Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
I don't like, I'm going to say "fuck it" and link them anyways.
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?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
He does not, but he needs an ESTA registration (visa waiver) and his application seems to have been retrospectively rejected.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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have to pass a check to have your visa waived, before you can try to have your visa waived, and your approval can be withdrawn at any time.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.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
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.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
We don't need fruity euro techies here. We are going to all have jobs in clean coal!
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.
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.
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...
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?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Except Canadians, we do not pay anything to enter the USA.
Except your soul! (evil laugh)
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!
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
When a story completely contradicts your theory about institutional racism, cite racism anyway.
Do you have a one-track mind??
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.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
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.
Have you read my blog lately?