bowl but you can bet they considered it.
Hillary had name recognition and did not want to have mass exposure events... Debates etc... That would draw high ratings.
It ended up being her undoing in part, the Bernie Bros saw through it in large enough numbers and stayed home. The emails that were obviously a problem and should have forced a drop out also didn't help.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly retarded. Typical American indeed.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Deals start after drinks in the backrooms of strip clubs. You can't really do business with someone until you've had hooker tits and hooch in your face together.

Re: I sure hope

[interkin3tic]

"This article full of evidence is wrong! My assertion that Bernie would have won had they debated more than six times needs no evidence!"

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

You're on commission, aren't you?

A webcam and a mic doesn't need to cost $1,500 to work well.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the fucking polls said Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Hillary did, so fuck you for electing Trump via your primary vote for Hillary.

Re:I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think many people are arguing that these travel restrictions are illegal, just that they are stupid and counterproductive.

In a country in which the rule of law exists, of course, being stupid and counterproductive would make these restrictions despotic and illegal.

Re: I sure hope

[Entrope]

The decision granting certoriari and lifting parts of the stays was published "per curiam", which means the court was unanimous.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt he is, as this is what I do for a living. About 6 years ago there was a push to move away from hardware videoconference systems towards desktop based bullshit like Skype, Webex, or Gotomeeting. Again, as the GP said, they're better than a phone call (most of the time, sometimes not) but way worse than an actual Polycom/Cisco/whatever standards based videoconference.

You can't substitute real hardware, with quality cameras and microphones with a $50 webcam. It's nice to be able to work from your desk, but in a well designed space there is absolutely no need to be traveling halfway across the globe on a regular basis to get work done.

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people still schedule meetings in the US, I wonder...

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you believe Clinton is against Citizens United? Sure, her public position is that she is, but she seems happy with the state of money in politics! Would she have had a chance otherwise?

Re: I sure hope

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about productivity; it's about control. It may also be about socializing. Not everyone wants or needs to see people on a daily basis. (And of course, some people can't see people.)

Re: I sure hope

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How about you do not do business with dirty communists, you traitor

Re:I sure hope

[feldmark]

And after returning to the US, your first three meals out will set you back as much as three months of meals out in China. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit, but the effect may be less than you predict due to different costs of travel and your sales coming from the US in dollars. (Of course if all your US employees start travelling instead, and stay at high end foreigner hotels and eat at foreigner restaurants, you will have a cost problem.) Further, if you aren't already using telemeetings with rank and file China employees, your expenses are too high in the first place.

It might be a better idea to wait and see if visitors from China actually have any more problem obtaining visas than they used to. It was always an involved process because Chinese typically want to LIVE in the US -- rather the opposite of terrorizing the US. Further, Chinese employees typically get fairly long term duration visas once vetted. Last I looked, China was not on the list of banned countries and the risk of dangerous items being brought over from China is pretty small due to EXTENSIVE departure screening at the airports.

I could go on about how the effect of the travel ban on China may be different that what you expect, perhaps irrelevant. Think carefully about why your China employees are working for your US company. (They may be overpaid to begin with, they may be expecting travel to the US as a benefit, etc.)

Re:I sure hope

[feldmark]

Don't tell me you bring Chinese employees to the US for your company outings? There are so many more extravagant travel opportunities in Asia for equal or less cost.

Re:I sure hope

[eaglesrule]

Such insufferable arrogance. To see it modded up so, speaks volumes to the culture that values identity first and foremost, and not integrity of character.

When the DNC chair has to resign because of leaked emails, there is no reason to have any confidence in their official tallies. There is no accounting for their thumb on the scales when there are myriad of ways for pressure and influence and procedural rules to affect results.

You question the intelligence of average voters and flyover state 'hicks', but I have to wonder who really has the learning disability when Clinton loyalists double down on being condescending douche bags and directing a constant barrage of irrational hate towards Trump when that very attitude is what helped get him elected.

Re:I sure hope

[interkin3tic]

As always, when a conservative criticizes someone, he ends up describing himself perfectly. You at least described Trump there.

When the DNC chair has to resign because of leaked emails, there is no reason to have any confidence in their official tallies.

Aside from zero evidence to suggest they tampered with the vote across the nation. There wasn't anything at all suggesting it in those leaked e-mails you mentioned.

Re:I sure hope

[eaglesrule]

As always, when a conservative criticizes someone, he ends up describing himself perfectly. You at least described Trump there.

How predictable that your first response is to slap a label on me. Thank you for proving my point about being fixated on identity.

Aside from zero evidence to suggest they tampered with the vote across the nation. There wasn't anything at all suggesting it in those leaked e-mails you mentioned.

Please note I didn't accuse them of tampering, only that they had the motive to do so. The clear evidence of conspiracy against Sanders in the emails means they could not be trusted to hold a fair and impartial election, and thus, there is no reason to believe or trust their official figures. They are not credible.

Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

As the US moves towards isolation and protectionism with both its immigration and tariff plans, it may turn into another hermit kingdom clone of DPRK and you could see states like Russia or China move to preeminence in world affairs, with Trump presiding over a culturally homogeneous but irrelevant and poverty stricken country.

Re:Protectionist state

[MightyMartian]

I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever. The potential damage to the US economy is enormous. The Republicans just have to figure out how to utterly fuck the Administration over while still looking like they're on the President's side.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

The potential damage to the US economy is enormous.

No, it isn't. We are still going to have legions of shitskins beating down the doors.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the borders, airports and other points of entry are a little less of a free-for-all, legitimate travelers adapt and life goes on as usual.

Re:Protectionist state

[slack_justyb]

I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever.

Well the cynic in me thinks that in order for it to stop, Congress would have to *act*. There's been a whole lot of *not acting* going on in Congress as of late, and I'm perplexed as to why an economic downturn would induce that to suddenly change. Considering the most recent AHCA version to come out of the Senate, it doesn't seem like they care if the citizens die, so economic hardship should be the least of their worries. Even if it's industry that's hurting, it's not GOP industry hurting.

Re:Protectionist state

[TWX]

No, it isn't. We are still going to have legions of shitskins beating down the doors.

But I thought John Boehner had seen the light after his meeting with the Pope, which is why he left politics?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

>culturally homogeneous
That is not going to happen, barring genocide and mass expulsions numbered in millions.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Congressional inaction is a feature, not a bug.

Re:Protectionist state

[LubosD]

Regardless of the fact that I don't like Trump, I really don't think a travel ban on a few semi-working countries is going to do any real harm to the US.

Re:Protectionist state

[MightyMartian]

A lot of that "none-acting" has been tactical. Look at health care. It's clear that neither House or Senate Republicans are really all that keen to further health care reform, at least not until after the 2018 mid-terms. So they put together legislation that they can't even convince a majority of their peers to support (let alone the Democrats), and which clearly is deeply unpopular with voters (the House bill had an approval rating of just 27%, and I can't imagine the Senate bill is going to be any more popular).

What it looks like to me is that Republican lawmakers know they have an unsuitable man in the White House, but political realities mean they can't be obstructionist in the same way they were with Obama, or in the way they intended to be with Clinton. Instead of being angrily and righteously obstructionist, they're just going to create a series of situations in which nothing much happens at all. They'll shake the President's hand, they'll praise him in the media, they'll keep up the appearances of being one big happy party, and meanwhile do everything in their power to keep that idiot from completely fucking things up.

Re:Protectionist state

[bluefoxlucid]

The Senate is sluggish to vote on the AHCA. Obamacare is Obamacare, and Obama is evil. If you repeal the evil Obamacare and suddenly have a recession and terrible access to healthcare, you prove that Obama was sent by God to fix America and should definitely be crowned Emperor but we can't. It would be fatal for the Republicans, at least for about 20 years. Maybe they should have thought about that before campaigning so hard they had to label it with Obama's name.

by the way, that's coming in a few months. I'm thinking circa Jan 2018 give or take 4 months, but it's easier to see when we're heading toward one instead of away from the last one than it is to pinpoint the exact date the economy will start shitting itself. It is, however, damned easy to see the economy start shitting itself well before anyone notices. It hasn't started yet; the last one ended almost two years ago. We're in the lull.

Re:Protectionist state

[MAXOMENOS]

I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever.

What exactly do we expect for Congress to do? Let's be clear here: I despise Trump, but in all likelihood, this is INS bullshit unrelated to the Trump executive order. The EO only covers six countries; Sweden isn't one of them. Even if Sweden was one of them, Stenberg has a clear relationship with a US Company. So the real question is, does Stenberg have a valid work visa? Most of the people I hear being denied entry into the US are denied because they had a paying US gig and got the wrong kind of visa. The other possibility is that Stenberg made political remarks that the US government doesn't like, and, unfortunately, the US government has denied entry to persons for that reason for decades.

Re:Protectionist state

[bluefoxlucid]

Congress won't fix it so you can get into the U.S.? Microsoft knows what to do: Better call Saul.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

You're more evidence that liberals are idiots. This has nothing to do with Trump or the travel ban. Both are wonderful things despite your butt-hurt.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever. The potential damage to the US economy is enormous. The Republicans just have to figure out how to utterly fuck the Administration over while still looking like they're on the President's side.

Were you complaining about denied entries under Obama, I hope you do realize it happened quite often? How much damage has been incurred thus far? What exactly is the severe damage you expect?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologies in advance, I do not side with Trump on this issue, but something you said sure was funny. Have you ever been to the USA??? "culturally homogenous" ???? Sure thing, everyone in Boston is just like everyone in Idaho, and everyone in Texas is exactly like everyone in California. I could go on and on... The USA is the least 'culturally homogenous' country in the world.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Fuck! You are arguing using FACTS! Shit, you know that never works.

You know that in order to win any argument you have to tug at people's heartstrings, not appeal to their intellect.

Because, uh, well, truthfully, most people have no intellect.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

You're more evidence that liberals are idiots. This has nothing to do with Trump or the travel ban. Both are wonderful things despite your butt-hurt.

And you know this, exactly how?

The trumpanzee's instinctive jumps to deny and deflect any potential criticism of their beloved Führ^H^H^H^H leader, his actions or the consequences of his actions, never ceases to amaze.

Re:Protectionist state

[quonset]

I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever

You can't? Considering no one in the Republican-controlled Congress has a backbone and as a result, are failing in their Constitutional duties, it is quite easy to seem them cowering like the cowards they are and letting this go on.

The potential damage to the US economy is enormous.

Which is what I'm hoping for. Yes, you read that right. I want damage to the U.S. economy because of the con artist's incompetence. Then we get to hear more of his deflections about it not being another of his failures, how it's not his fault the economy tanked, how it's Obama's fault, how Hillary would have been worse, how everyone else is to blame except him. It will be a classic case of malignant narcissism on full display.

Re:Protectionist state

[Dahan]

Even if Sweden was one of them, Stenberg has a clear relationship with a US Company. So the real question is, does Stenberg have a valid work visa? Most of the people I hear being denied entry into the US are denied because they had a paying US gig and got the wrong kind of visa

I think the summary and article make it clear that he doesn't have a work visa; he was trying to enter through the visa waiver program. And I agree that the lack of work visa is probably the issue--you can enter through the VWP or on a B-1 business visitor visa to attend a business meeting if you're employed by a foreign company and are not being paid by a US company. But Stenberg's a (presumably paid) employee of Mozilla. IANAIL and all that, but my understanding is that since he's being paid by a US company, coming to the US for a meeting with that company is considered work, and he's no eligible for VWP or a B-1 visa.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the borders, airports and other points of entry are a little less of a free-for-all, legitimate travelers adapt and life goes on as usual.

Are you implying that Mr. Stenberg is illegit? What would be your basis for that?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

One can always hope.

Re: Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember the US barring entry to people for saying shit it doesn't like for decades. Any links for this? This all sounds new to me but I could be wrong.

Re:Protectionist state

[Archangel Michael]

, it doesn't seem like they care if the citizens die,

You forgot letting people Starve, Pollute the air and .... eat kittens.

Here's a thought, people, like yourselves, don't seem to care that people who once were able to afford insurance, now cannot. Had Choice of insurance, and now do not. Had a doctor they liked, but now do not.

You have basically assumed other people's income is yours to decide what to do with. You're a petty tyrant who doesn't really care of people die or not, unless it is with other peoples money and time. Liberals love to talk compassion, but usually compelling compassion by the threat of government guns, and you have NO moral objection to violent threats to accomplish that which you won't do on your own.

Personally, I am all for letting ObamaCare die a horrible death, and letting the rotting corpse lay in the middle of the street. It was designed to fail, it has started to fail, and now the same people that shoved that turd down our throats are telling us how to fix it. I REALLY hope the Republicans fail in their fake "Repeal and replace" ObamaCare lite.

And then, we can actually see people die at the hands of Obama's legacy, as the HealthCare Industry dies. Thank you.

Filed under "Stupid should hurt" (ObamaCare was stupid from the start)

Re:Protectionist state

[arth1]

Regardless of the fact that I don't like Trump, I really don't think a travel ban on a few semi-working countries is going to do any real harm to the US.

Other countries and their citizens notice. Including gaffes like this, which apparently isn't related to Trump but still is denying someone for no apparent reason, or at least not any reason the US is willing to disclose.
The signal that's sent is that nobody should rely on being able to visit the US, and if any meeting between people is important, to do it somewhere else. That, I think, is harmful to the US.

Re:Protectionist state

[Oswald McWeany]

Well Republicans aren't going to do anything about Trump because they as individuals don't want to be seen by their local constituents as being a traitor. (they might lose the primaries the next time around).

The Democrats aren't going to do anything about Trump (there's a reason they haven't been pushing for an indictment) because the longer Trump is in power the more seats they stand to gain as a party.

Democrats don't want Trump gone because he helps their party win swing states in the next election. Republicans don't want to lose their seats in primaries by being the traitor.

Trump is going to last the full 4 years unless he does something monumentally more stupid than the things he has already done. There's a reason he started fundraising for his re-election 2 years earlier than any other president, he knows he's going to need every bit of help he can get. He will be challenged hard in the primaries despite being the incumbent.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is the least 'culturally homogenous' country in the world.

Bullshit. It may have chinks and a few yids in NYC but that's it. It isn't half full of ragheads like France is.

Re:Protectionist state

[Oswald McWeany]

The EO only covers six countries; Sweden isn't one of them. Even if Sweden was one of them, Stenberg has a clear relationship with a US Company.

Mozilla starts with "Mo". It's clearly an abbreviation of "Mohammed-Zilla". They're clearly an evil jihadi terrorist organization.

Re:Protectionist state

[LubosD]

Yes, I did notice and I understand the reasons.

I don't think it affects my ability to visit the US. There's a big difference between my (European) country and some middle eastern mess of a country.

I know TFA deals with another European being denied travel, but at the moment we know nothing about the reasons (it could as well be a system failure somewhere).

Re: Protectionist state

[MAXOMENOS]

There's an okay discussion about this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

Re:Protectionist state

[Dorianny]

That's because what is being pushed thru is not "health care reform" but a partial rollback of the ACA reform. The math is difficult for the GOP in the Senate because there is around 30 senators from States that didn't expand Medicaid and would like funding cut to the program immediately and around 20 from states that did expand Medicaid and will see the vast majority of the expected 22 million looses insurance coverage. Of course Trump going from celebrating on the White House lawn, to calling it "mean" is not helping things much

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

You have basically assumed other people's income is yours to decide what to do with.

And liberals don't like sending half their taxes to the military, but you don't hear them whining about tyranny every goddamned second. Some of your taxes are gong to go to things you don't like, that's what civilization looks like. Man the fuck up already.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

And then, we can actually see people die at the hands of Obama's legacy

They already are. Look at the opioid epidemic thanks to Obama's subsidy to Big Crony Pharma known as Obummercare.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Archangel Michael's insurance plan:
Fuck you, got mine.

Re:Protectionist state

[Archangel Michael]

Military is an actual government function. You don't oppose the Military itself, you oppose the stateless wars we fight (and I can support that). Its all part of "Provide common defense" part of the Constitution. Now, we could actually get back to that state.

As for Tyranny (and being a Libertarian) I am more concerned with it coming in the form of Socialist/Fascist from inside than I am from external sources like North Korea and ISIS.

And if Civilization requires laws to prevent me from collecting rain water, then please let me have anarchy. But I rather doubt you understand that we already live in tyranny, because we have bread and circuses. Just wait till we become like Venezuela and the bread is gone. ;)

Re:Protectionist state

[Archangel Michael]

The AC insurance Plan, fuck everyone, gimme mine!

Re:Protectionist state

[Bing Tsher E]

The unfortunate bit is that the Republicans touched the steaming turd that is Obamacare in any fashion. It is and was set to collapse entirely due to it being a failure at healthcare reform. If the Harridan had been elected President it would still be doomed to collapse in the near future. But because Republicans are now 'In charge' they are saddled with the shitstorm that is emerging.

It's kinda the same deal as Obama inheriting the Iraq Occupation shitstorm that Bush set in motion.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden is not on the travel ban list why is this even mentioned by anyone?
It is utterly baffling why every moron in the west is fucking desperate to get more Muslims in to their country,the best and brightest left 20-30 years ago and now we a desperate to get the bottom of the humanity barrel in to elevate crime and welfare parasites.

Re:Protectionist state

[MightyMartian]

In some parts of the world, rainwater is among the most precious of commodities, and there are going to be places in the Continental United States where that is going to become quite true. At some point even collecting rainwater has the potential to harm a large number of people. We'll see where your ideals are then.

Re: Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

No,you have Mexicans instead..
Just think,in two/three decades time,white Americans will be a minority in the USA and the biggest single group will be Mexicans/south Americans.
If any leader can get them to vote as one party,the reps and dems will be wiped out and your country will open its southern borders to all comers and make sure they are the majority.
The whites and the blacksbwill then be in serious trouble,and if many of you try leaveing and moving to Europe,guess what, they won't except you.
Its one of the reasons rich Americans are looking at places like australia and New Zealand for dual nationality,which they can buy but the rest of can't..
Reap as you have sown.

Re:Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

And liberals don't like sending half their taxes to the military, but you don't hear them whining about tyranny every goddamned second.

Actually, you DO hear them whining about this endlessly....

And...funding and keeping a military (defense) is actually one of the FEW enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Government.

I'm still trying to find where in the Constitution the US Federal government is charged with telling what I have to do where my health and health care is concerned.

Re:Protectionist state

[MightyMartian]

The intent of the ACA was pretty clear; to be a stepping stone towards a single payer system. That still remains the only obvious solution, and while the Republican base clearly still seems relatively enthusiastic about a repeal, a party's base isn't what gets them over the finish line, and overall, the House and Senate plans are extraordinarily unpopular with the general public. So yes, the ACA sucks, but the tax cuts masquerading as a health care reform that the Republicans are trying to pass do very little to fix the ACA, and a great deal to fuck over a lot of people who need affordable health care insurance. Neither plan is what Trump promised, and even he seemed to acknowledged that when he called the House plan "mean".

Wouldn't it be something if Trump did throw a single payer plan at Congress, and actually use his bully pulpit for something more useful than attacking MSNBC TV show hosts? I can tell you this, if he pushed some form of Single Payer health care through Congress, a great many of his failings would be forgiven and forgotten in a second. He'd certainly get a good deal of bipartisan support, as the Democrats would most certainly back such a plan.

But sadly, Trump seems little interested in actually being a President where it can count.

Re:Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

At some point even collecting rainwater has the potential to harm a large number of people. We'll see where your ideals are then.

Fuck'ed then....

If it lands on my roof, and I collect it into my cistern, then it is MINE to use first.

Don't worry, it will go into the ground / system at some point, but I"m going to use it first to water my garden, wash things with, etc.

Geez, this should be common sense....

Re:Protectionist state

[MightyMartian]

It is until you have a water shortage, and then, at the point, you're going to run up against a greater good argument you can't win. Eminent domain still exists as an actual thing in the US, so your idea that you have some absolute right to whatever is on your property has never actually been true.

Re:Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

It is, however, damned easy to see the economy start shitting itself well before anyone notices.

Well...I think Obamacare can and will eventually end up being a large reason the economy will start 'shitting itself' soon....

It is already starting to collapse in on itself. I have suspicions that it was actually set up TO FAIL....so that the next step would be to replace it with single payer system. I think the Dems thought they could not be defeated, and would have a Dem in office and majority in at least one house, so they could convert obamacare to socialist single federal govt payer system.

Frankly, I with the Reps would have just let healthcare go. They should go with a strategy of trying to do an overhaul...with real changes, and if the Dems don't want to participate in the process...just let obamacare collapse on its own, and then, put the blame ON the Democrats for not only creating this abomination....but then refusing to banish and replace the monster.

The sad thing is...the Republicans have had about 7 years to have planned and worked towards this...have a replacement plan i place......but no, they fucked that up.

But I say hell, let it collapse, and then something HAS to be done.

I just want things back for me to have choice....my rates have skyrocketed since Obama care (I make too much for assistance)....I want to customize my coverage, I"m pretty sure as an older male, I don't need any coverage at all that pertains to 'maternity' needs.

Re: Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

Just think,in two/three decades time,white Americans will be a minority in the USA and the biggest single group will be Mexicans/south Americans.

If any leader can get them to vote as one party,the reps and dems will be wiped out and your country will open its southern borders to all comers and make sure they are the majority.

Yep, and that will spell the end of the US and its former glory....the slide will likely be downhill, but it will slide that way.

I really don't get it...if Mexicans want the US to be more like MX....why not just say in Mexico and enjoy it there? Why do they want to drag the US down to MX levels?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

> IANAIL and all that, but my understanding is that since he's being paid by a US company, coming to the US for a meeting with that company is considered work, and he's no eligible for VWP or a B-1 visa.

It's called business. And it's covered by B-1 visa.

Re:Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

It is until you have a water shortage

I live in New Orleans....i'm not terribly concerned about that occurrence...

Re:Protectionist state

[slack_justyb]

You have basically assumed other people's income is yours to decide what to do with.

No I assumed that government had vested interest in the well being of the populace. The means to which they achieve that end is little concern to me be it ObamaCare or whatever TrumpCare shapes up to become. However, it is clear that the current iteration of "wisdom" to befall us is one that is more calloused hearted than cautioned repair.

you have NO moral objection to violent threats to accomplish that which you won't do on your own.

On the contrary, I feel that people need to take keen interest in their health. We will not reach any point of better healthcare without a consensus of the public wishing to not only improve a system but themselves as well. The masses crying out, "please give us healthcare, fix our system" will bear empty gains if those selfsame masses do nothing within themselves. The government has the unique position to stoke a fire of change within the public, yet they wish only to bicker among themselves for temporal glory in the bask of media limelight. To them, it is not the cause, but the ephemeral win to which they hang their platform in whole upon. To simply undo an egregious wrong brought on by the "other team". What comes after their pyrrhic victory is but an afterthought.

Personally, I am all for letting ObamaCare die a horrible death, and letting the rotting corpse lay in the middle of the street.

I too would join you around the maypole for the death of failed legislation if it were to mean something that is an improvement upon where we stand. Sadly, what it has become can hardly be called improvement, and I see no resolve within those elected to kindle action that would move healthcare forward.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

And this isn't that big a deal. When I worked for ATI (Canadian company) as part of one of the US-based subsidiaries, we all had to get Canadian work visas. Well, initially no one did that and it was fine, just say the trip was for "business meetings". But then we had one guy that was going there a ton, as he now had direct reports in Canada, and I guess the Canadian immigration folks took notice. Pretty sure he was denied entry, after which we all had to get work visas.

Whatever one thinks about the travel ban, this is almost-certainly 100% unrelated. Someone just made a stink for political reasons. They've every right to do that, but we should not read more into this than some guy was denied entry.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing to do with it. His name probably clashed with a known criminal, and it will be sorted out in due course. Yes, it's a pain, but it happens every single day, even those with visas and had paid to have clearance checks to prevent it fall foul of criminal blocks on names.

It has nothing to do with Trump, so stop being a whiny libtard. It happened under Obama and Bush, and it will happen under the next president.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

You are arguing using FACTS!

What facts? He's guessing. He may be guessing right, but you can't call them facts.

Re:Protectionist state

[Ogive17]

I'm not sure that's completely true. There are some prominent Republicans that clearly are still at odds with the Trump administration (Ryan and Kasich to name 2) but the unfortunate reality is that Trump is President. Unlike what the GOP did to Obama (which was to fuck around simply to fuck him over) they don't want to seem as obstructionists, leaving that to Democrats this cycle.

Besides that old fart Reid I really haven't seen anyone else bending over for Trump so far.

It would be nice if we had rules in congress that the makeup had to be similar to actual demographics of the country. Enough of these old white men making the rules (fwiw, I'm middle aged white man). Impossible to enact but would be nice to see.

Re:Protectionist state

[MightyMartian]

Fair enough. I'm just trying to point out that there are going to be times and places where property rights cannot be considered absolute, and where even supposedly "free" rainwater has a tangible value.

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

Actually, you DO hear them whining about this endlessly....

No, you really don't, because liberals aren't strict constructionists. The default liberal attitude is compromise, whereas the default conservative position is more doctrinaire. Also, since we're talking about yanks here, your average US liberal is actually pretty OK with at least a certain amount of defense spending if only because of the greater good it does in promoting global stability. (Whether their assumptions in this are correct is another issue entirely.)

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Obamacare isn't anywhere close to "failing". It can't. All it is is a mandate that everyone has to have insurance, insurance companies have to take you no matter how sick you are, and they can't do certain obviously evil things and have to cover all basic medicines. A small component of it was the public insurance exchange and medicaid expansion, but even if those completely went away the world is still better because of Obamacare.

Re:Protectionist state

[laie_techie]

I can't imagine Congress is going to let this go on forever. The potential damage to the US economy is enormous. The Republicans just have to figure out how to utterly fuck the Administration over while still looking like they're on the President's side.

The original travel ban had a set time line: no new refugees for 120 days and no immigrants from those 7 countries for 90 days; it wasn't meant to "go on forever."

Re:Protectionist state

[Archangel Michael]

The intent of the ACA was pretty clear; to be a stepping stone towards a single payer system.

THAT is not how it was sold. If it was sold that way, it would NEVER have seen the light of day. So, what you're really saying is that Progressive Socialists lie to get what they want. Probably because like Gruber said, Americans are too stupid.

Re:Protectionist state

[bluefoxlucid]

so they could convert obamacare to socialist single federal govt payer system.

Actually, the ACA as current puts a break in the market chain. Low-income individuals purchasing health insurance on the exchange are shielded from the cost by subsidy, and higher-income individuals ... tend to have jobs that provide insurance, due to the full-time employee insurance mandate.

If the government went to a single-payer system and mandated employers provide insurance for all employees, two things would happen.

First, there'd be less underemployment, simply because hiring two 20-hour workers gets you two insurance costs instead of one, whereas today it gets you zero instead of one.

Second, consumers want low prices, employers want to compete and make a profit, and insurers want to compete and make a profit. Because of this, employers would seek lower health insurance premiums to help keep their prices at or below competitors's prices; insurers would seek low-cost deals with healthcare providers so as to keep premiums low and outcompete other insurers; and healthcare providers would try to negotiate for the highest price they can get, but also try to capture the big markets of millions of insured by each provider so as to maximize profits, thus reaching the market equilibrium via upwards and downwards price pressures.

With that robust market to set prices, the government could require insurers and healthcare providers to disclose their deals, giving a market benchmark from which the government can demand fair standards for the Single Payer Healthcare Plan. Taxpayer money expenditure would follow the behavior of the private market, tied to market forces rather than divided from those forces as is the case with the current ACA.

That's an association we don't currently have with the ACA exchange: premiums are covered with taxpayer money, yet the people spending that money don't appear to have a direct stake in how much money is spent. They want insurance and somebody else is going to pay for it. There isn't a mechanism to make sure that the "somebody else" is paying only what any free market player would pay. Plans on the exchange are expected to compete, but who can afford those plans if they don't have a job that supplies healthcare already? Those below the income requiring filing don't even have to report if they have insurance, so any ineligibility for subsidies at that level just means people go without insurance.

A single-payer system as such would be a better free-market system.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

The B-1 is only required if you cannot enter under the visa waiver program. Sweden is part of the visa waiver program.

Info about the B-1:

https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-visitors-business/b-1-temporary-business-visitor

There is actually a wide-scope already in play for "business" and the US immigration department has a fair amount of information on what you can conduct as business under the visa waiver program.

Info about visa waiver:

https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-visitors-business/wb-temporary-business-visitor-under-visa-waiver-program

If you want to know what activities are allowed under visa waiver, then let this immigration lawyer tell you:

"Traveling and working with the Visa Waiver Program generally means engaging in business activities other than the actual performance of labor. To work in the United States, you will need a visa specifically for that purpose.

The visa waiver program is appropriate for the following types of persons/activities: Selling, Voluntary Work, Service Engineer, Speaker/Lecturer, Conference, Researcher, Business Venture, Medical Elective, Telecommuters."

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian immigration is fucking retarded.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking retarded? Serious question... How the fuck would that make it anything like North Korea? You are an idiot. There is nothing wrong with Tariffs and controlled Immigration you stupid fuck. You realize shit that makes North Korea what it is is not immigration policy, as far as I can tell you can cross the border into North Korea anytime! They will be happy to host you in their DEATH CAMPS. Hint here: THE FUCKING DEATH CAMPS YOU MORON are the real problem with North Korea. Not TARIFFS, which I doubt they actually have. Jesus Christ, I can't. How is this Insightful?

Re:Protectionist state

[fahrbot-bot]

That's because what is being pushed thru is not "health care reform" but a partial rollback of the ACA reform.

The current bills in the House and, more so, the Senate are more about cutting taxes, almost entirely benefiting the wealthy, than anything having to do with actual heath care, to allow conservative tax reform, also almost entirely benefiting the wealthy, to proceed using special procedural rules known as reconciliation to pass changes with a simple majority vote and avoid a Democratic filibuster. "Legislation cannot add to the deficit outside the customary 10-year budget window and be eligible for this procedural protection."

This is why Congress started with health-care "reform" before tax reform - to save money in the budget on the former so it can be squandered on the latter.

Re:Protectionist state

[fahrbot-bot]

I'm still trying to find where in the Constitution the US Federal government is charged with telling what I have to do where my health and health care is concerned.

I'm guessing somewhere in here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Believe it or not, your health and health care (and health insurance) status may affect others and vice-versa. At some point, hopefully you will realize that we're all in this together.

Re:Protectionist state

[penandpaper]

Why can't the state government do your version of healthcare?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

I"m pretty sure as an older male, I don't need any coverage at all that pertains to 'maternity' needs.

So, fuck every woman in this country because you personally don't use maternity medicine? In that case, lets do away with Viagra, prostate exams, and colonoscopies for your coverage.

It takes a sick person to think it's okay to take things from others because they don't use them. Are you prepared to foot the bill for that lost coverage? If you pay taxes, you'll be contributing toward it anyway. No person is an island, and that attitude is destructive to society.

Re:Protectionist state

[d34thm0nk3y]

Here's a thought, people, like yourselves, don't seem to care that people who once were able to afford insurance, now cannot.

If that's such a widespread problem then why did insurance coverage rates increase by millions?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you do hear liberals whining about tyranny every goddamned second.

Re:Protectionist state

[slack_justyb]

I would not attribute it to some technical limitation of the state. Technically speaking they are more than able and apt to enact such. What I would say is part of the problem that prevents such is a seeming gaming of politics by both the government itself and the public at large. It seems that both sides seem more interested in numbers of seats they currently occupy than of actual substance. That mindset is not just limited to those in DC but to the public in general. You hear thee murmurings with things like, "We have to repeal ObamaCare" and the reasonable people ask, "but with what?" "We have to get rid of Trump" and the reasonable people ask, "but with who?" The details get lost in the fervor to just get an agenda actually done, to get to the next milestone with no consideration for what to do once there, to undo what that team did and wax what your particular team will do sans a moment to think how do we actually do that. "We must push to this goal just down the way and once there we can then reconsider the trajectory." Actual healthcare that is long lasting is not something that can just be conjured from thin air once a political party is clear all obstacles of resistance. It must include ownership by the other team because their term is just around the corner. It must include interest for the success and responsibility for the maintenance by the public. The public needs to have a vested interest in whatever is passed otherwise, a new breed will just come an usurp the current standing party. With the party in name, hell bent on manipulating it to their own agenda.

There's a multitude of things that prevent what I would consider a wholesome approach to modifying the current state of affairs. However, I believe the more pressing one at the moment is the need to grandstand by both political and public members. "I am the victor, the mandate is mine." No the mandate is a mindshare of the citizens and it must be attuned to the will of the agenda. That means work to help bring the collective into focus on the issue at hand, not "we won, we're going to make healthcare great again."

Re:Protectionist state

[penandpaper]

I can mostly agree with what you say however I don't think it adequately answers my question. Part of the reason for the "we have to repeal ObamaCare" or as you put it "fervor to just get an agenda... to undo what that team did" is because these policies are driven at the federal level instead of the state level. You are correct that the public need to have a vested interest in the law and to gain support for something like healthcare it should be enacted at the state level because that is where the people will have the most influence and and be most affected by the law. When it becomes widespread in the union the federal initiative is less contentious and much simpler because it is about looking at what works among the state governments.

This is what confuses me about how the left in the US have argued for healthcare reform. None of them want to lead by example in their state but would rather force it through congress like the ACA with all it's faults at the contention of a sizeable bloc. Of course the other side will be bitter. By not being in the conversation of the drafting of the law itself but also because their constituents have a different need and want from their government. Now we are in a situation where the bitter side will shuffle their "solution" through that will cause a feedback loop.

Want to get universal healthcare in the US? Pass it in your state and show everyone what a sustainable and good framework you came up with so other states can adopt your solution. That is how we got most of the good policies in the state and federal governments.

Want to have endless bickering and "fervor to undo the other team did"? Force a huge contentious and unproven policy that requires a certain philosophy of governance through the congress.

Re:Protectionist state

[Dahan]

> IANAIL and all that, but my understanding is that since he's being paid by a US company, coming to the US for a meeting with that company is considered work, and he's no eligible for VWP or a B-1 visa.

It's called business. And it's covered by B-1 visa.

Nope, B-1 visa doesn't cover everything "called business". See the PDF I linked to earlier; it specifically says that if you're coming for a meeting, you're eligible for a B-1 only if you "will receive no salary or income from a U.S based company/entity." Like I said, people who work for a non-US company can enter the US with a B-1 (or under the VWP) to attend a business meeting, but the guy works for the Mozilla Corporation, which is a US (California) company.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lived and worked in over 8 countries, I have to say that every country's immigration system is fucking retarded. The best by far was Switzerland's: they were still retarded, but highly efficient at it.

Re: Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the U.S. Military systematically destroys hyperconservative governments around the world, I have a that's time understanding understanding why liberals wouldn't me thrilled to find it's operation. Also, the military is basically liberal Utopia. Everyone paid the same, within their respective tiers, regardless of performance, extreme government control over nitnoid aspects of life, universal basic income including retirement pension and government healthcare! Bottom line, if you think the military is too expensive, recognize that your Utopia is, too.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

way-up yo feckin-A azzwhole kommi globalist bitch. Amerka will do just fine with pioneers and rredskins only ... OKey a few senioritaz !!!

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

the longer this goes, being "on the president's side" will become a massive liability....

as we approach mid-terms in 2018, you're going to see some mainstream republicans abandon the sinking ship that is this administration. for probably half of the republican members of congress, doing so will be necessary to keep their seats.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

The preamble explains the purpose of the document. It's not part of the actual "granting federal powers" content.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Point to a single country that is not protectionist. Seriously.

Re:Protectionist state

[roca]

I'm almost certain that Daniel does not work directly for Mozilla Corporation (USA) but some European subsidiary.

I worked for Mozilla's NZ subsidiary and never had any trouble entering the USA on a visa waiver.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you DO hear them whining about this endlessly....

No, you really don't, because liberals aren't strict constructionists. The default liberal attitude is compromise,

Oh my god, what are you smoking?

Re:Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

...promote the general Welfare...

Hmm...I do not think that means what you think it means...

Re:Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

So, fuck every woman in this country because you personally don't use maternity medicine? In that case, lets do away with Viagra, prostate exams, and colonoscopies for your coverage.

Err...well, YES...I mean, I'lll happily sign up to pay for what I need. No, I don't need maternity stuff, but I might need testosterone tx later in life, and I wouldn't assume a female would need that type of coverage.

Should I pay for things others are more likely to get than me? I don't need sickle cell coverage...I don't need to be insured for some genetic diseases that some Jewish people are prone to. I don't expect other groups to pay for diseases or such that I am more likely to be at risk for....

So, the answer is no..I shouldn't have to pay for a woman's maternity...and I don't need it on MY insurance plan.

Should couples that are both sterile, have to pay extra for other couples to have kids?

I think not...

Re:Protectionist state

[cayenne8]

Frankly, I don't think there should be a mandate on ANYONE...employers shouldn't be paying for it.

What the feds could do...is let everyone open a liberally funded HSA, one that is NOT use it or lose it (like a FSA)....that each person could fund pre-tax...and use for their routine medical needs.

Then, they buy individually what used to be called "Major medical"...real insurance that was for catastrophic needs.

This would put the patient in charge of their $$'s...and they would shop around and this also takes out the middle man bean counters...and prices would drop.

Go ahead and keep medicare for the elderly and truly infirmed or poverty stricken...just one safety net.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

This is possibly one of the dumbest rationalizations I have ever seen.
With this logic, be prepared to have anything that does not promote the general welfare made illegal.
What a joyous world that would be.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a liberal, I hate militarization and overfunding the police state - and I complain about tyranny on a daily basis. You can add me to your "other" list.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

"INS" doesn't exist.

Re: Protectionist state

[Miamicanes]

In many/most western states (specifically, Colorado & Utah, but I think a few others, too, including Oregon), it's actually *illegal* to collect rainwater, under the bizarre legal theory that someone further "downstream" already owns that water. In theory, if someone 200 miles away could convince a jury that your act of paving a formerly-vacant lot deprived them of $22,719 worth of water by causing it to evaporate instead of permeating into the ground, they could probably sue you *and* press charges for grand theft.

I suspect that laws like those still exist because the current owners of that water have paid so much to buy those rights, any state that tried changing the law would get bankrupted by inverse-condemnation lawsuits arguing diminished value. So ancient laws written 150 years ago enforce absurd rules today that nobody can actually un-do and fix.

Re: Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article, you fucking imbecile.

It had NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP.

He didn't renew his visa.

Fuck off.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really this stupid or is this a special day for you?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

you could see states like Russia or China move to preeminence in world affairs

Too late, that has been well under way for a decade now ...

Re:Protectionist state

[fustakrakich]

The default liberal attitude is compromise

And this is why they lose, and fail, and why Trump is president, and why the Tories win (last time I looked, May is still PM). It's not so much 'compromise' as it is appeasement.

Re:Protectionist state

[bluefoxlucid]

What the feds could do...is let everyone open a liberally funded HSA, one that is NOT use it or lose it (like a FSA)....that each person could fund pre-tax...and use for their routine medical needs.

Agreed. At the current rates (about $3,750 individual, $7,000 family), an HSA is a reasonable vehicle for improving our healthcare system. Currently, HSA is an IRA that you can spend on medical, with no income restrictions and with no taxation on disbursement for medical (no penalty and no taxes taken); this means you can fund $18,000 into your 401(k) and $7,000 into your HSA regardless of income, or fund $5,000 into a traditional IRA (and $0 in a 401(k)) and $7,000 into HSA regardless of income. The IRA is useless except for retirement, while the HSA allows you to withdraw from it just like a traditional IRA at retirement and lets you invest just like a traditional IRA.

I have argued before that we should make HSA an option in all cases, mutually-exclusive of FSA. FSA allows you and your employer to mutually put money at-risk: the employer fully-funds your FSA at the beginning of the year, and so you get to spend that in full even if you leave in three months; as you get paid, your employer deducts from your paycheck to cover the FSA. That means your employer fronts the money and doesn't get paid back for some of it in the year you're terminated; and you pay back that money, but don't receive it if you carry a balance larger than the $500 roll-over. FSA works out well if you don't have current savings to hedge against a short-term medical expense.

FSA and HSA are both tax-exempt. For those of us who would rather take the risk upon ourselves, an HSA is clearly-better. It would make sense to abolish the Traditional IRA, instead unifying it to the Health Savings and Retirement Account. An HSA not used for medical expenses is a traditional IRA; and an HSA is not mutually-exclusive with a 401(k), whereas any employer retirement account reduces and eventually eliminates tax deferral for Traditional IRA deposits if your income is above a certain IRS-published maximum. Because you can put way more into 401(k) than IRA, depositing into IRA and HSA in the same year makes little sense; thus we should replace the Traditional IRA with the HSRA.

Then, they buy individually what used to be called "Major medical"...real insurance that was for catastrophic needs.

We have that now. The problem is the premiums are often some $200/month, and then you need to front 20% of the money after a $1,500 deductible per incident up to a $4,500/year out-of-pocket maximum (all out-of-pocket expenses included--regular medical plans exclude deductibles from out-of-pocket maximums). That means you need to keep at least $9,000 on-hand in case you have multiple major claims in December and January, plus you need to pay $2,400 (or more!) per year just to have coverage.

In other words: Full medical costs a minimum of $2,400/year (if you have zero medical expenses) and a maximum of $6,700/year. Covering for it reliably requires having about $9,000 on-hand at any one time. Without a prescription plan, my drugs would actually cost $8,400/year.

Regular insurance takes the gap between these (that $4,500) and spreads it across the insured. So maybe your premiums are $350/month and your medical costs $4,200/year. Maintenance drugs tend to impact this pretty heavily, although it's hit-or-miss: Eszopiclone (please no) costs $16/month out-of-pocket with no insurance, while my $700/month Atomoxetine HCl (Teva-Barr generic, baby! Nice and cheap!) costs $35 for 180 pill supply on a 3-month BID. Some drugs are hard to make, tactically-relevant to the military, or procedurally-complex due to regulation, and so cost a lot. There are $100/month generic non-controlled substances that have 37-step synthesis processes; there's a really easy-to-synthesize drug that's $224/3month (I've been on it) because the military

Re:Protectionist state

[MickyTheIdiot]

No where in the constitution are corporate rights mentioned. The current right press for corporate rights in a big way. Also Scalia, who was billed as a "strict constitutionalist" creamed his pants over corporate rights.

Until the idea that somehow corporations have rights that are equal to the rights of humans (which ARE in the constitution) then the idea that ANY of these people are strict constitutionalist is a joke.

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great. American law working against American companies again. Why isn't Trump concerned with this sort of bullshit that hurts American business, instead of wasting time on temporary bans on people from 6 countries that have never attacked anyone on US soil just to feed his rabid fanbase's prejudices?

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

'general welfare' is used for everything from land claims to our military wars.

If you read it, you'd see it says GENERAL welfare...
but you are in fact supporting SPECIFIC welfare.

Welfare for military weapons companies, welfare for health insurance companies, welfare for 'green energy' companies, welfare for this or that.
No where do I see 'GENERAL' welfare (an example would be a STABLE currency value, that would promote GENERAL welfare for the entire country, not some specific group of lobbyists).

I also wish people would understand, health INSURANCE is not healthCARE.
And just because 20+ million people would fall off health INSURANCE rolls, would not mean that those 20 million had access to healthCARE anyway. Obamacare deductibles are averaging $5k+. Tell me how this helps anyone? Spend $5k before they even start paying claims?

Nice try though

Re:Protectionist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole much? Hermit kingdom like the DPRK? Really? What evidence do you even have to utter such foolishness. This travel ban extends to 7 countries for about 45 - 120 days. I don't think I saw the autistic screeching from the left when the Obama administration did it.

Re:Protectionist state

[MooseMiester]

No, no, no every tiny little thing that happens - that can be leveraged for political gain - must be MAGNIFIED TEN THOUSAND MILLION TIMES for two simple reasons: 1) The left has no policies or solutions 2) People on the web need the impression/click revenue.

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

Tedious stalker is tedious.

Re:Protectionist state

[Rakarra]

Well, the Affordable Care Act passed with reconciliation, it shouldn't surprise that attempts to dismantle it are also going through reconciliation rather than standard procedure.

Re:Protectionist state

[fahrbot-bot]

Sure, but that wasn't my main point - sorry for any confusion. The intent of *these* bills is to cut spending on the poor(er) so taxes can be cut for the rich(er), not to provide any actual, workable health-care solutions. In order for the tax cuts to be enacted via reconciliation, the "Legislation cannot add to the deficit outside the customary 10-year budget window" and to accomplish this, the Republicans want to slash health care spending to make room in the budget for tax cuts.

Pretty different goals than those for the ACA.

Re:Protectionist state

[Rakarra]

Here's a thought, people, like yourselves, don't seem to care that people who once were able to afford insurance, now cannot. Had Choice of insurance, and now do not. Had a doctor they liked, but now do not.

And on the other side, I had a number of poor friends who had no insurance, zilch, nothing before, and do now. And a few who couldn't afford to leave a job they hated because they would lose their insurance and then be denied new coverage due to a "preexisting condition."

But the best part of it, from the insurance company standpoint, is they can do whatever the hell they want, then blame Obamacare for it, and everyone will believe them. Did you think premiums were not going to go through the roof? The insurance companies had been raising them higher and higher before the ACA went into effect, what we've seen since then is mere continuation. It sure lets the industry redirect blame, though. That's the biggest gift the ACA gave them.

Re:Protectionist state

[Rakarra]

No where in the constitution are corporate rights mentioned.

Because the Constitution doesn't differentiate between a corporation and a collection of individuals, and a collection of individuals has the same rights as a single person. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that rights can be removed from a group yet be retained by the individual. That corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution is inconsequential, as it's an inherently limiting document. The Federal Government only has the powers that the Constitution explicitly grants. The Citizens United ruling, for a common example, stated that a corporation does not lose Freedom of Speech because it's a corporation. The more controversial part of it is that money == speech, which is certainly debatable. But to deny a corporation an individual right seem, on the face of it, unconstitutional.

Re:Protectionist state

[fustakrakich]

Hmm, so you suffer from paranoia too, eh?

Re:Protectionist state

[eaglesrule]

It would be nice if we had rules in congress that the makeup had to be similar to actual demographics of the country. Enough of these old white men making the rules (fwiw, I'm middle aged white man). Impossible to enact but would be nice to see.

Diversity quotas for congress, what a great idea. Because reverse discrimination isn't discrimination at all.

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that you're tedious as fuck. Doesn't' matter what thread or what subject, you're bound to show up and slather the same fact-free dribblings over everything. You're like the Westoboro Church of slashdot commenters.

Re:Protectionist state

[fustakrakich]

Eh, call it what you like. When you're wrong you're wrong.

Re:Protectionist state

[MickyTheIdiot]

This is a bullshit rationalization of course. The constitution does NOT say that groups of people equals an individual.

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

When you're wrong you're wrong.

About you being Fred Phelps? Nah, I'm pretty sure that covers your commenting activity reasonably well.

Re:Protectionist state

[fustakrakich]

Only with goofs who can't be taken seriously.

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

Having a look at your comment history, that would appear to be everybody then.

Re:Protectionist state

[fustakrakich]

Heh, talkin' out yer ass again. It's pretty much just you over the last week or two. But yeah, there are lots of goofs out there, sure does explain the mess your politics is in.

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

Heh, talkin' out yer ass again.

We shan't talk about Shanen, then?

It's pretty much just you over the last week or two

Yeah, most people just ignore your ramblings. I should join that club.

But yeah, there are lots of goofs out there, sure does explain the mess your politics is in.

Not my politics, but it's not a good day for you until you've misattributed something, isn't it?

Re:Protectionist state

[fustakrakich]

Who? Haven't talked to him in months. He and you are the same thing. I'm not always sure who is more entertaining and better confirms my point, but keep on going, man. Maybe you can use the same autoresponder he does. It would fit the mold perfectly

And please, feel free to ignore. Slashdot makes it easy with the relationship options. That's what freedom is all about.

Just face it. You'll never be as good as Red... You take yourself too seriously. It's not healthy.

Re:Protectionist state

[Captain Splendid]

You'll never be as good as Red

There's your problem: I'm not trying to be him.

You take yourself too seriously. It's not healthy.

LOL. I ain't the one grinding the same gear over and over. Pretty sure I'll be just fine.

Re:Protectionist state

[fustakrakich]

I'm not trying to be him.

So you say...

Not related to Trump's ban...

[Anonymous Coward]

but lets see how many posters here ignore that and go full libtard.

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[__aaclcg7560]

Since this about the inventor of the curl, this is obviously a slap in the face to Arnold Schwarzenegger by the Trump administration.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/24/schwarzenegger-and-macron-vow-make-planet-great-ag/

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[ls671]

Is there anybody else calling curl "the curl"? I am honestly curious.

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[cyberchondriac]

Would that be the barbell curl or the dumbbell curl?

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Not in narrow scope, but the broader idea of keeping valuable and useful people out of a country is part of the same fear-driven dysfunction.

I know, the idea that individuals who have something to contribute should be let in and individuals who want to participate in crime directly or indirectly (welfare) should be kept out is too radical for most politicos to handle.

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[__aaclcg7560]

Is there anybody else calling curl "the curl"? I am honestly curious.

If you're being serious...

https://www.bodybuilding.com/exercises/detail/view/name/concentration-curls

Otherwise, WOOSH!

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[__aaclcg7560]

Would that be the barbell curl or the dumbbell curl?

Beats me. I use a machine at the gym.

Re: Not related to Trump's ban...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the free weights. I used to be the same way. Just used the machines. I noticed my strength eventually capped out. I moved onto free weights and have noticed real nice gains. The reason free weights are better is because they work your auxiliary muscles. Machines just focus certain groups. While free weights work the whole area and then some.

Look it up if you'd like. I know this is anecdotal, but I've had countless talks with people at the gym who know there stuff, I've even researched it myself a bit. Lots of info out there on the topic at hand.

Now machine weights are good for starting out, but eventually you will want to switch to free weights.

Re: Not related to Trump's ban...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the couple typos, at work taking a shit ;) rushing to post.

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[ls671]

whoosh yourself. Here is what "the curl" means:

In vector calculus, the curl is a vector operator that describes the infinitesimal rotation of a 3-dimensional vector field. At every point in the field, the curl of that point is represented by a vector. The attributes of this vector (length and direction) characterize the rotation at that point.

I never heard "the curl" when talking about curl training.

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[Oswald McWeany]

Would that be the barbell curl or the dumbbell curl?

Beats me. I use a machine at the gym.

Your gym has a snack machine too?

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[__aaclcg7560]

Your gym has a snack machine too?

Not my current gym. The gym I went to before had a snack bar. Smoothies with fresh fruit and whey powder were quite popular.

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[Anonymous Coward]

Beats me. I use a machine at the gym.

Machines are (sometimes!) good for people with very high strength & development that want to zero in on a particular muscle group heavily, but primarily, they're for lifting virgins who have never lifted a day in their lives, and might hurt themselves if they tried with free weights.

Otherwise, you are better served using dumbbells and barbells (throw in a few kettlebells, too!), as lifting free weights recruits stabilizer muscles and makes you work harder. Plus, machines are one-size-fits-all, so it's likely that your range of motion will not be as good with a machine as it is with free weights. Plus, you have to pay attention to your form, not just sit there all sloppy and let the machine's guides and safety features do all the work for you.

Just sayin', creimer.

Re: Not related to Trump's ban...

[Anonymous Coward]

This exactly. Lifting smart means only using machines as supplementary exercises, or better yet not using them at all.

Re: Not related to Trump's ban...

[Brockmire]

I've never heard the auxiliary muscles thing before, just the obvious tension difference when finishing a rep. The bands of the machine assist in returning to start, but with free weights, it's all on you. It's also a fuck of a lot more accurate.

Re:Not related to Trump's ban...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooooshhh!

Even though this has nothing to do with a policy

[SensitiveMale]

I don't like, I'm going to say "fuck it" and link them anyways.

Known Terrorist Ties

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone has known terrorist ties, that is reason enough for a travel ban. Sweden is a hotbed of Muslim terrorism. The Swedish governement even shield ISIS terrorists with fake identity papers and free housing. Put two and two together.

Re: Known Terrorist Ties

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting two and two together says you are a fucking loon. lol xD

Sweden

[JBMcB]

So he's traveling from Sweden, which has nothing to do with the travel ban. So why does the article keep mentioning the travel ban?

Re:Sweden

[d3bruts1d]

Because Gizmodo has become overly political since the fall of Gawker.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

A handheld gaming device has a political stance?

Re:Sweden

[Baloroth]

Because otherwise there'd be no story (actually, there is no story, but that doesn't stop journalists from writing one). The US, like every other country in the world, has immigration controls, which are handled by individual agents who have the ability to allow or deny just about anyone (aside from US citizens, who cannot be denied entry) for just about any reason, because non-citizens have no right to entry. Of course, they rarely do so as long as you have the right visa/waivers/come from a country with the right treaties, but they always *can*. It might not stick (i.e. you may be able to appeal the decision and enter later), and the agent will likely end up fired if they act arbitrarily against policy, but it can always happen.

I'm not going to give Gizmodo the click to read TFA, but my guess is he probably didn't actually have all his paperwork in order, but that's just a guess.

Re:Sweden

[cyberchondriac]

That they are. Take a look at the race baiting article from ProRepublica they published that was mentioned here a few hours ago.
Gizmodo is working it's way up there with Salon, Mother Jones, MIc, and a few others. Ars Technica is getting a bit political these days too.

Re:Sweden

[PsychoSlashDot]

So he's traveling from Sweden, which has nothing to do with the travel ban. So why does the article keep mentioning the travel ban?

Right or wrong, this is a reminder that security means collateral damage. More security means more false-positives. So there is a relationship.

Re:Sweden

[bill_mcgonigle]

Seriously - he should publish some dirt on some banksters and then he'll get a free private flight from Sweden to the US on an unmarked white jet.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he's a Jew and only anti-Semites would ban a Jew from traveling.

Re:Sweden

[david_thornley]

Possibly because it's part of a larger picture that includes the traveler ban, possibly because the reporting's bad.

Re:Sweden

[david_thornley]

No, there is a story. Person in Sweden going to the US on routine business, having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry. This is bad.

The only reason international meetings happen is to get people from other countries. For this to happen, potential attendees have to have a high degree of conference that they can get to them. If this becomes dubious for meetings in the US, such meetings will not happen in the US, which hurts assorted people in the US, including the business community and the scientific community.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously - he should publish some dirt on some banksters and then he'll get a free private flight from Sweden to the US on an unmarked white jet.

Unlikely to get to the US - Gitmo or some other "off-shored to a country who values US support more than basic human rights" black site, on the other hand...

Re:Sweden

[ilsaloving]

That may well be true, but I suspect he's also concerned about being able to go home again.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have _any_ experience in dealing with customs officials in _any_ country?
I doubt it.

Re:Sweden

[arth1]

Right or wrong, this is a reminder that security means collateral damage. More security means more false-positives. So there is a relationship.

Don't mistake xenophobia and theater for security.

In this case, my guess is that he was denied because he writes "I am a hacker" on his web page, and the individual did a cursory check was matching on keywords instead of employing her or his brain.

Re:Sweden

[Bing Tsher E]

Also, ummm... Slashdot...

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse, European business leaders and Academic leagues have been flagging the US in this way for some time, even the perception that it's a problem causes these things to be held elsewhere "just in case". No one wants their conference to be a failure because key people were missing.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but he is a freshman sociology major. That trumps actual experience.

Re:Sweden

[0xdeadbeef]

security means collateral damage

No, security *theater* guarantees collateral damage.

Just as the Muslim^H^H refugee^H^H travel ban is nothing more than pandering to his slaw-jawed supporters, this is almost certainly a fuck-up by some over-eager Customs agent who discovered an excuse to wield a little power. Actual security has nothing to do with either situation.

Re:Sweden

[arth1]

It has already had an impact.
For those who won't bother to follow the link, Mark Nottingham said of QUIC meetings:

2) We won't hold any further interim meetings in the US, until there's a change in this situation. This means that we'll either need to find suitable hosts in Canada or Mexico, or our meeting rotation will need to change to be exclusively Europe and Asia.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

> having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry

And why, exactly, are you presuming that?

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

...because non-citizens have no right to entry.

The notion of "rights" is difficult to define. In principle, a "right" should be something absolute - universal, irrevocable, no exceptions, etc. But, for just about anything that might be put forward as a "right", there are, in practice, all kinds of exceptions. Take the "right" to "freedom of speech", for example. There's a whole laundry list of exceptions: copyright, obscenity, libel and slander, harassment, national security, etc.

Anyway, Americans are supposed to believe in things like individual freedom and due process and rule of rule. Ideally, Americans would want the bureaucrats in their government to act in accordance with these principles whenever possible - not just for Americans for for everyone in the world. So, Americans should be deeply troubled by this story.

But you might not be American. Maybe you live somewhere like North Korea or Saudi Arabia and happen to like it there. Maybe you think individual freedom is generally a bad thing that government bureaucrats should suppress as much as possible - at there own personal whims and discretion - because due process and rule of law are also bad things.

If so, you're certainly entitled to your views. But you should know that your views are the opposite of what America is about.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tears are delicious...

Re:Sweden

[Obfuscant]

No, there is a story. Person in Sweden going to the US on routine business, having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry. This is bad.

There is more to being admitted to the US than just "doing the appropriate paperwork". You can do all the paperwork you want, but all that does is get you into the system. If your name triggers a review, you can still be denied entry. There is no story here.

Why was this guy denied? Who knows. Maybe his name and other details matched another person's too closely, and the other person has a felony criminal record or other disqualifying issue.

The story here is that the US still has control of its borders and can deny non-citizens entry for any of a number of reasons, even if that person is standing in the check-in line at the airport, or standing in front if an ICE agent at a US airport. The story is, this guy can get a redress number that will flag his identity as "not that other guy" for future trips, if he truly isn't the guy with the real issue. (My boss has one -- his name triggers a review -- and he has no problem traveling. I used to be asked on a regular basis if I lived in Colorado, to the point that I said "I'm not that guy" and I got through without further ado.)

For this to happen, potential attendees have to have a high degree of conference that they can get to them.

And most of them do. Sometimes they cannot get entry. Just like people who want to travel from the US to other countries. But you never hear that it is a travesty for someone from the US to be denied entry to Brazil, for example, just how horrible it is that someone didn't make it into the US. Is there more to this story? Probably.

Re:Sweden

[Obfuscant]

2) We won't hold any further interim meetings in the US, until there's a change in this situation.

It is nice that this guy is standing up to support Daniel Stenberg. You don't know why he wasn't admitted, but you'll cut off your nose to spite your face anyway.

What happens when Mexico or one of those utopian European or Asian nations denies entry to one of your meeting participants?

Re: Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why many of us dropped gizmodo from our daily reading lists,anyone that would employ the third rate bloggers from gasket deserve to be punished,less people going across their site will hurt eventualy when ad payers realise it's not worth using gizmodo anymore..

Re:Sweden

[arth1]

It's a free market. If one vendor doesn't deliver, you pick another vendor, much like for everything else.
There are going to be countries willing to accept the income and PR from holding meetings with international visitors. And others that won't, and they'll lose.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

>having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry
presumably

(he didnt)

Re: Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Er,American immigration can stop even Americans re-entering,the only difference is is that they have to supply a reason.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely not an insightful article... more like a "knee jerk" or "jerking their knee" reaction

598059 should RTFA

At the bottom of the article it says, "Having an approved ESTA does [not] guarantee a foreign national free entry into the US All travelers including those coming from visa waiver countries must clear all 60 grounds of inadmissibility.”

So claiming to have done all of the presumable paperwork is like trying to run through US airport security now with 30 minutes to the closing of the airplane door.

Translation: It means the traveler apparently does not pay any attention to the news nor are they thorough and diligent in their travel plans.

The way international travel is getting nowadays, never ever count on having your paperwork prepared quickly.

Then there is Stenberg saying, “I can’t think of a single valid reason why they would deny me travel, so what concerns me is that somehow someone did and then I’m worried that I’ll get trouble fixing that issue.”

Talk about blowing it up all out of proportions. With something as complicated as international travel permissions, you should go straight to the process of getting a qualified lawyer involved. Saying stupid stuff to journalists, like what I quoted from Stenberg, only proves how absolutely naive and clueless some people can be.

Stenberg's behavior impresses me as being nothing but a snowflake. He should "grow a pair"... or does Sweden mandate that all males over the 18 have them cut off?

Re:Sweden

[Obfuscant]

There are going to be countries willing to accept the income and PR from holding meetings with international visitors.

You somehow think this has something to do with what the meeting was? Sorry, but the US is quite willing to accept the "income" from meetings with international visitors, even if they include Porto Ricans. And the amount of "PR" that comes from Mozilla holding an employee meeting in the US is scant, if any. Yawn, who cares where Mozilla holds its employee meetings?

It's a different matter when it comes to accepting people who want to enter the US on a VISITOR visa waiver so they can do work here, or for some other reason we don't know about. The VISITOR visa waiver is for visitors. There are waivers and visas for people coming to work. It's most likely he applied for the wrong one -- his fault, not the US -- and he got caught this time.

Would you have any problem if I, a US citizen, was refused entry to Brasil, say, when I had gotten a visitor visa but told the border agent that I was there to work for two weeks?

Re:Sweden

[arth1]

You somehow think this has something to do with what the meeting was?

Um, no? Why do you get that impression? Or is this just so you can knock down a straw man?

All I am saying is that if it becomes difficult to hold meetings one place, it will be routed around by holding meeting other places. As long as there is a market for meetings, someone will provide a welcoming venue.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

[This one thing happened once.] [This is bad, this one thing]. [Because it happened once and I read about it on Gawkermodo].

Seriously, what are you even on about? There is no story, you don't think things like this happen to people travelling to countries all over the world all the time? You think no one has been denied entry to Canada for bureaucratic reasons? You're being silly.

Re:Sweden

[thegarbz]

The US, like every other country in the world, has immigration controls, which are handled by individual agents who have the ability to allow or deny just about anyone (aside from US citizens, who cannot be denied entry) for just about any reason, because non-citizens have no right to entry

That's being overly generous to the US's bizarre visa waver program. Going to China for example is easy. I know exactly where I stand with China. I either get my visa put in my passport or I don't. The odds of not getting into the country with a valid visa are astronomical. I know the same with Europe, the answer is almost universally yes based on the origin of a passport with lists of countries that easily get in.

Now the abortion that is ESTA on the other hand is a minefield of maybes, ifs, then, buts, and a good luck slapped on the end of it. The USA like every other country? Actually the US Border and Customs Protection website specifically lists that their system is similar to only one other country: Australia, but take a guess at who had it first (clue: not the country which appears to want to be the 51st state of the USA.)

Re:Sweden

[Obfuscant]

Um, no? Why do you get that impression?

From this statement, which I quoted in my reply:

There are going to be countries willing to accept the income and PR from holding meetings with international visitors.

That's a pretty explicit reference to the "meeting with international visitors". The US didn't "reject" the income from a "meeting", it rejected the ESTA from a non-citizen who was seeking to enter the country on a visitor visa waiver to conduct work in the US. Other than the fact that it was a meeting with his employer, the meeting itself had nothing to do with the matter. But that points out that this was not "a meeting with international visitors", it was an "all hands employee meeting". He's not a visitor to Mozilla or the meeting, he's an employee.

All I am saying is that if it becomes difficult to hold meetings one place,

It isn't difficult to hold meetings "one place". The US did nothing to prevent the meeting. Most probably, had the guy applied for the right waiver, or the right visa, he would not have been denied. The fact that he'd come to the US for his employer on an ESTA before made him overconfident, and he got caught this time.

someone will provide a welcoming venue.

I think you will find that every country will reject entry to someone who claims to be coming for a "visit" when the true purpose is for work. Or for whatever reason this guy was denied -- we don't know for sure, we can just guess. The fact he was trying to use a visitor visa waiver for work is a clue. And I know for a fact that every time I enter another country, I am asked explicitly the purpose of my visit, and if that purpose doesn't match the entry requirements, I don't get in. That would be my fault for trying to get around the immigration laws.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Ars Technica only a 'bit' political? I've abandoned the site as it is nearly entirely political now.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop showing your ignorance.

The visa waiver program allows visitors to conduct business in the US. It's perfectly normal and part of what the program offers.

Here.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think a lawyer is an essential part of international travel then I'm afraid I disagree with you most strongly.

Laws should be readable and understandable, and immigration law is no different to other law.

As a person wanting to visit your country I should be able to read a list of requirements, see that I match them, and then jump through the hoops and buy my ticket and away I go.

If the system is obscured, e.g. "jump through hoops" == complete ESTA under visa waiver program, and then enforcement is arbitrary, e.g. turn up at airport and be denied entry, then any *normal* person is just going to say "fuck it" and never even try to visit your shit-hole of a country. Sure, you may say "good riddance" and not give a damn, but actually, isolationism is not very good for a modern country, and it will have an impact on your country's economic, social, and technical standing.

Re:Sweden

[Frobnicator]

So he's traveling from Sweden ... why does the article keep mentioning the travel ban?

Because like many people the Gizmodo editors are probably geography-impaired.

I imagine a thought process like: Iran, Sudan, Yemen ... Sweden... they all end in N... flight denied... must be the travel ban!

Re: Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's fucking bullshit don't you think?

If someone is "bad" enough that they should be denied entry, then actually, they should be allowed to return to their home country, and then be immediately arrested and given a fair trial.

Australia is playing the same shit by stripping citizens that hold dual nationality of their Australian citizenship: look, if someone has broken the law then charge them and give them their day in court. Anything else is simply extra-judicial punishment, and the kind of shit I expect from North Korea and fucked-up African dictatorships, NOT from first world countries. The fact that people accept these laws shows just how far our society has slipped towards a fascist state.

Re:Sweden

[arth1]

The US didn't "reject" the income from a "meeting", it rejected the ESTA from a non-citizen who was seeking to enter the country on a visitor visa waiver to conduct work in the US.

To quote travel.state.gov:
"The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables most citizens or nationals of participating countries* to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without first obtaining a visa."
(Emphasis mine)

But that's non-sequitur in any case. The issue is that having people visit the US has become so fraught with risk that it is safer to avoid it altogether. Which is happening. And that's not in the Tis of Thee's best interest.

Re:Sweden

[Baloroth]

Ok, sure, but that's a completely different story from TFA, which focused heavily on the "Trump travel ban" angle. If there is actually a story there, what you'd have to do is go through and figure out the fraction of people who are denied entry after submitting valid paperwork and compare it to other countries, maybe with some attempt to determine why entry was denied (which is difficult, I know, but, well, that's why it's a job). That's an article I'd be interested in reading, and which would be worth publishing. An article about a single high-profile person being rejected for who knows what reason, with multiple mentions of completely unrelated (but politically controversial) events? That's not a story, that's clickbait, pure and simple.

Re:Sweden

[Obfuscant]

But that's non-sequitur in any case.

Depends on the reason he gave for the visit when he filled out the form initially.

so fraught with risk

Yeah, because 700 out of 1.2 million is such a high probability of failure, and failing to check if the visa waiver was approved before going to the airport is such a dumb idea.

And that's not in the Tis of Thee's best interest.

Depends on why the ESTAs are being disapproved, doesn't it? I think so. Apparently you do not care. And since the ESTA is not the only way of getting authorization to enter ...

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the travel ban?..."
Right, his travel was banned, so it was _a_ "travel ban" but not _the_ travel ban.
That's hows framing and spinning works. Misunderstand a little here, twist a little there.
This was as somebody stated a work visa related thing, and as Mozilla is publicly against wannabe dicktator Trumpf,
he got nailed.
Maybe Mozilla should move its operations to a free country? The constitution means shit, it seems.

Re:Sweden

[geekymachoman]

Didn't you hear ? Everything wrong with the US is Trump's fault now, directly or indirectly. Even if it isn't.
So concentrate on bashing Trump, not discussing this rationally.

Re:Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Killing Gawker didn't kill the obsessive Trump-hate, it just broke the containment vessel, like breaking a spider egg sack.

Deadspin also became unreadable within weeks after Gawker went down.

Re:Sweden

[rokkaku]

Stenberg is working on QUIC, so it's not a surprise that the chair for the QUIC Working Group would stand up for him. This kind of thing has been a problem for the IETF before, and looks like it will be a problem again.

Those other utopian nations don't hassle people travelling there for meetings. That means that their nationals have easier access to technical conferences, and more of 'em can go. Helping set the standards for the Internet is important, both financially and politically. Let's not screw this up.

Re:Sweden

[Megol]

People complained when Obama was the president and plenty still complains how Obama ruined everything.

Re:Sweden

[david_thornley]

This denial itself is not very important. What's important is international perception. Post 9/11, people were being denied routine entry to the US more than before (at least in international perception - haven't checked the statistics. Trump's travel ban extended that. The Supreme Court stayed the part of the travel ban that affects people who have strong ties to the US, which suggests that the EO would deny entry to people who would routinely come on business. The EO was intended to take effect immediately, and people who boarded aircraft to the US before the EO landed and were turned away. The perception here is that, if a person is legally going to the US, that person might be part of a class of people that is barred entry at any time.

And here comes another one of those stories, further suggesting that the US is not open to business.

Re:Sweden

[Obfuscant]

This kind of thing has been a problem for the IETF before,

What exactly is "this kind of thing"? It's a failure to obtain a valid visa waiver or visa before trying to depart for the US.

Those other utopian nations don't hassle people travelling there for meetings.

He wasn't hassled for traveling to a meeting. He was denied boarding because he didn't have a valid visa waiver.

Do you believe that "going to a meeting" should be the sole and only consideration when the US considers a request for a visa waiver? Does that one consideration trump all others?

Helping set the standards for the Internet is important,

So is getting a visa waiver or visa before coming to the US. Just like getting one before going to Brazil, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, ...

One bad customs agent

[FeelGood314]

The wireless alliance I belong to had a meeting 6 years ago in Canada. A Mexican worker who lived in the USA, who repeatedly asked before hand if there would be any issue, was denied entry. We haven't had a meeting in Canada since.

When you consider the major cost to events like these is the time of the engineers, hassles like missing key people or having to scramble to get a 3rd implementer of feature X suddenly cost more than flying to a nice country where the immigration isn't a bunch of assholes. Cuba would be nice if they had better internet.

Re:One bad customs agent

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't go to Cuba, that is a communist country, with the embargo going on so long it's still viewed the same as if you tried to go the the DPKR by some people.

Re:One bad customs agent

[CrashNBrn]

Keep up AC! There is no Cuban embargo any longer.

Re:One bad customs agent

[RotateLeftByte]

Coming back in 3...2...1...0

Screwed up irony

[TheOuterLinux]

The author of curl denied entry by airport employees that were informed...probably by curl. Think about it.

Re:Screwed up irony

[Anonymous Coward]

So long and thanks for curl.

I know why

[CajunArson]

If he's the bastard behind

curl -s https://random-malware.com/ | sudo bash

then I'm all for keeping him out.

He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Rick Schumann]

Must be a random mistake, someone misspelled a name or something, because this is a white person, not a brown person.
Everyone knows that the government of my United States hates brown people.</extreme_disgust>

Just wait until they're done with the brown (and darker people); they'll start divvying up the white people. Then everyone will see who and what the hell they voted for.

Humans! They ruin everything!

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: jews aren't white.

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: You're white trash. I hear there's an opening at the Jiffy Lube, better run to get it, Cletus. *banjo music*

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the best you can do, you should be ashamed, rabbi.

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: neither are you - in fact there's a 95% certainty that you have DNA from sub-saharan africa or northeast asia at some point in your lineage.
There's no such thing as a "white" person genotypically - only phenotypically.

Education: Wiping out racism since forever.

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded as Flamebait? It's clearly not, someone mod him up as 'Insightful' for telling the truth about the current state of 'Murrika.

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

>implying implications

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Bing Tsher E]

When a story completely contradicts your theory about institutional racism, cite racism anyway.

Do you have a one-track mind??

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[arth1]

in fact there's a 95% certainty that you have DNA from sub-saharan africa or northeast asia at some point in your lineage.

More like there's a certainty that more than 95% of your DNA hails from sub-saharan Africa.

Re: He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

False.

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[thegarbz]

This is no mistake. They block a white person at random so as to not appear racist.

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Rick Schumann]

Is that supposed to make it all less shitty somehow? i don't think it's working!

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Kernel Kurtz]

Just wait until they're done with the brown (and darker people); they'll start divvying up the white people. Then everyone will see who and what the hell they voted for.!

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[thegarbz]

Is that supposed to make it all less shitty somehow?

Supposedly

i don't think it's working!

Definitely

Re:He's not brown, what's the problem?

[Rick Schumann]

Pretty much. For some people hate seems to be eternal. They run out of one group to hate on, they'll find another one to take it's place. And so on. Eventually they get down to their 'own people' and start picking them apart, too. Taken to it's extreme you'd eventually get down to just one human left alive, hating in his mind on people long since dead. In this way it shows how much it's a disease.

No visa

[Dog-Cow]

Why does he need a visa to visit the US for a business meeting? Does the US no longer accept Swedish passports? It sounds like Mozilla and Stenberg messed up.

Re:No visa

[LubosD]

He does not, but he needs an ESTA registration (visa waiver) and his application seems to have been retrospectively rejected.

Re:No visa

[TheRaven64]

He doesn't have a visa, he has a visa waiver (ESTA). Anyone who doesn't need a visa to visit the US needs to pay $14 to fill in a web form that contains the same information that you'll give to the airlines and which the airlines are required by law to provide to the US government. In return, this data is entered into a database. It specifically does not grant you permission to enter the US (though you can't enter the US without paying the $14). This replaces the old green visa waiver form that you used to have to fill in on the plane prior to landing.

Re:No visa

[nicolaiplum]

Even if you are eligible for a visa waiver, you have to get an electronic authorisation to travel from the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation.

I.e. you have to pass a check to have your visa waived, before you can try to have your visa waived, and your approval can be withdrawn at any time. Neither ESTA nor even a visa is reliable, you are still at risk of being refused (and losing your money on hotels, flight tickets, your business, travel, or study opportunity, etc). The USA (and some other countries) cannot be trusted to be reliable in this, the USA in particular.

Re:No visa

[Fuzi719]

Why does he need a visa to visit the US for a business meeting? Does the US no longer accept Swedish passports? It sounds like Mozilla and Stenberg messed up.

Do you not understand the system? The reason most Swedes and citizens from certain other countries don't need a visa is because of the Visa Waiver program. However, in this case, his waiver is being denied and he'll have to apply for a standard visa (which may or may not be granted and could take 30 days or more).

Re:No visa

[whoever57]

Why does he need a visa to visit the US for a business meeting?

He doesn't. He had previously travelled to the US using the visa waiver program and this time had completed his ESTA.

It sounds like Mozilla and Stenberg messed up.

No, it sounds like some USCIS employee screwed up.

Re:No visa

[Frederic54]

Except Canadians, we do not pay anything to enter the USA.

Re:No visa

[isj]

Sweden is part of the visa waiver program, so normally he wouldn't need a visa. But he does need an ESTA (travel authorization).

The article mention that it was actually the ESTA that was denied, but it is a bit unclear. Also, the denial happened at the airport which is a bit odd. Last time I went to the USA I applied for the ESTA a few weeks in advance and was accepted. Of course it is possible that his was first granted and then revoked, but it all sounds a bit odd.

Re:No visa

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that a similar process is required to enter Canada, and I thought the EU was considering "their" version for implementation in the future. If my memory is correct, this will make the UK interesting as it might have to roll with the EU version and then switch to its own after Brexit.

FWIW, entering the US on a bus from from Canada costs non-Canadian/US-ians money. In cash, or no joy.

Re:No visa

[slew]

Why does he need a visa to visit the US for a business meeting?

He doesn't. He had previously travelled to the US using the visa waiver program and this time had completed his ESTA.

It sounds like Mozilla and Stenberg messed up.

No, it sounds like some USCIS employee screwed up.

Maybe it's USCIS's fault, but statistically, most common ESTA denials are sadly a result of typos and missing answers to one of the mandatory questions.

Re:No visa

[Topwiz]

Passport is for identification, a visa is required for all non-citizens as permission to enter.

Re:No visa

[jittles]

Except Canadians, we do not pay anything to enter the USA.

Except your soul! (evil laugh)

Re:No visa

[squiggleslash]

It's not an ESTA denial. The summary says he had a valid visa waiver at the time.

Re:No visa

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick google indicates that if a passenger boards an airplane into the USA, and the passenger does not have a valid ESTA for entry, then the Airline can be fined up to $5000/violation. So, it is common for the airlines to check ESTA at boarding for international flights, in case there are last minute changes that would expose the airline to fines.

It's still odd that the ESTA was revoked, apparently after the fact, but apparently that does happen.

Re:No visa

[Obfuscant]

It's not an ESTA denial. The summary says he had a valid visa waiver at the time.

No, it says he had previously obtained a visa waiver, but it doesn't say when or how long ago. What visa waivers he had for previous trips don't matter.

The story explicitly says that the ESTA he filed THIS TIME was denied. Thus, he did not have a valid visa waiver at the time he was traveling. The summary is, as usual, intentionally misleading.

Re:No visa

[Obfuscant]

Also, the denial happened at the airport

He was told it was denied while he was standing in the check-in line. That doesn't mean it was denied while he was at the airport.

Of course it is possible that his was first granted and then revoked, but it all sounds a bit odd.

Or it was never approved in the first place, and he assumed that since he'd gotten one before that it was a pro-forma action that he didn't need to check on this time.

Re:No visa

[Ogive17]

I'd be ok if every Canadian visitor just donated a box of those maple cookies...

Re:No visa

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like having a visa, having an ESTA does not guarantee entry or permission to board.

I visited the USA with an ESTA earlier this year after previously having a work visa and was pulled aside into a "secondary screening" area and grilled by a customs officer about why I was coming to the USA and what my intent was.

Turns out it was because I came on a one-way ticket and they want proof that you are not intending to work, look for work or stay in the country illegally.

My plan was to spend up to the 90-day limit that you can enter the USA for on an ESTA driving and hiking and then crossing into Canada to do the same there within the six months you're allowed to spend there before returning home. I didn't have a specific itinerary mapped out as that's how I like to travel since you never know what diversions you'll find along the way that are interesting to check out.

After informing the officer of my plans, I was asked for proof that I could financially support myself for three months and still have means to buy a ticket back home from Canada or the USA if Canada denied me entry. (If you enter Canada or Mexico from the USA while on an ESTA then come back to the USA, the clock on the 90-day limit does not reset - you need to leave North America completely to do that) Fortunately, I was able to connect to airport WiFi and show my bank account balance and credit card limit back home and they were then satisfied and I was allowed entry.

Not the nicest way to greet visitors, but I was polite and co-operative despite being apprehensive about the situation and I fully appreciated that I was a guest and that as a sovereign nation that millions of people want to live in, the USA has every right to protect its borders and control entry.

I don't know the particulars of this Mozilla guy, but based on my experience his issue might have been that he had a one-way ticket and/or he might be on the payroll of Mozilla USA rather than a foreign subsidiary.

Re:No visa

[Kernel Kurtz]

As a Canadian I avoid travel to the US now anyway, as do many people I know.

There is nothing there you cannot find elsewhere.

Re:No visa

[whoever57]

I don't think that one can have a "valid visa waiver". It's an oxymoron.

Re:No visa

[Hognoxious]

Except Canadians, we do not pay anything to enter the USA.

How much do they charge you on the way oot?

Re:No visa

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians have no soul

Re: No visa

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an ESTA denial. The summary says he had a valid visa waiver at the time.

That is complete gibberish. A valid visa waiver means he has been admitted as part of the visa waiver program.
I have
The truth about why he was denied entry has not been disclosed. Likey because it is perfectly reasonable.

Re:No visa

[houghi]

The same info as I give the airlines? Are you serious? I had to add a lot of things that I do not tell the airlines. From the tom op my head:
Where I was going to stay.
Whare I would be going.
A contact person in the US.
My social nulber of the countryfrom my nationality. And that is where the fun starts. I do not have one where I am born and what my passport says, because I never worked there. I have one where I work, but that is not my nationality.
This is not that uncommon in Europe. Compare it to being born in one US state and living in another since you where 10.

So I called the US Embassy and as all embassies, they where useless. They basically told me after a week: Leave it blank and hope for the best.

I had contacted the embassy of my country and they where just as useless, saying where I could find the number. When I told them I did not have one, they told me the 3 month procedure of getting one once I moved back to that country.

So no, they ask a LOT more than what the airlines ask me. Those ask me my name and my credit card details. Oh, and the email adress, so they can spam me.

I STILL had to fill out the paper in the plane that I had to give at the desk, got a differnt paper that I had to give to a guy 30 feet on that just took the paper and put it in a basked. Reminded me of the time I went to Eastern Germany, although there was less hassle then.

Re:No visa

[Obfuscant]

I don't think that one can have a "valid visa waiver". It's an oxymoron.

It is a tautology, which is the opposite of an oxymoron. Of course you can have a valid visa waiver. If you have a visa waiver, it is valid. The opposite is not having an approved visa waiver, or an unapproved visa waiver. So, technically, "valid" should be "approved" in that phrase.

Re:No visa

[whoever57]

If you have a visa waiver, it is valid

But you can't "have" a visa waiver. The requirement for a visa is waived. You don't have anything. They let you in without a visa.

You do have to have a valid ESTA, though. But this isn't a visa either.

Re:No visa

[Obfuscant]

But you can't "have" a visa waiver. The requirement for a visa is waived.

That is called a visa waiver.

You don't have anything. They let you in without a visa.

You have a waiver to the normal visa requirements, so no, you don't have a visa. You have the waiver. The ESTA is how you apply to participate in the visa waiver program. If you are not approved under ESTA then you do not have a waiver and need a visa. It's not that hard. And most people understand the discussion without a waiver of words.

That's because he's a LUDDITE.

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern app appers know that ONLY apps can app apps, and this LUDDITE programmer who wrote LUDDITE curl was banned by appy Appald Trump because only apps can be apped in the United Apps of Apperica!

Apps!

Go outside the USA

[nicolaiplum]

So, will Mozilla (and other multinational organisations) stop holding their all employee meetings in the USA and instead choose a place with a better admissions policy?

Come on, Americans: time to get on an international flight to meet up with the world, instead of us having to run the CBP gauntlet every time.

Re:Go outside the USA

[WillAffleckUW]

Man, I told him not to leave the comment in his code about Tiny Hands.

The God Emperor is very sensitive about that, and also all the face lifts He has had.

Re:Go outside the USA

[Frederic54]

Same thing, in your case people may be refused re-entry in the USA after their international employee meeting...

Re:Go outside the USA

[david_thornley]

Easy solution: move your main operations outside the US.

Re:Go outside the USA

[jarkus4]

Only if they are not citizens. Every country has to take back their citizens. Of course what they do with them after taking them in is another matter, so depending on the country and circumstances they may be for example imprisoned :)

Re:Go outside the USA

[Ogive17]

Seriously? Have you traveled to many other countries (if you're in the EU, other EU countries do not count)?

whenever I travel internationally, there is always some procedures I must follow. I don't know of any country (other than driving over the border into Canada) where I can just show up and cross over because I feel like it. I've been to Europe (England, France, Germany), S. America (Brazil, Argentina), multiple Caribbean countries, Mexico, China, S. Korea, and Japan.

Every single one has rules for entry, some require Visas.

Someone checked the wrong box

[AntronArgaiv]

I'm going with a low level employee in the visa waiver checking department (Section 7G?) who had a long queue of waivers and wanted to go out to Joe's going away lunch. They either came back buzzed from a few beers or checked "DENY" on all the visas in the queue so they wouldn't miss the lunch.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's not all Trump's fault (though he's certainly doing his part). Can you imagine today's USA putting forth the kind of effort and sacrifice that won WWII? Well, aside from the fact that we have very little heavy manufacturing capability any more, and not nearly enough engineers or skilled craftspeople. Unless, of course, WWIII is a videogame war. Then we'd be all set.
   

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[nicolaiplum]

Note that his ESTA was approved, then rescinded. Someone specifically went to withdraw his approval after it was issued. That is not lazy non approval, that is malicious retroactive denial.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he talked shit on social media. They actually watch that stuff now.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[Anonymous Coward]

> Can you imagine today's USA putting forth the kind of effort and sacrifice that won WWII?

While not denying the efforts and contribution of the US it's not their 'sacrifice' that won the war, but the sacrifice of those bloody russkies, with almost 2 orders or magnitude more casualties.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[arth1]

My guess is that it's because a Google for him leads to https://daniel.haxx.se/

In the minds (or what passes for it) of US immigration and border control, that domain name means he must be a dangerous haxxor...

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[Anonymous Coward]

The US made sacrifices to help Europe as we had no need to attack Germany directly. The Russians did not sacrifice anything to help the rest of Europe as they were attacked by Germany and had to respond.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[aicrules]

Take away either the US or the Russian efforts in the war would have likely resulted in the Axis winning over the Allies. Without the US, Europe would have been routed allowing Germany to focus on Russian front. And without US support of Russia, Russia wouldn't have been able to push Germany back into Germany, let alone press into German lands themselves. If Russian had gone turtle or somehow stayed out of the war, then Germany wouldn't have been stretched as thin and would have likely been able to repel any allied attempts at retaking the western front. However, that isn't as clear cut.

he US did put forth a humongous effort as a country to support the war effort. US beat Japan, not Russia. Russia had only the briefest interaction with Japan. Had Russia been forced to deal with Japan for real, they wouldn't have been able to sustain such force against Germany. Not without the US heavily engaging Japan. Bringing all the minds and resources together to come up with the atomic bomb and the lives lost getting to the point of being able to use them is the only reason Japan was eliminated. Yes, Russia, by far, lost the most military and civilians in the war. Their sacrifice was tremendous. I am not discounting that. But the point is that what the US did as a country, civilians and all, was critical to the success of the entire war, including their support of Russian effort.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[Obfuscant]

Note that his ESTA was approved, then rescinded.

The article doesn't say that. It says he had one previously and this one was denied. It is an assumption that the article is talking about the same ESTA in both places, but "previously" means "before this", presumably "before this trip" since that is what an ESTA covers. What he had before doesn't matter.

That is not lazy non approval, that is malicious retroactive denial.

Or a deliberately misleading article and summary to make some political point.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[loonycyborg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - not something I could call briefest interaction. As far as scale is concerned this is comparable to european theaters. Germany and Japan could definitely wipe out USSR by working together, but Japanese alone were nothing more than training dummies for Zhukov to practice his military command skills on.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[strikethree]

I am unsure why you are modded funny.

It scares me that your words might be considered insightful. I guess I should not be surprised that government employees are jumping at shadows. America will fall if this shit keeps up.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[arth1]

I am unsure why you are modded funny.

Yes, I wasn't aiming for that.

But I fear that the US IBC is indeed jumping at shadows, and that he calls himself a hacker might be why he was refused entry. I can only hope that's not the case. But I fear it might be.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[aicrules]

4 weeks in a war that lasted 6 years is brief. They engaged them in this offensive at the very end of the war. Japan had already been thoroughly routed by the United States by this point including the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia attacked a defeated empire that had already given up. Between the time of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 8 and the Japanese Emperor agreeing to unconditional surrender August 9, While Japanese forces in Manchuria certainly didn't act like surrendered forces, they did not have the backing of Japan that they would have if they hadn't been completely obliterated for the past 4 years by the United States. Again, I'm not discounting the Soviet part in the Allied effort for WW2, but the United States played at least as critical a role, if not more critical overall.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[Areyoukiddingme]

Unless, of course, WWIII is a videogame war. Then we'd be all set.

You wish. Koreans and Chinese teams win international professional video game tournaments. The team the Koreans beat was European. The American team didn't even make it into the semifinals. The team the Chinese beat was nominally American, but only had two out of five American citizens. Two of the others were Korean and the fifth was filipino. Immigration at work...

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[knorthern knight]

> Take away either the US or the Russian efforts in the war would have
> likely resulted in the Axis winning over the Allies. Without the US,
> Europe would have been routed allowing Germany to focus on Russian front.

Knocking out Russia (i.e. Stalin gets killed by artillery fire in Moscow) would've meant Axis victory in Europe. Agreed there. But disagree about US non-entry allowing German victory. Hitler's forces were starting to lose a few battles on the Eastern Front in November 1941, *BEFORE* Pearl Harbor. US non-entry would've envtually meant the "Iron Curtain" at the English Channel, as the Russkies pushed back retreating German forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

> However, von Reichenau saw at once that von Rundstedt was right and
> succeeded in persuading Hitler, via Franz Halder, to authorise the
> withdrawal, and the 1st Panzer Army was forced back to the Mius River
> at Taganrog. It was the first significant German withdrawal of the war.

Then came the winter of 1941-42, which dealt the Russians a body blow.

> US beat Japan, not Russia. Russia had only the briefest interaction
> with Japan. Had Russia been forced to deal with Japan for real,
> they wouldn't have been able to sustain such force against Germany.

Japan's military was a joke once they left jungles, and ventured onto open plains. Russia kicked Japanese butt in the summer of 1939 in the Battles of Khalkin Gol, of which the Battle of Nomonhan was the most notable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Brief analysis... the Japanese "tanks" were small, lightweight, glorified tin cans that were very maneouverable in the jungle. And Japanese soldiers were damn good at jungle warfare. However, once they ventured into open terrain against heavily-armoured open-terrain tanks, Japanese forces were slaughtered. After signing a cease-fire on September 15, 1939, Japan never bothered the Russkies again.

Re: Someone checked the wrong box

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that his ESTA was approved, then rescinded. Someone specifically went to withdraw his approval after it was issued. That is not lazy non approval, that is malicious retroactive denial.

Can you cite where you saw that?

I can't see any evidence that a reversal happened.

The more that he explains the clearer it is that it was never approved in the first place.

Re:Someone checked the wrong box

[loonycyborg]

Well, but my point is that Japan was basically a paper tiger compared to european powers. It would serve as a good distraction to destroy USSR if they didn't do a dumb thing and go for US instead. And if not for Perl Harbor US would be content to watch USSR burn. US basically engaged the weakest enemy and helped in other theaters mostly with material aid until the outcome was clear. Their contribution shows them as masters of intrigue and deception who have their ass always covered. Not that there's anything wrong with that.. But that doesn't mean I should help them to maintain their spin.

Try Berlin next time!

[LubosD]

He should've flown via Berlin. The airport is such a mess, nobody bothered to check my ESTA, and I also didn't go through *any* security checks during my layover there.

Re:Try Berlin next time!

[nicolaiplum]

Berlin Tegel or Schönefeld?

Tegel has security at the gate so you would have to go through security screening there. Schönefeld perhaps not (I don't go there much), and if you don't leave the secure zone of most airports in Europe you do not need to be re-screened if you transfer, exactly like in the USA.

Are you sure your ESTA was not checked electronically? Most airlines will integrate their departure control system with the CBP ESTA system so that passport details can be checked with the CBP to ensure there is a valid ESTA at time of check-in or boarding, and if this check is successful then you will notice nothing as you board the aircraft. Only if the check fails will your boarding be denied, as in the case in the story above.

Re:Try Berlin next time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most airports do not check the ESTA: Sweden does it because they have TSA agents working at the Arlanda airport so you don't need to pass through customs in the USA. This means they will check passports and ESTA (and do the body scan, etc).

Re:Try Berlin next time!

[LubosD]

Tegel. It did have a thorough security check at the gate when I was there 2 years ago, but last month when I flew from TXL to JFK one again, there was absolutely nothing. Zero. Nada. The only check I went through was a basic one in Prague on my way to Tegel.

I don't know if they checked ESTA electronically, they just scanned my boarding pass and the system gave a green light Instantaneously.

Re:Try Berlin next time!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've flown to the US from Arlanda twice in the last six months, and I had to go through customs and passport control on *arrival*. In ten years, I've never flown to the US from anywhere that did as you describe.

They check passports and ESTA/visa before you go to the security screening because the laws of most countries, including the US, say that they're not allowed to let you board an international flight bound for that country without them. This is true no matter where you're flying from. One reason for this is to preclude as much as possible the likelihood of potential illegal entrants even getting on the ground in the destination country.

The body scan has nothing to do with clearing any borders, and is a completely separate issue. You go through one in Amsterdam before you get on the flight to Stockholm, and that doesn't even count as an international flight, since it's entirely within the EU.

Re:Try Berlin next time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed

MAGA

[Anonymous Coward]

...is total bullshit, along with all the fucking sheep who repeat it

Theretwo things in this world I can't stand

[rsilvergun]

People who are intolerant towards other peoples and their culture, and the Dutch.

Yeah, obscure reference, but it's about as relevant as this is to the Travel Ban.

Re: Theretwo things in this world I can't stand

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is about the subjugation of women and children. Fuck their culture! And if you support it, fuck you!

Islam IS a hate crime; it's the embodiment of it!

Re: Theretwo things in this world I can't stand

[Anonymous Coward]

No Fuck You! And the horse you rode in on.

Re: Theretwo things in this world I can't stand

[Anonymous Coward]

I already fucked that horse and it fucked me. Your move atheist.

Nutty Reublican Base

[Anonymous Coward]

The nutty Republican base loves Trump's travel bans. Any Republican Congressman who stands against the ban is gonna get his ass thrown out.

He will be painted as someone who is weak on security - allowed the Muslim terrorists in - and unAmerican.

That's how they roll because it works.

Re:Nutty Reublican Base

[cayenne8]

The nutty Republican base loves Trump's travel bans.

Err...I"m guessing the "ban" had nothing to do with this.

I mean, I'm taking a wild ass guess, but with a last name of "Stenberg", I'm guessing he's not from one of the few 'banned' majority muslim countries.

And for that matter, I"m willing to go out on a limb and guess, that we in the US aren't exactly getting a lot of our high tech or other types or work from those few middle eastern countries listed on the temporary "ban".

I don't think the US is going to miss that much from those countries....and I seriously doubt this gentleman is caught up in the 'ban'.

Halting travel from these few countries seems quite reasonable.

Re:Nutty Reublican Base

[ghoul]

Sweden has let in a large number of refugees from all 5 of the countries where wars are going on - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia - in which USA is an aggressor and there is reasonable to believe that many of these refugees blame USA for destroying their countries.
It is not such a reach to think Swedish residents can be terrorist threats to USA.
On top of that add that most screening systems are prevented from using religion as a filter , a Swedish citizen with a defintiely non Muslim name may get picked up if the algorithm is not very specific.

Re:Nutty Reublican Base

[Anonymous Coward]

You only need ONE to make a huge damage. Had Einstein entry in US been denied because he came from germany (a country with far far far worse history back then of exploding things than any of the countries banned now) what would have happened? Oo yes USA would possibly not have the A Bomb funded...

visa free travel

[ooloorie]

Only Canada is a visa-free country with respect to the US. Visitors from Europe need a visa, but it can be "waived" in many cases when it is obvious that the person would have been granted a visa. A waiver can be denied for many benign reasons. In that case, he just needs to apply for a visa.

My guess is that this is either employment related (i.e., they are concerned that he is carrying out paid work in the US on a visitor visa), or that it is some legal issue on the Swedish side.

Re:visa free travel

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Canadians on anything resembling business travel are technically interviewed for a B-1 visa at the point of entry. They can (and our Support have) be denied entry if the border agent thinks that $$ might change hands or any other reason. They are not members of ESTA, but there can be issues at the crossing.

The reverse is equally true, as US-ians can be turned away by Canadian authorities if THEY think that $$ might change hands. Bottom line, a border is a border and only citizens can expect to get across without risk of denial. And even they might have a delayed passage for various reasons. EU-folks, YMMV, but I thought that was only within the Schengen area?

Re:visa free travel

[Dahan]

My guess is that this is either employment related (i.e., they are concerned that he is carrying out paid work in the US on a visitor visa), or that it is some legal issue on the Swedish side.

Yeah, I suspect it's employment-related. If he were an employee of a foreign company, he could enter via the VWP or on a B-1 to come to a business meeting. But he's an employee of a US company, so I'm pretty sure he needs an actual work visa to come for a business meeting with that company. As the author of cURL, he might be able to get an O-1A (for individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics (not including the arts, motion pictures or television industry)). Average Joes could probably get an L-1.

Re:visa free travel

[Anonymous Coward]

DUI/DWI is a good way to get turned away at the Canadian border too.

Re:visa free travel

[Anonymous Coward]

You can enter under visa-waiver program for business if you're going to attend a conference, training or consult with business associates. This clearly falls under one of these. However, there might be more that we don't know.

Re:visa free travel

[Anonymous Coward]

I've travelled to the US for work-related meetings for decades and never heard or seen of an incident where someone's flight is denied ahead of time. You might run into trouble at the actual passport control when you get quizzed on the purpose of your trip. They don't preemptively revoke the Visa waiver for regular business travellers.

curl is awesome tool

[MarkH]

Perfect unix. One job and does it well.
Saved my career on many occasions.

For those who don't know curl is open source command line tool for doing http (s) requests.

Re:curl is awesome tool

[Stonesand]

I used it in my bash web-page checker, that periodically downloaded and then diff'd the PAX web page, to let me know early when it changed: that helped me get the jump on when tickets went on sale. Yay curl!

Re: curl is awesome tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Post it to github you fuck.

Re: curl is awesome tool

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Not everyone is a flaming narcissist socialite who feels the overwhelming need to pimp everything on shithub. Fuck you.

Total BS

[Anonymous Coward]

So he is refused entry into USA? At this point you thank USA that they notified you before you borded the aircraft, thus saving you a trip to no-where, and make other plans for your time.

I know that things are done "different" (read retarded) in Sweden, but a sovereign nation is under no obligation to let you in stupidfuck. Stupidest Fake News of the day, but the day is young.

Amazing

[sunking2]

Exactly was is this meeting that it warrants being called 'the meeting'. Sounds like a boondoggle anyway.

It has nothing to do with Trump

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Unless that guy has the most Jewish and Western European sounding name ever for a citizen of Iran, Iraq and the other countries on the ban, it's not related. Citizens of about 40 countries, including the vast majority of European countries, are allowed visa free travel to the USA. Apparently we now make citizens of those countries apply for an ESTA which basically is advance approval that they'll be allowed into the US. This system should avoid the problem of having people fly into the US and being denied entry at the airport. Nobody wants that. Stenberg's ESTA was denied but for privacy reasons nobody can comment on why. It could be a mistake. It could be that he did something that raised the ire of the US government (maybe he has a lot of friends in a country the USA doesn't like). Maybe he's very anti-US on social media. Don't know. I wish his lawyers luck. Yeah. Having a lawyer fight this is totally going to be successful (sarcasm there). Eventually it will come out what his problem is. Don't be surprised if, for example, he's been a complete jerk on social media towards the USA or somebody in the government and it came back to haunt him.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[SETY]

Freedom of speech is highly regarded by USians, but it stops at the border. The hypocrisy.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[david_thornley]

Don't be surprised if it was an arbitrary action either. And don't be surprised if businesses start moving out of the US so employees can reliably visit the main business location.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

So who does the 'checking what s/he said on the internets'. Turkey and China we can probably assume (China sends intelligence agents abroad to mess with people who's left the country). Possibly Thailand? .. and then the US of course.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech is highly regarded by USians, but it stops at the border. The hypocrisy.

Any time you hear "USians" thump their chest over "freedom" of anything, recognize that they mean nothing except their own personal ability to act with impunity.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[Bing Tsher E]

You're saying that 'businesses moving out' bit over and over. Almost like you're spamming the discussion.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech is highly regarded by USians, but it stops at the border. The hypocrisy.

Nothing hypocritical about it. The only reason free speech is valued in the US is the belief that it is necessary for a functioning democratic government with a lesser likelihood of violent revolution.

Given that people that aren't citizens of the US have no right to vote, no right to contribute or influence US government, their freedom of speech on the US is not needed.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[Albert71292]

Someone was just angry about the mess Mozilla has been making out of Firefox the past few years.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is stopping him from saying anything. But there is no guarantee of speech without consequences.

Re:It has nothing to do with Trump

[david_thornley]

It's something I'm worried about. A perception that people can't rely on being able to travel to the US for routine business would be very harmful.

I hear Canada is Free

[WillAffleckUW]

In case you wanted to avoid the Russian colony down in the USA.

Re:I hear Canada is Free

[x0ra]

Canada requires the same kind of electronic travel authorization as the US.

We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need fruity euro techies here. We are going to all have jobs in clean coal!

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Mozilla does not believe this incident is related to the Trump travel ban, they could not resist stirring up some shit anyway.

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox takes up gigs of memory with only a few tabs open.

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like chrome then !!

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, we will all be given brooms to clean after and around the coal

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Hognoxious]

Yes, but look how rounded they are!

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Because highlighting that tech workers are being denied entry into the US in a landscape already suffering from brain drain is just "stirring up shit".

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by your comment, "brain drain" is an understatement.

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[dougdonovan]

good luck dan.

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If Mozilla is going to support terrorism, I see no reason to buy their inferior terrorist software

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[leslie.satenstein]

Let me be the first to offer you a shovel and a hard hat.

Re: We are going to Make America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

I had something similar said to me when complaing last century about seeing over computer,security conference attendees. Talk about autarky

Just Read Last Sentence

[TheCowSaysMoo]

Get past all the political mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with the situation and read the last sentence, which comes from a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson: "“Please know that we process 1.2 million people every day—around 700 are denied entry for various reasons. Having an approved ESTA does [not] guarantee a foreign national free entry into the US All travelers including those coming from visa waiver countries must clear all 60 grounds of inadmissibility.”

So, this guy is one of 700 people who are daily denied entry for NOTHING related to Trump's travel ban, but because he has a Twitter account and is a Mozilla employee, "AHHHH!!! TRUMP TRAVEL BAN!!! AHHHH!!! IT'S GOING TO GET EVERYBODY!!! AHHHH!"

In other news, water is wet.

Re:Just Read Last Sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is the travel ban will be in effect real soon now, and the media will go ape shit every time some notable gets denied. What they and their sycophants fail to appreciate is that many, many people will see these stories and thank Trump for finally bringing at least a little rigor to our ports of entry.

Get your papers in order, watch your mouth on social media and stop taking it for granted that you can wisk into the US on a whim. If your livelyhood depends on travel to the US then you really need to keep your ducks in a row; US borders are no longer a free-for-all. Get a visa if it really matters to you.

Re:Just Read Last Sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is the travel ban will be in effect real soon now

Which is also a reason that this article is bad: There is, and will be, plenty of shit that is the result of Republicans in Congress and/or the Trump Administration, so "reporters" straining themselves for clickbait tripe like this just make it harder to point out the real problems.

It also gives people an excuse to view all claims as crying wolf, simply because there were specific instances of wolf being cried that can be pointed to. Same kind of problem with people who label(ed) Trump as "literal Hitler".

Re:Just Read Last Sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, but the fact is that the US is increasingly seen as a hard place to go to. Travel bans, bureaucratic screw-ups, whatever - and stories of the TSA have travelled widely... I'd not go there unless I really had to. Arrange meetings elsewhere. Why would anyone want to go to America?

Mozilla employees are special

[scrout]

Everyone knows folks well known in the relatively tiny tech sector are special, and need not have any particular rules applied to them....however, if my paperwork got fucked up I would also infer that some totally unrelated world leader is out to get me. I would say it was that nut from Tajikistan, I dont know him but I am sure he could use some negative press.

Deny Mozilla software to Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Block the download of Mozilla software to Americans. See how fast they react, oh wait everyone is using Chrome now because Firefox threw away its XUL extension user base.

Legalize holograms...

[Anonymous Coward]

For non-felons! African-Americans use holographic projections to give rap concerts for their audiences, so why can't professionals with an IQ above 70 use holograms to interact with people?

Seriously, why not? It may not be the most politically correct question, but, you know, you could add remote controlled cameras to a chair, and have some projectors put a guy or a girl in that chair even if they are thousands of miles away. Think of how much money could be saved when you don't have to travel so much. Projections don't even have to be rendered in real time. In 25 years, a 19 second delay is considered PERFECTLY acceptable, even if the render is slightly "off", as long as the intended message gets across to the audience.

On an unrelated note, in 25 years... um... people with African ancestry... may or may not be slaves again. The whole freedom thing didn't work out too well in the past, present, or the future.

Re: Even though this has nothing to do with a poli

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, how else would you get geeky pseudointellectuals to fling their pointless comments around so vigorously?

"curl | sudo" is a security risk, so denied

[enjar]

Someone googled him, found out about the curl connection, googled curl and found out "curl | sudo" is a security risk. NO SECURITY RISKS ENTER ON MY WATCH. (yes, this is sarcasm)

Border agent suspected $$ involved

[Anonymous Coward]

While there are a whole lot of reasons that come to mind, "person without work permit entering US and receiving cash or cash equivalents" has and probably will prevent people entering. Happens at the Canadian border, and I suspect most borders. Solution in this case is to have documentation about the purpose of the trip of an official nature that would pass scrutiny. Even then, there's a stochastic element as a "week party in SF" strikes some as a $$ benefit...

Build the Wall Deport them All

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep MozillaCucks / SwedeCucks out!

Martian's stale talking points, part 2

[Anonymous Coward]

What it looks like to me is that Republican lawmakers know they have an unsuitable man in the White House

That's right, Martian thinks if you voted for Trump your vote shouldn't be counted. Democracy is only allowed if you vote Martian's way.
As for unsuitable...
You mean people like McCabe who is pursuing the administration in retaliation for a sexual harassment suit? Yep, same guy broke Hatch act, took bribes to trash the Clinton investigation, and is attacking Flynn and Trump because Flynn dared to step up on behalf of a female FBI agent.
Or do you mean CNN making up Russia Trump stories, or Van Jones on CNN ALSO saying the Russia thing is fake.

Its actually hard to find any accusation of Trump that isn't easily debunked as 100% false by the people making the claims themselves. But here you are supporting people who sexually harass women, take bribes, abuse power, and everything else. All while acting like we shouldn't be allowed to vote for who we want to.

You are a real piece of work. I'm sure your mother upstairs is proud of you!

Re:Martian's stale talking points, part 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Its actually hard to find any accusation of Trump that isn't easily debunked as 100% false by the people making the claims themselves.

Ok... here's one for you.. Trump through Trump University committed Fraud.
Please notice how Trump went to trial and the court found in his favor.

Re:Martian's stale talking points, part 2

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, Martian thinks if you voted for Trump your vote shouldn't be counted. Democracy is only allowed if you vote Martian's way.

I just took GP's post to be about theorizing why Congress was acting a certain way, not that it was good or bad of them to do so.

Re:Martian's stale talking points, part 2

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, Martian thinks if you voted for Trump your vote shouldn't be counted.

Trump is a clown. Hence, the circus. If you like clowns and circuses, you should be happy.

You don't seem happy, but I don't see how that is anyone's fault but your own.

Re:Martian's stale talking points, part 2

[MightyMartian]

Where did I say that? What I'm saying is that the other branches of government are doing the job they were intended to do; which is act as a check on the Executive. Your problem isn't with me, it's with Madison, Jefferson et al who were the ones that knew there would be Presidents good and bad, and created a system with the specific intent to limit them.

Re:Martian's stale talking points, part 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Its actually hard to find any accusation of Trump that isn't easily debunked as 100% false

He's a lying narcissistic psychopath. There's no debunking that.

Re:Martian's stale talking points, part 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok... here's one for you.. Trump through Trump University committed Fraud.

Please notice how Trump went to trial and the court found in his favor.

If any fraud was committed it was by the operator of Trump University not Donald J. Trump himself. The court of law found he did not commit fraud.

Here is why he was banned

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably supported California's Proposition 8 with a donation or something

Trumps message, don't work with the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's message is clear to the international community. The United States does not want to work with the international community. Time for the world to leave the US to the isolation it appears to want..

The word I got to confirm this was "repress"

Re:Even though this has nothing to do with a polic

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to another liberal tent city. This one has been named Slashdot.

Why is this flamebait? Stein was complicit.

[Glasswire]

Not relevant if you think he was denied some reason other than Trump's travel ban, but if Trump was the cause, Stein's involvement is documented. She was actively recruited by Flynn and Russians. Check the lovely photo

Re: Even though this has nothing to do with a poli

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of anti-American spin on this site lately. I suspect the editors are foreigners who hate America out of sheer jealously.

Families' expenses are not tax-deductible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your family's expenses are not tax-deductible.

But like most corporatists you reveal yourself as a tax-cheat and an America hater.

Re: Families' expenses are not tax-deductible.

[Brockmire]

This isn't his first time admitting to tax fraud.

Re:Families' expenses are not tax-deductible.

[Anonymous Coward]

But like most corporatists you reveal yourself as a tax-cheat and an America hater.

Given who the POTUS is, that was probably an intentional effect of the travel ban.

Re: Families' expenses are not tax-deductible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless all the expenses are within the per diem. In which case they effectively are.

He's still a Mozilla developer.

[denzacar]

Which means he's a Mozlem.

Re:Why is this flamebait? Stein was complicit.

[Obfuscant]

Not relevant if you think he was denied some reason other than Trump's travel ban, but if Trump was the cause,

And if LRH was the cause, it was because Stenberg's body Thetans were disruptive and blocking his state of clear. This was all documented in the Green Book. It's a miracle the guy got out of the airport before the Sea Org agents scooped him up as a suppressive person and took him to The Camp.

Re:Even though this has nothing to do with a polic

[Anonymous Coward]

FAKE NEWS!

All the "journalists" are doing it these days.

Post Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

We are in the Post Truth age where everything is Trump's fault, even when they admit it isn't Trump's fault it still is.

Also visible on CNN where they all admit that Russia and Trump didn't work together, but liberals keep watching so they keep lying. Yep, liberals are unable to determine lies from truth and prefer the lies.

Re:Even though this has nothing to do with a polic

[Anonymous Coward]

Libtards gotta libtard. These morons are conditioned by agenda driven outlets like CNN, BBC, NBC, and despite being caught week after week fabricating "news", the libturds ignore the admissions and whistle-blowers and blindly carry on with their hate campaign.

good

[slashmydots]

Keep him out until Firefox stops getting stuck in some kind of processing loop and crashing. I'm getting REALLY sick of that.

I'm all for it

[Anonymous Coward]

America will do everyone else a favor by boosting software development outside of America.

What could go wrong? less nsa, fbi, csi control and encryption weakening, more diverse culture, other currencies. ux will be less boxed etc etc

Although Mozilla doesn't believe that the....

[Tulsa_Time]

Although Mozilla doesn't believe that the incident is related to Trump's travel ban, the incident stirred fears...

Oh come on.... we can't cry about the real ban... let's look for an unrelated FAKE NEWS story to compare it to.

makes me happy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing Stenberg can do that an American can't do, and do better. I'm very happy to see foreign tech workers being blocked entry to the USA.

INS appears to have tightened up recently

[IgnorantSavage]

INS has a lot of latitude in how they interpret and enforce existing laws. They have a number of places they look to for guidance, and the president is likely the largest. Trump is looking for statistics that show he is 'making a difference'. Cost to the economy doesn't appear to be a factor at all, only appearances.

One example I've seen recently is that my wife's company had a Mexican field support engineer denied entry recently, despite having a visa that was valid for his purpose (training). It sounds like he probably described the purpose for his visit incorrectly (along the lines of "I'm going to do some work for my US employer", exactly as he has for many entries over more than a decade, but which is not generally allowed on this visa), so the denial is not totally unreasonable, yet it points to immigration people who are currently looking for reasons to deny entry rather than looking for reasons to allow entry.

And appealing these decisions is difficult to the point of being almost impossible. This engineer may not ever be allowed into the US again under any VISA.

Re:Why is this flamebait? Stein was complicit.

[WrongMonkey]

Was Jill Stein a Russian plant when she ran the first time in 2012? If so, does that mean that Romney and Putin were colluding, too?

USA = Closed for Business?

[Anonymous Coward]

USA seems to be closed for business? Time to setup shop elsewhere, maybe in Canada - then some of the smart US business minds could meet with those from Europe and elsewhere in a safe country.

Serves him right

[Tablizer]

That's what he gets for helping to screw up FireFox.

I consider myself a "hacker"

[Anonymous Coward]

https://daniel.haxx.se/hackers.html

Hackers Are The Good People

I consider myself a "hacker". I never went to college or university. I've spent thousands of spare-time hours in front of my various home computers. I've been programming since I was 14. I know assembler for several CPUs.

Doesn't take a dumb PHB to read this wrong

"He's an hacker and he thinks that hacking is good"... -- Dilbert PHB

or an AI screening algo with a simple keyword screening program to blacklist him.

LOL. Now give us the reason?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just flamebait from a child who is upset with his mommy and daddy because they didn't give him a new sharp pencil for his birthday. Like this idiot most people will immediately blame Trump for this so hideous act. ROFLMA. Keep asking, who this scum really is and get ready to be surprised.

Remember, please run with scissors. it's good for YOU.

Wait, wut? Employee?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean really WORK for Mozilla? They actually get a paycheck or something? They get paid to make that bloatware called Firefox?

BURN

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent +1 Burn with a side-mod of +1 Has actually read the preamble to the constitution.

The UK is open for business

[The123king]

Worried about Trump? Stuck outside the US? The United Kingdom is open for business!

We need the business after the Brexit fiasco!

Re: We are going to Make America Great Againtmdw

[Anonymous Coward]

DW

Not One Of the Seven

[kenwd0elq]

I do not get the perception, just based on the name "Daniel Stenberg", that this guy was born in Ethiopia, Somalia, Iran, or one of the other four "nations" from which immigration has been restricted. So what's the big deal?

Never let facts get in the way...

[kenh]

Although Mozilla doesn't believe that the incident is related to Trump's travel ban, the incident stirred fears among international tech workers, who fear they'll miss out on work and research opportunities if they're not allowed to travel to the US.

Employees of US companies are exempt from the trump travel ban.

Mozilla doesn't think the denial was based on Trumps travel ban.

Despite those two facts, the narrative is trump's travel ban caused him to not be able to travel to US?! Based on what? Oh, based on foreigners bring afraid that being in a foreign land they might miss an opportunity in the US?

It really would have been nice if this story would have included WHY Mozilla does think he was denied entry, but heck, that would limit the trump bashing...

Daniel Stenberg

[kenh]

Daniel Stenberg Appears to be Swedish, does not appear to be a refugee seeking asylum, why would he get caught in Trump's travel ban?

Interesting to note that no mention is made of his nationality, ethnicity, or religion...

Hire American

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no unique employees. These foreign scabs are hired for cheap labor. Hire Americans, and you have no problems with visas.

He's white...

[kenh]

He's white, from Sweden, and likely not a refugee - how does this involve Trump's Travel ban?

Seriously, Trump Derangement Syndrome is rampant on this site...