Whether you agree or disagree with non-US citizens coming to America to engage in the advancement of technology, the important thing is to have discourse on the topic. That is in line with aims and goals of this site. This story is much less politics and much more about the impact of social policy on technologists.
As a non-US citizen myself but who has lived there for some time, I find that having and expressing an opinion on things like this is difficult due to the danger of such retaliation mentioned during border crossings and my daily life.
First watching the tearing up of the societal contract in the US over the past decades turned this into a country that feels like it is on the brink of a collapse. No longer can regular Americans rely that working hard will give them a good or even decent life. This means intense pressures are at work with some very desperate people, bringing out the ugliest (but also sometimes the most beautiful) bits of humanity, all while you have richer folks at the top who act like how their country operates at large is none of their business as long as there is a cut in it for them. Why should I care about the US if you guys don't even care about it yourselves?
Second the US is highly unreliable. Laws, democracy, human rights, treaties, consumer rights — all are treated as negotiable, optional things that you use against your enemies and ignore when it affects your own. With enough money everything can be bent around. There are no principles at work that one could rely on and that is no foundation to build a life on unless you are literally ready to join the ranks of people acting like cartoon villains — something only people do who have no self-respect for their limited time on earth.
Yeah, I don't see myself even visiting the US in my lifetime.
Hehe, reminds me about a video I saw some years ago.
They asked ordinary citizens what a reasonable distribution of wealth should be. Like the share of overall wealth owned by the richest 10% (or 1% or whatever), vs wealth owned by the rest of the population. Let's call this ratio "X".
Then those citizens were asked what they thought the wealth distribution was actually like (let's call that "Y"). No surprise: people thought wealth was much more UNevenly distributed than it should be.
Then they showed what the distribution was like in reality (let's call that "Z"): way more extreme.
So, wealth distributed way more uneven than people thought, and that in turn way more uneven than what people thought it should be.
That alone explains a lot of what's wrong with the US imho: broken/corrupt politics, outsized influence of tech bros (including outside US), a health problem bankrupting people, people turning to drugs, a militarized police force, incarceration ratios, homeless epidemic, etc etc.
Especially in a highly developed country where total wealth is enough to have everybody live comfortably & care-free.
As opposed to some poor war-torn country where wealth is also unevenly distributed, but it's obvious and everybody knows it. And overall wealth is a lot less to begin with (so people being desperate isn't surprising).
US' downfall turning it into a banana republic, its erosion of democratic institutions, human rights etc, is a logical result from the above. I'm not expecting that to improve sadly :-(. Things will probably get worse & there will be blood in the streets.
A vouch option for Flagged submissions would be appreciated. I wonder if it used to be there but was removed.
Some sort of meta-moderation system to prevent abuse of flagging would be welcome.
this is one that would actually invite curious discussion if some people weren't clutching onto their "God Bless America (We're #1!)" pearls quite so tightly
AFAIK, upvoting a flagged submission cancels out the flagging to some extent. I don’t know the internals of how this process works. I’ve upvoted the submission in an effort to get it unflagged (it still may not get to the front page or may rapidly drop down though).
THIS IS NOT A PLACE OF HONOR.
But also, I tire of the nationalist rhetoric wherever I see it. I'm tired of this idea that countries are anything more than a shared historical hallucination, and that we're all somehow different from one another. Or as my father often put it, "we all bleed red and we all shit brown." I never chose to be born here, and because I am sick (through no fault of my own) so called tolerant countries wouldn't have me. So I am stuck here.
Regardless, I get why you didn't come, I can't say I blame you, but I also am sick of these damn countries ruining things. Perhaps we should abandon the idea entirely and replace it with the spirit of brotherhood and respect for one's fellow human.
In an ideal world we could celebrate each other's differences. But trying to get rid of conflict by getting rid of national borders is naive. Why are the borders where they are? Generally because those are ethno-cultural boundaries. Nations that encompass multiple ethno-cultural groups tend to be somewhat unstable: for instance, Yugoslavia broke up violently, and Iraq has conflict between the Kurds and the rest.
This is not a support of nationalism (although I encourage patriotism, which is different), but "countries are [nothing] more than a shared historical hallucination" is just incorrect.
It's too bad so few people can say "My country, if right to be supported, if wrong to be corrected."
Do you think they are trying to do a Trump voice as a joke? I can't even tell anymore.
On Hacker News? I can. I'm surprised it got unflagged.
> As a USer, it is the letter I would advise anyone outside the US to write. It is the only rational response.
Seconded.
I'm a US citizen and fully support any person of any country that protests the Trump administration in any form.
America isn't special here, I guess every country treats non-citizens worse than citizens. But at least the trip back is usually shorter
I can understand the principles and the bit of Canadian pride, but ultimately it's rather hyperbolic. Even on principle, the fact is Canada and the US are strong and long lasting allies with a very obvious power imbalance, and this sort of pouting over commentary is more fitting to members of an elementary school kickball team than a professional organization on the cutting edge of technology.
The best thing for the States to do at this point would be to hold a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the government of the United States as unfit for any purpose, after which their citizens can decide how they wish to proceed.
The anti democratic and heavily corrup republicam goverment is product of right wing bubble. It has little to do with left.
Going back to the drawing board after watching some major issues break the country is how we got this constitution in the first (second) place. The founders clearly suggested this as an intentional pressure valve to avoid the terrible catastrophe that is civil war or the dissolution of the union.
When values diverge in such extreme ways (values, not politics or preferences) it is very hard to continue to see each other as fellow citizens working toward some shared future. Mix in severe inequality and a broken, corrupt justice system and there is a very real sense of impending escalation. With the failure of the judicial and legislative branches to control corruption, we might be risking everything by NOT trying to find new middle ground.
There was a pew research poll in March [0] showing half of Americans think people in the opposing political party are morally bad people, not just people with different views or priorities. People openly tell each other they are "ruining the country" over things like "should the US spend tax money helping illegal immigrants in any way" or "should trans people have the same rights as they were born with" or "should the government protect known pedophiles from consequences" or "should women have to put their life on the line carrying a rape pregnancy to full term" or "should there be investigations when protesters are shot and killed by immigration agents" or "should the president be above the law". Both sides think their take on these questions is the only reasonable one and anyone on the other side is either delusional or downright evil.
Last time values diverged until the breaking point was because a huge chunk of people were willing to die in order to keep owning other people and another huge chunk of people were willing to die to prevent it. The resulting war caused more American deaths than all the others combined. Despite this, plenty of people still proudly fly the rebel flag today.
Another continental Congress to reauthor (renegotiate?) the Union is a monumental undertaking that is extremely dangerous for the stability of the country so it shouldn't be considered lightly. Civil war is far worse though so hopefully we can collectively navigate our way back to calmer waters.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-countr...
But in countries where participation is mandatory, at least you can say that most of the (national) negatively affected people got what they voted for.
For improper "democratic" countries where elections are rigged or participation is biased towards some population sectors in a way or another, they are not really elections by the population.
You're assuming that 1) the elections will actually occur on Nov 6, 2) the elections will be fair, and 3) that the winners of said elections would take action and actually enforce the rule of law.
I'm not confident in any of those.
Hopefully a lot of the fears don't pan out but we won't know until it gets closer.
I'm not saying that there aren't better options but both major parties are complicit in how the system is organised. The US electoral system gets ever more distorted with every minor adjustment in the hopes of swinging various seats in their favour and now it just looks ridiculous.
I think it is deeper, that these actions were taken at the top and a sizable amount of the people sided with them, that sends the message that the US cannot be trusted long term, it has become cultural. I get that it isnt a majority of people but it is big enough that it cannot be ignored.
Not trusting the Americans was a French thing ever since De Gaulle. It just took the rest of the Europeans 50 years after his death to pick up on it.
Germany seems to have recovered quite a lot of trust following World War 2, to provide an extreme example of bad foreign policy.
This story is that of Netflix' Chaos Monkey attacking the state most rhetorically aligned/proud of The Rule Of Law and showing in myriad ways how absolutely hollow that pride was and how vulnerable The Law is.
Are these bugs that get fixed or...if that was The Last Election, maybe not.
Well, most people, obviously.
dont mean to offend, just didnt realize things were this rabid over the big pond
I grew up in a very conservative household, and until the tea party/Trumpian alliance would have called myself a small-l libertarian.
Now? I won’t vote republican for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it rhymes with the worst parts of the political parties we destroyed in world wars.
There’s something new almost every day that should, in a sane culture, cause folks to abandon the Republican Party en masse. Today’s example? The 1.776 Billion “anti-weaponization” fund that is a slush fund for Trump and his allies, including folks that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The grift of this administration is shocking, but the fact that rank-and-file conservatives aren’t abandoning it by the millions gives away the game. It isn’t about principles, it’s about one party winning, no matter what.
We used to fight for what’s right, but we have become the villain. Tim is right about the declination of America (realizing his title is a double-entendre), and I can’t help but wonder if there is even a line that Trump could cross to the modern “Republican” party.
As a former right winger, now recovering conservative, I'm inclined to agree. The greater issue for me is the right became every single thing they accused the left of (being easily hurt, mandated viewpoints, group think).
It's all the natural progression of the animosity campaigns Newt Gingrich launched a generation ago. ref: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/662/where-there-is-a-will/a...
And there's so much of it that it's almost become the norm. It's shocking that anyone -- no matter their political views -- can continue to support that.
We literally went from "drain the swamp" to "fill the swamp"
I honestly do not want my kids to grow up in this country. Which is too bad because it has a lot going for it otherwise. I'm actively looking for an exit strategy.
Some may think supporting their own party no matter what is a smart move that will let them win, but the only thing it achieves is that the party can now stop representing your interest. One of the few levers you have as a voter is the threat of not voting for a party or even voting against them. By swearing blind loyalty no matter what, you're giving up that single lever you had. The power of a voter isn't to vote people into office, it is to vote them out of it.
Trump has seen time and time again that he can promise X and then get away with doing the polar opposite of X, just because Republican representatives and voters think towing the line is more important than everything else.
In an actual democracy the politicians are afraid of the voters, not the other way around.
It was very definitely better than the centuries of militaristic monarchic feudalism Europe waded through from medieval times until the mid-1900s. It is very definitely worse than modern pluralistic coalition-based democracies with proportional representation, which offer a wider range of choices to voters, and make it possible to launch competing parties / movements to counter institutional stagnation.
Until recently, the one counterargument I would hear to this second assertion is "but coalition governments have a hard time getting anything done". Now that we see a prime example of a government that alternates between a) not getting anything done and b) getting things done that belong somewhere in a timeframe from the 1890s to the 1940s, I no longer hear people making that counterargument.
Re: constitutional structure, one Irish friend I have made an interesting point: in his lifetime, there have been many changes and amendments to the Irish constitution. This is next to impossible in the US system, both because of the party loyalty dynamic mentioned above _and_ because of the incredibly high procedural bar to doing so. (And not least because of the current predominance of originalist thinking in the judicial branch, as though the constitution were an infallible document handed down from gods among men, eternally to be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended back over 200 years ago in a completely different social, political, and technological context.)
Not that US borders were predictable before that men came into office. But when I enter the EU or Japan for example I have fundamental trust in the fact that even if I was not a citizen, my rights would be clear and not violated by some lunatic border officer that had a bad day. Being expected to disclose your social media accounts while them potentially holding you for weeks without any reason? Nah thanks.
When I was traveling on the Balkans a decade ago I also had weird border encounters, with Serbian officers expecting bribes. I felt safer there than the expectation of crossing into the US makes me feel. Don't eant people with half a brain coming over? Then we don't. Your choice.
1) I use "socials" anonymously. Have anon accounts on X, IG, FB. If asked to disclose them at the border (am US citizen, but it's happening to them too), do I disclose the anon accounts?
2) Nothing too controversial in my "socials" (I'm careful), but there's still stuff there that could embarrass me (e.g. mocking or abusing people on X). What would happen if I scrubbed my socials before a trip? Would they be able to find out that I scrubbed, and then construe something about me?
3) Relatedly, is there a recommended way to scrub one's socials?
4) Is something like HN considered part of "socials"? I assume Reddit is. So HN must be too? I've had multiple accounts on HN over the years (been serially banned until I stopped leaving controversial comments). What am I expected to do in such an instance? Do I disclose all the HN accounts?
5) Relatedly, I have multiple X accounts (squatting on usernames). Do I disclose all the accounts?
Read this line back to yourself a few times.
Now tell me where your democracy went.
2. + 4. It depends
3. If you plan to go to the us while Trump and his chronies are in an position of power, then the best way to scrub them is not to post it.
5. See 1. if you don't disclose all, they can pull the lie on a form card
Have you only ever logged onto them on burner devices / qubes and over eg Tor?
Assuming they do ask in the first place.
