I honestly don't see what is broken here. No one has the unquestioned right to enter any country except one where they hold citizenship. This post documents one person who was turned away for what he felt was an unreasonable position but that's still up to the United States to decide. It may shock people on Hacker News to learn this, but many other countries turn people away for "frivolous" reasons or no reason at all. For instance, Canada:
No one has the unquestioned right to enter any country except one where they hold citizenship. This post documents one person who was turned away for what he felt was an unreasonable position but that's still up to the United States to decide.
Yes it is. And it is up to the people to decide not wanting to go to US ever again, as stated in this post.
Seems like you got offended by something the writer said. All he stated that he doesn't ever want to go there and I think he is allowed to state that without anyone getting upset about it.
I was responding to the assertion that this is "broken," not to the author of the original article. The author has every right to not visit countries which have wronged him and I see nothing wrong with that. What I do think is wrong is to immediately reply to someone else with a retort of "maybe fix your country."
I see. I think I missed your target and point somewhere in "for what he felt was an unreasonable position" and "It may shock people on Hacker News to learn this". Sorry.
It's not really a counter example. The Eurocrats would love the peoples of Europe to be citizens of a united states of Europe (polls suggest people are not so inclined). The Schengen agreement is a logical step towards that goal and is undeniably helpful for travellers. Countries in the continent of America don't appear to have any such ambition.
Wouldn't the "United" states be similar? Each "state" of the union was like it's own country until they formed their own group. People from the USA usually identify with their state first before the country.
On the other hand, one may contest the premise that a country has a right to refuse entrance to any individual.
I, for one, would rather live in a world where individuals are free to travel at will (protected by international agreements) than in one where only goods and money benefit from this kind of protection.
As someone who lives in a Schengen area country, I experience both, so maybe that influences my opinions : it seems quite retrograde and unbearable to forbid people to just travel as they wish.
If you accept the assertion that countries are allowed to police their borders as they see fit, sans abuse and neglect, then it justifies it on the basis of "reasonable practice." This was a discretionary entry and discretion was withheld. Then again, as I pointed out elsewhere, my angst is not with the author of the article, just the comment to which I replied.
(I happen to subscribe to the theory that, since the world is highly unlikely to do the reverse, borders should be relaxed to the point where people can move as freely as capital, but we're not anywhere close to that, either.)
This is a pretty empty argument. It's up to the United States to decide all of its policies. So what? That doesn't make it unreasonable for outsiders to comment on how stupid or broken they are. Similarly broken policies in other countries aren't really much justification either.
I also have some pretty horrible experiences with the Canadian border (about as bad as the US side seems to be for most).
I was denied entry once for an entirely frivolous reason (before anyone asks, no, no criminal record or DUI or anything) and it made subsequent entries extremely difficult/stressful but I was not turned away.
Edit: That second link. Trust me on this: the worst innocent thing you can ever tell a CBSA agent is that you're dating a Canadian. Especially if the agent decides that they don't like you.
I'm also never going back to Canada, because there's nothing up there worth it for me to be treated that way.
Pretty ironic considering the US started producing tourism adverts. Maybe they should add a disclaimer to the bottom: only applicable to WASPs with $10k in the bank who have never left their home country before.
It's not my country, you assumptive douche. The author was rejected from entering the USA on arguably questionable, but still legal terms.
Based on his account, I'm forced to believe he acted appropriately, and therefore I feel bad for him, but he doesn't have a given right to enter a foreign country.
My advice remains. Custom officials in airports are much better equipped to handle foreigners. So, to hedge your safest bets for next time you go to the US, make the airport your first port of entry.
> The author was rejected from entering the USA on arguably questionable, but still legal terms.
And no one was questioning the legality of this. Legal does not mean good.
>My advice remains. Custom officials in airports are much better equipped to handle foreigners. So, to hedge your safest bets for next time you go to the US, make the airport your first port of entry.
How is that not broken? Why should it matter if you enter via airport or train.
There was no reason to turn him away, other than misperceptions and bigocy by the border agents. That's what should be fixed.
