Redis in my Postgres - <AUTHOR> http://craigkerstiens.com/2012/10/18/connecting_to_redis_from_postgres/ <comment><USER2> Holy awesome! I really like postgres and, with FDW, a question comes to mind.

Can I basically put up a PG instance and have that manage/proxy to all of my backend stores? It would be nice to be able to just use my one DB library to query Riak, Redis and Postgresql [my usual datastore stack]. I didn't see anything in here about doing CUD operations on the FDW stores, but the benefit of having a single consistent interface for READs might be large enough to adopt this.

</comment><comment><USER3> very cool, anyone using these foreign data wrappers in production? along with the json support this is the kind of thing that will push me over the edge and make me switch from mysql to postgres. It looks like the answer to the nosql vs sql debate might be "both, togther".

<comment><USER4> _> "both, togther"_

That's always been the answer.

<comment><USER3> yes, but having separate systems that cannot interact is problematic. The ability to join "tables" from different systems is a game changer.

<comment><USER5> Game changer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> At this rate postgres will be making the tea by the end of next week.

<comment><USER6> Coffee, maybe; it shouldn't be too hard to get Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol working, as specified in RFC 2324. Sadly, HTCPCP doesn't support tea, and trying to use it for this purpose may result in HTTP 418 "I'm a teapot" errors.

<comment><USER7> It will create something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The FDW wrapper that they have is really not worthy of Redis. It only supports K/V and none of the structured types. Might as well be talking to memcached. The README is useful in this case:

<https://github.com/dpage/redis_fdw/blob/master/README>

</comment><comment><USER9> You can even write your own foreign data wrappers in python: <http://multicorn.org/implementing-an-fdw/#id3> Their "Hello, world" example is less than 15 lines of code.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is the performance on these queries good?

<comment><USER11> My guess unfortunately would be "probably not" - e.g. I can't think of a generic way to implement

        SELECT * from redis_db0 limit 5;

other than running the Redis command "KEYS *" - which does a linear scan of the entire Redis keyspace, locking Redis while it does so, and returning every single key in a potentially large streaming response - and truncating to the first 5. (That's fine if you have a few hundred keys, probably not if you have ten million.)

I'd love to be contradicted, though :)

<comment><USER12> So you would need to write your own Foreign Data Wrapper and implement some mechanic to tell it if the SQL code is meant for first or the second interpreter?

Like: SELECT * FROM redis_db0 USING_REDIS limit 5; And Postgres would just pass that"USING_REDIS limit 5" through to Redis? Then Postgres would pass that table or array? back to caller.

Wait, wouldn't this also need modification for DB engine itself?

<comment><USER13> Today was my first real usage of PostGres (moving one of our assetdb from sqlite to it, and although the update of the db is 5 time slower - well I haven't really done well there, the query later (which is more important) is from 1.5sec to 300msec on one recent example - about 100,000 assets for a video game).

I've also looked briefly about fdw, as a coworker of mine is trying out mongodb for our level editor... Looked at all implementation and read the every fdw code there (except oracle - as it seems most complex, but for good I guess - it checks the pgsql's AST (is that how it's called?) more deeply).

As for redis, maybe this line is relevant:

[https://github.com/dpage/redis_fdw/blob/master/redis_fdw.c#L...](https://github.com/dpage/redis_fdw/blob/master/redis_fdw.c#L562)

yes, for certain cases (I guess "select _") it does "keys_ ". I'm also trying out redis for our distributed caching in the studio.

So PostGres is my new favourite thing :) - the fdw looks easy to start, but probably hard to master it.

<comment><USER14> > Today was my first real usage of PostGres

Then let us welcome you with some pedantry! Postgres or PostgreSQL, but never PostGres or--FSM forbid--PostGreSQL.

More seriously,

> fdw looks easy to start, but probably hard to master it.

Yep, like a number of Postgres features, such as user-defined types and user- defined aggregates. It's a great system, and not nearly as stuffy or hard to use as you may have heard.

<comment><USER13> Ah, I will be careful how I write it :) Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


PSA: Adobe is offering Photoshop CC and Lightroom for $10/mo, ends Dec. 31 - <AUTHOR> https://creative.adobe.com/plans/offer/photoshop+lightroom

<comment><USER2> That's a steal for sure - compare here: [https://creative.adobe.com/plans/](https://creative.adobe.com/plans/)</comment>


Einstein's real opinion of religion - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

<comment><USER2> Einstein's opinions on religion are much more complex and often more contradictory than the article suggests. Some interesting information I found here: <http://einsteinandreligion.com/>

<comment><USER3> While that quote isn't his whole opinion about religion, it does set a pretty sharp bound on it, and moreover one that falsifies a lot of the interpretations that religious people have made of his vaguer statements.

<comment><USER4> Unless, of course, he periodically changed his mind.

<comment><USER3> I never saw any sign of that in the things he said in his adult life. Einstein talked a fair amount about God, and religious people have made much of that, but when he spoke about God he always seemed to be using the word as synonymous with the mysteriously complicated order in the universe.

Fenyman said "The imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man." Einstein would have phrased that as "The imagination of God." And there would be posters of Einstein looking benevolent, with that quote printed at the bottom.

<comment><USER4> I dunno, I've never read read much of Einstein, particularly not his opinions on the divine or supernatural; I've frankly never really cared.

Considering what I do know however, it's certainly possible that he was an on/off deist. Then again, it doesn't really matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have one personal wish which will propably be downmoded, but I try anyway. I wish the religions stuff be left in reddit and HN will remain clean from this.</comment>


A Teenager's View on Social Media - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/backchannel/a-teenagers-view-on-social-media-1df945c09ac6#.tgc3a48px <comment><USER2> Note: This article is from a year ago.

Original discussion on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8851902](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8851902)

A response to the article:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874411](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874411)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, didn't do enough due diligence; searching for the URL yielded no results as it appears to do an exact match.

The URL after the # appears to change on each GET of the article: [https://medium.com/backchannel/a-teenagers-view-on-social- me...](https://medium.com/backchannel/a-teenagers-view-on-social- media-1df945c09ac6#.xbnp9xwza)

<comment><USER2> It's actually OK to repost an article after a year if it hasn't had significant discussion in the last year. However, it's customary to put the year in parentheses after the title if it's an old article so that people know it's something they may have read before.

I was mainly pointing out the earlier discussions because they could be of interest to someone reading the article.</comment></comment></comment>


3n+1 NoSQL Database Benchmark - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd5f3337_12fzjpqbc2&pli=1 During my research I stumbled over this interesting analysis and benchmark.It's an attempt to create a benchmark for databases that are generally described as NoSQL, key-value, schema-free or schema-less databases.
The goals are to create a benchmark that:

  * is simple to understand and code - ideally, a page of code or less in most programming languages;
  * performs a non-trivial amount of representative activity - reads and updates, access contention, recovery, etc.; and
  * generates results that can be easily replicated and verified by others.
 <comment><USER2> I read the paper, but an explanation of why the 3n+1 conjecture forms a sound basis for benchmarking NoSQL databases would be helpful.</comment>


A deportation at the UK border - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4#.rm0hlt1bq <comment><USER3> Enough has been said about bad treatment by border guards about every country on earth so don't need to repeat it but I had the following exchange with a Canadian visa officer.

Visa Officer:Your Name? How can I help you Me: Dr XYZ. I would like to apply for a visitor visa to Canada Visa Officer: Why would you like to go to Canada Me: I have been invited to speak at a conference Visa Officer: Hmm I see. Me: Is there a problem? Visa Officer: You see, you are not allowed to do public speaking on a visitor visa. You will have to apply a visa for public speaking which takes longer and requires additional formalities and checks. Me: Oh, I see. I am surprised that is the case, I go around the world to conferences and it seems unusual in Canada. Visa Officer: Can I ask you a question Me: Sure Visa Officer (with a smile): Would you say that your main purpose of applying the visa is to attend the conference and you will be sharing your professional and not political views. Me: Yes. Absolutely! Visa Officer: You should then get a visitor visa which will be ready tomorrow after 4. Remember, when asked say that you are attending the conference. Enjoy Canada

<comment><USER4> As a rule answers have to be as general as possible. The more specific information you give them voluntarily, the more they can find something to latch on and make your life miserable.

Leave it up to them to ask more details. I wasn't a speaker at my last conference, but I could have been. But my conversation at the border was something like: "Why are you visiting Canada?" / "To go to a conference" / "Where is the conference?" / "Downtown" / "How long will you stay?" / "3 days" / "Ok, welcome to Canada".

<comment><USER5> "Why are you visiting Canada?"

"On vacation."

Done.

<comment><USER6> About sixteen years ago (I remember, because it was back before 9/11, when you could go to Canada without a passport) I got bored one weekend and drove up to Vancouver by myself. I got to the border, and answered the standard questions like "who do you know here" and "is this your car". Then the border agent asked me the purpose of my visit, and I said "uhhhh, tourism, ha ha". They let me in about an hour later after the car search and police background check came up clean. I guess the moral of the story is come prepared and try to be convincing, because they can screw you over on a whim.

On the other hand, I've gotten across with no delay at all by saying "I'm picking up a friend at the Vancouver airport" and "I'm going to go buy this drill press off of Craigslist -- see this printout?" Neither of those is illegal, and in neither case can they expect you to have hotel reservations or know any Canadians, etc.

<comment><USER7> > I guess the moral of the story is come prepared and try to be convincing, > because they can screw you over on a whim.

One of my favourite parts about driving to the border is going through scenarios with my passengers, and how to answer each question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am not happy about the continued existence of what are essentially rights- free zones at border crossings. Unfortunately, with the current political climate in the UK, I'm not sure the majority of my fellow countrymen would agree. And I'm certain Theresa May doesn't care.

It's easy for politicians to ignore these problems, as they will almost never affect their own citizens. A similar situation exists with the NSA abusing the privacy of foreigners - after all, they're not US citizens, so why should they care? At least the Border Force appeared to be more-or-less following the rules (twisted as they might be) in this particular instance.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. See also the ongoing sagas of people being deported from Scotland (Brain family, Zielsdorf family). The policy is brutal because people demand that "something must be done" about "immigrants". The system is made ever tighter, but it does nothing to dampen the complaints, because the people who the rightwing public _actually_ want deported are either EU residents or second-generation nonwhite Muslim "immigrants". Neither of which are going anywhere soon.

<comment><USER10> I agree, but I have to say this: "second-generation" cannot be "immigrants", I hate this pseudo-definition with all its _jus sanguinis_ connotations. Second- generation means you were born and bred in whichever country your parents happened to live in. You _are_ from that country, period. You may or may not have a passport (because jus sanguinis is a terrible, terrible weed growing on law systems the world over), but you are _not_ an immigrant.

I am an immigrant; my children, who were born in UK, are not. They might be second-generation this or that (lasagne lovers from Cheshire? Northern-England pizza connoisseurs?) but they cannot be immigrants because they. did. not. _immigrate_. _anywhere_. Logic and reason are _very clear_ on the matter.

I think you just wanted to say " _second generation nonwhite Muslims_ ", which is _correct_ as well as _much clearer_ on the matter and nature of the hatred.

<comment><USER9> Sorry, that was part of the point I was trying to make but while using the language of the anti-immigrant campaigners. I've stuck it in scare quotes now. As you say, someone who was born in the country cannot sensibly be called an immigrant.

<comment><USER11> Like some anti-immigrant campaigner who is himself a "second-generation immigrant"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Unfortunately, like other countries, the UK's Border Force[1] clearly has an above-average share of incompetents and bullies. If you give such people any power whatsoever, they will abuse it. Sadly, that's what happened here.

The real problem is that there is no accountability in these organisations. Even if a complaint by Rachel triggered an investigation, the culture in organisations like this is to protect their own. The worst that is likely to happen is that those responsible would be given "words of advice", which is more like a pat on the back than a slap on the wrist.

1: Incidentally, the Border Force is part of the Home Office, which is led by Theresa May, who is behind the push for 1984-style mass surveillance of the UK population.

<comment><USER13> I'm never sure if Theresa May is evil or incompetent. It may be she is just incapable of controlling her department, although perhaps I'm being too charitable.

<comment><USER14> I strongly suspect it's the latter - every MP who becomes home secretary basically turns into a fascist, almost overnight. I guess they show them a bunch of secret reports on events that "almost" happened to scare them into going along with whatever the Home Office civil service have always been wanting to do.

<comment><USER15> I read somewhere recently that there are now so many requests for authorisation to do various things in connection with probably very nasty people that the Home Secretary can spend 5-6 hours on a typical day just reading them and granting the authorisations that require their personal approval.

Assuming that's reasonably accurate, it is hard to imagine how spending half your day every day just reading about people who are probably the worst of the worst in many cases could _not_ have a profound effect on how you view the world.

Whether anyone so deeply immersed in such a biased view should be expected to serve in such a position for more than a short period of time, and whether they should be responsible for making judgements about much of anything else during that period, are entirely different questions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a great article on how /not/ to talk to immigration officials, anywhere. I don't defend any heavy-handed attitude of the officers. It's just useful to understand the purpose behind the process.

> the young immigrations officer at LHR was very inquisitive about this old > friend I was going to meet while I was in London for a conference: Who was > he? Where did he live? What was our relationship? My awkward answers and > copious fear sweating must have been unsatisfactory,...

The officer is trying to determine whether she is coming for a brief visit, or secretly planning to stay for a long time. That's their primary purpose in life. Expect these questions, and give the answers matter-of-factly.

> I just wanted to tell him what he wanted. But somehow that wasn't enough. He > tried to play games to prove something, but I didn't seem to play along the > way he hoped

It's an interrogation. Which is exactly like a game. It's their job. The secret trick is to tell the truth.

> I told him point blank: there is nothing I can tell you to make you happy. I > have to be very careful what information I volunteer, because if I talk too > much, you get angry. And now if I don't talk enough, you get angry.

Translation, "I have something to hide and I just want to manipulate you". He doesn't want to hear what makes him happy, he wants to hear the facts. After this they really had no choice but to send her back, even if they were leaning the other way.

<comment><USER17> And yet, when you place someone in a position where they are tired and nervous, this is the sort of behavior you get. Whether or not they are innocent.

It's almost better to take as a cautionary tale about acknowledging your limits. Maybe asking for some rest and legal counsel could have helped. Maybe that would have angered them more.

And maybe her responses were very poorly considered and antagonistic. That, combined with the accidental violation of visa rules, seems like grounds for a brief delay and a fine. It doesn't seem like a good reason for a detention of many hours and deportation.

<comment><USER16> Yes - it's a great reminder to request legal representation. And it's true, nobody is their best when exhausted.

But violation of visa rules on entry results in being refused entry, anywhere you go.

I'm not saying that's good or right, I'm just saying that's how it works. You're asking permission to enter the country, and their job is to confirm that you're entering legally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _There is no VISA you can get to receive an honorarium for speaking in the UK_

Potential international speakers should also be warned this is also true of the US - except for certain types of academic institution (INA 212(q)). The UK also allows it via [https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement- visa](https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa) but again, only for arts or academia. A commercial conference doesn't count, annoyingly (or even a community conference that merely happened to offer honoraria). However, if you are being paid by your employer to attend a conference to speak, it is fine (big disclaimer: IANAL).

Related from a few years ago, Uncle Bob was turned away from the UK: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282583](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282583) \- but I'm pretty sure he has been back since.

<comment><USER19> What an amazing difference a single word makes. I have travelled to the UK to attend and speak at an _academic_ conference, and I probably said so to border agents. That single word probably makes a difference. I never even _considered_ that I would be turned away.

<comment><USER20> When going back to the United States from Canada, I was sent to secondary screening because I said I had a TN Visa, when the correct thing to say was TN Status.

<comment><USER21> I got chewed out because I said I'm "activating" a H1-B, when I should have said that I was being inspected for approval of an H1-B (or some shit like that).

<comment><USER22> That sounds like it could be emblematic of a power struggle between the State Department (which issues visas) and the Department of Homeland Security (which decides whether people are "admissible" on the basis of their inspection, which includes examining someone's visa status). DHS apparently really likes to emphasize that they, not State, ultimately decide whether someone will get into the country or not, regardless of visa status.

[https://www.google.com/#q=visa+%22permission+to+approach%22](https://www.google.com/#q=visa+%22permission+to+approach%22)

<comment><USER23> It's fairly easy to get a tourist visa to almost any country. Just get proof of intent to exit/entry, and documentation that you can support yourself for the extent of the trip, and you can go anywhere no matter what your nationality (almost).

Thus applying for a tourist visa then overstaying is often the easiest way to illegally immigrate---especially in a country like the USA, where there are plenty of non-standard jobs available to do where no one is asking for ID or work status.

<comment><USER22> > Just get proof of intent to exit/entry, and documentation that you can > support yourself for the extent of the trip, and you can go anywhere no > matter what your nationality (almost).

Some of the rich-country governments, when granting tourist visas to people from poor countries, also look for proof that the visitor has a strong reason to return to their country, which can include things like owning property there, having a family there, or having a hard-to-transfer professional license like a law license. People from poor countries who don't have these things often can't get tourist visas at all, even if they can prove they can support themselves for the duration of their visits, because the consular officers often assume intent to overstay the visa.

For example, I've heard this about Brazilians trying to get tourist visas for the U.S.: the main question is not so much "can you pay for this trip?" as "why will you come back to Brazil afterward?".

Edit: And I don't think the consular agents in these situations are satisfied by someone's having a round-trip ticket (that "proof of intent to exit").

<comment><USER11> I knew that you were talking about the US and Brazil even before you finished.

There's a twist in the way US immigration law works:

> because the consular officers often assume intent to overstay the visa

They are required to by law and regulations. The burden is on you to prove you have enough ties to your home country to go back before your time is up.

Depending on how old you are, being enrolled in college and traveling during vacations is enough. A little older, having a decent job is a good sign. Being a software engineer, for instance, is better, no matter if the janitor who was denied before you had money in his account. I've never been asked to show any sort of financial proof whatsoever. For the US, at least.

They also look into your family. If one of them has overstayed a visa or otherwise done bad things in the eyes of the immigration authorities, you'll have a really hard time. Or an easier time, if they have done everything right.

Now, suppose you have a relative who has applied your permanent residence. And then you decide to visit them for vacation while that is ongoing (can take more than a decade). You now have intent to immigrate, the application itself is the proof. Good luck.

<comment><USER22> > I knew that you were talking about the US and Brazil even before you > finished.

I've also heard this about the Philippines and Nigeria.

But maybe Brazil has the largest number of would-be tourists who experience this level of skepticism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Keep in mind, this was a white American detained for some arbitrary visa restrictions which is a rarity. Middle Eastern individuals are _very_ frequently put in the 'corral of shame' for reasons unbeknownst to them. I can't recall how many times I've been randomly searched, or have had officers keep an eye on me. I've also occasionally put through interrogations by irate border patrol over the mundane minutiae of my travel. Her entire ordeal is one I've faced several times solely based off my appearance and name.

These acts and laws only give legitimacy to discriminate and harass travellers of certain backgrounds, yet failing to add any measure of security.

<comment><USER25> A lot of times the corral of shame contains old helpless people too, who seem to have been deliberately put there for the pleasure of the corral ranchers.

I and my family were traveling back home to Boston. Coincidentally, the Indian grandparents of close friends of ours were on the same flight to visit said friends. Like most old Indian ladies, the grandma was wearing traditional clothes (nothing fancy). They didn't speak much English.

They were detained at Logan. Fortunately, my mother (a US citizen) was allowed to be with them as a translator. They had them sit in this room for a long time, after which they asked arbitrary and silly questions.

That room was _full_ of other old, non-white people wearing non-American clothing or "religious symbols" (e.g.a turban). Many didn't speak the language. Most were scared and confused. It was pretty clear that the officers just wanted to harass people.

If my mother hadn't been there the grandparents would have had a much more gruelling experience and would have probably been stuck there for a while.

<comment><USER26> "Old helpless people" are actually a risky category at border crossings. Elderly parents are brought in on a tourist visa, then they stay illegally and end up costing the country money for social services. Of course border controls would try to prevent that.

<comment><USER25> Right, except the questions asked weren't relevant to that (i don't remember what they were; this was years ago -- I remember my mom saying that they were confrontational and more focused on figuring out if the old people were terrorists)

<comment><USER27> Confrontational questions are a usual tactic in such interrogations; the goal is not to get the answers, but to get the subject into an agitated state, so he would have a harder time lying about the real questions.

<comment><USER28> I wish more people understood this. When a border guard goes off on an a bizarre line of questioning, the intent is not simply to know the factual answers to those questions. Rather, it's to gauge your response and to disarm you mentally.

<comment><USER25> I'm pretty sure anyone who can maintain the façade of a bewildered old lady can survive under this line of questioning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just a small remark: If you're visiting the USA your fingerprints get taken every time (at least thats my experience). So that part of the story (an american complaining that their fingerprints got taken in the UK) is kind of skewed perspective.

<comment><USER30> Weird, I've literally never had this happen (Canada -> USA).

I totally believe it, but now I'm wondering about in what cases this policy is applied.

<comment><USER31> > I've literally never had this happen (Canada -> USA).

Did you fly in? I imagine it only happens at airports, not at land borders

(I'm from the UK and I had my fingerprints taken at JFK)

<comment><USER32> I'm a French citizen living in Canada and going fairly often to the US by bus. They do it at land borders too, it's just that Canadian citizens are exempt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Human rights in immigrant detention centres is something everyone should get behind.

Unfortunately this exact kind of treatment is common at the US border. Search for: denied port of entry nightmare.

e.g. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3545548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3545548)

I guess when you see scores of people trying to scam the system you get hard nosed about it in time.

<comment><USER34> Yep.

It's human nature - if the people she faced deal with people who are trying to scam the system 90% of the time, they will be conditioned to deal with such individuals.

Then when the 1 out of 10 comes across who is genuinely NOT trying to pull a scam, it will be very hard for them to turn their attitude 180 degrees.

<comment><USER35> Sorry, although I buy the human nature argument there, from a _government organisation_ point-of-view, that kind of behaviour is utterly unacceptable. If it's too difficult for people to do their jobs properly the way the system is set up, change the system. This isn't an impossible problem; we have many state bodies that have to deal with similar situations - police - and they simply should not be able to get away with this.

<comment><USER34> But - given the rules in place, she actually did not have the right paperwork to give a paid talk at the conference.

Ie I think the majority of the ordeal stems from this - not ill-handling on the part of staff who work there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This was her mistake:

"..where a young man somberly asked me what brought me to the UK. "I'm giving a talk at a conference then traveling to see a bit of England. I have a letter of invitation," I replied, confidently handing over the requested documents."

Just say "A short vacation", whether it is or not. Don't give the agent any more information than they need. Throughout her entire encounter with the agents, she was giving way more information than she needed to, which was prompting further questions.

<comment><USER37> It's not about lying, it's about giving only the information requested. "I'm attending a conference" would have been ok too, or even "I'm travelling for business" \- I've used both in the US without the border agent asking any more questions.

When you volunteer a lot of information you come across as nervous, and sketchy

<comment><USER38> Sorry, but this is just victim blaming.

Innocent people should not have to avoid being truthful or complete in their answers just to avoid arousing "suspicion". Innocent people should not have to know ahead-of-time that giving honest and complete answers to an official will lead to this kind of treatment. This kind of treatment should not be acceptable under any circumstances for people who are actually innocent and/or have not done anything that would cause suspicion in a reasonable person. Giving complete answers is not reasonable grounds for suspicion.

What you're saying may be good advice in practical terms, but implying it's a sensible default is basically surrendering to an insane, broken system.

<comment><USER39> I'm not justifying what happened here and certainly the treatment she got was excessive. However, the reason that she had for entering the UK did require a visa that she had to obtain before traveling. The fact that she would have gotten admitted into the country if she would have given vague or wrong answers to the questions doesn't mean she is actually "innocent". Immigration officers are trained to pick up on people violating the law and she certainly was. This kind of treatment is not something you would get if you weren't.

<comment><USER40> > Immigration officers are trained to pick up on people violating the law and > she certainly was.

I question your statement that she "certainly" was violating the law. She and the conference organizers had researched the situation beforehand and attempted to obtain the correct visa. The publicly available information about the visa programs did not specify that the nationality of the company sponsoring the conference made a difference. You state "the reason that she had for entering the UK did require a visa that she had to obtain before traveling" but according to her research after the fact the truth is that the reason that she had for entering the UK was not supported by any sort of visa.

<comment><USER39> The origin of the company is irrelevant (even if the officer asked questions about this topic – they like doing that). Even if it had been a British company she would not had been allowed in. The rules are clear (Getting paid? Not getting in visa-free with very few exceptions).

And even if there would have been no appropriate visa to apply for that means the UK does not want those people in. Turning up at the border and requesting entry based on a reason not allowed on the visa-free program is not a solution no matter how wrong the situation feels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I do often think that we should get rid of special treatment for "important" people going through these types of systems. If politicians, executives, etc had to go through the same thing, I think a lot of the inefficiencies would get fixed. As they stand now, there's no reason to make them efficient, because anyone who has the power to do so bypasses the system entirely.

Imagine how fast things would change if the president had to go through the TSA.

<comment><USER42> _> Imagine how fast things would change if the president had to go through the TSA._

I don't think they would change at all.

30 minutes or an hour of time is inconsequential compared to the political (and non-political...) calculations that are made by someone in an office like that. People tend to be far more conservative when given actual decision- making power, and care much more about the big picture calculations than about their personal annoyances.

More-over, lots of congress people _do_ fly commercial and yet support the TSA (either politically or actually).

<comment><USER43> _More-over, lots of congress people do fly commercial and yet support the TSA (either politically or actually)._

Because they use pre-check. And congresspeople get access to the top of the tiered justice system in America so they don't care about the liberty implications of Pre-Check.

<comment><USER42> This suggests that the inefficiencies would not be fixed, but instead explicitly codified exceptions -- with a high cost to the average user but little cost to political and economic elite -- would be created.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "Never tell them you're coming for anything but tourism."

> When I was finally able to talk to my husband again, one of the very first > things he told me was, "Don't blame yourself for being truthful."

Very true. Your response goes into a "bin" (or a checkmark on a form). There are only so many bins there. One for terrorists, one for migrant workers, one for tourists. Self employed web developers, who are paid by a German company, do not fit in any of the bins. But they'll still try to pick one.

The lesson bureaucracy is teaching people is to lie. Even though officially on paper they warn people to tell the truth. To put it another way. Consider who you are talking to and decide if they can handle the truth. A bureaucracy and its minions cannot handle it. Or rather, they'll handle it at your detriment.

<comment><USER44> It's also about having very correct details in this case.

If she had bothered to apply for the correct VISA there wouldn't have been an issue, but they clearly feel they are a special little snowflake because animation API is more important than a standardised work VISA system.

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your assertion. Honesty and preparation IS the best policy. Imagine if I'd lied when I was detained in Tampa because of some missing clearance the US Embassy in London had forgotten to do. I had to wait hours in a holding area. I'd paid $200 USD for that. One little lie and the situation would have been far worse.

<comment><USER17> This seems excessively harsh. I didn't see the author say anything about expecting special treatment or rejecting the value of a standardized work visa system. As far as I can tell, she made a number of reasonable assumptions that someone not familiar with the details of UK travel law might make.

Secondly, her intent was to do something beneficial in the country. Whatever your views on on web animation, she was part of an event that brought visitors, economic activity, and tax revenues to the country. Conceivably, the border control agency could have satisfied their rules and not denied their country the benefits of her visit -- by simply charging her a fee for last- minute changes to her visa terms. That would serve as a lesson and deterrent, without subjecting a person who didn't have any malicious intent to a long detention.

And don't kid yourself about lying. Lying here doesn't mean "would a fair court judge your statements as true", it means "did the particular agent who interviewed you think you might be lying". There is tremendous discretion for the officers involved, and they get it wrong sometimes. If you think that never happens, you'll support naive systems that have pretty high rates of injustice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's unfortunate what happened to this woman, and probably to many others, but there's no evidence given at all that the "people who look like us" angle was ever a factor in what happened. That is FUD that serves solely to to provoke an irrational emotional response in the reader, not rationally supported in any way.

There's no evidence presented in this article to support the author's many claims that the UK immigration system discriminates on a racial "people who look like us" basis. ("It seems to me..." does not count as evidence.)

Yes, the immigration bureaucracy is badly broken. Yes, the laws are in many cases stupid and ought to be changed. No, latent racism, sexism, or classism are not in any way factors -- at least based on the events described in this article. The very basis of the article -- a middle class professional white woman from the US was deported because she broke the rules, despite her "looks like us" appearance -- is evidence to the contrary.

The one time in the article when she meets someone who might possibly be a racist (which is not even clear), the possible-racist even says that "the rules" always prevent her from ever acting on any of her possibly-racist impulses. Doesn't that mean the system is actually working pretty well in terms of preventing racist factors from entering into its operation?

That whole "people who look like us" theme is fearmongering, pandering to those who both love to speculate wildly about others' motives without evidence, and who are also consumed by liberal guilt. (The only thing missing is a "glance of solidarity" somewhere.)

She is understandably angry that she was deported, and feels like publicly shaming the system that deported her, so she picks a favorite pet issue (hidden racism) that has cachet in society and projects it onto that system, without any supporting evidence at all.

Now, if there is actual _evidence_ of racism in some system, that's another matter entirely. But "it seems to me.." is not, in itself, evidence, it's just unfounded guessing and speculation designed to rile people up into a fit of righteous indignation, on an emotional rather than rational basis.

<comment><USER46> Could not agree more. I find it pretty rich to say "There's a lot of racism in the UK." based off interactions with a country's border force. Am I allowed to make the same observations about the general US populace based on the way the Mexican border is operated? I had a lot of sympathy for Rachel's ordeal but this paragraph really left a bad taste.

As an immigrant to the UK (and now citizen), the single-mindedness in which "The Rules" are applied have been extremely frustrating. But at no point have I thought that it wasn't fair. I've had a visa application rejected and lost £350 in the process. I didn't follow the rules to the letter and I literally paid for it. Since then I've always followed the guidelines and not had an issue since.

> The very basis of the article -- a middle class professional white woman > from the US was deported because she broke the rules, despite her "looks > like us" appearance -- is evidence to the contrary.

The fact that she can't see the irony just reeks of privilege.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Funny, my experience as South American is the exact opposite: expensive USA VISA (USD 160!) for attending a conference, US border asking about everything, checking my story and even knowledge about programming (!), etc - UK border just asking the purpose of my travel, stamping the passport and saying "welcome to UK". And I didn't even need a VISA.

One thing for sure is: you have to know the visa requirements and you have to answer what they want to hear. That's true everywhere - USA included - <USER2> you're just lucky as a USA citizen to never go through the USA interview process.

<comment><USER48> If it makes you feel better, when Bush put that policy in place the Brazilian government was quick to institute a reciprocal fee, and the Brazilian immigration agents can be a royal pain for foreigners to deal with (I had a colleague get rejected at border entry once for a stupid, stupid reason).

<comment><USER49> I've heard the story of an American going through the reciprocal process in Brazil -- getting finger printed, interviewed, all sorts of documents generated -- and then having the interviewer confess that they were just going to throw it all away because they didn't actually have anything to _do_ with the reciprocally generated data...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm currently an EU citizen living in UK. This here is exactly the reason why I fear that UK might want to leave EU, even though every single English friend of mine is telling me that I would obtain a visa to stay and continue working here without any problems, if visas were introduced. The truth is - if I had to have a visa to stay here, I would rather go to the country of my birth, even though I feel no connection to it. I don't think I could mentally survive the anguish of being denied entry to UK, even though I live here, work here, have my partner, our house and our whole lives here - just because a border official might not like my visa or what I said. It would be just humiliating and the thought of that happening is feeling me with real dread.

</comment><comment><USER51> Unfortunately, I suppose this is exactly what we (meaning the electorate who voted since 2001) wanted. By allowing politicians to pass bills like the Patriot Act (which started this whole mess and quickly brought about similar security and surveillance laws in at least every other country that's on friendly terms with the US) we brought this kind of treatment on ourselves. How can one establish organizations like the TSA or the Border Force - its UK counterpart - and seriously not expect things like this to happen?

Unfortunately, the majority likely doesn't care at all when some 'snotty' designer gets held up at the airport and sent back to her home country. "Probably deserves it anyway in some way, doesn't she?" In fact, resentfulness towards people who get to 'live the life' and travel for 'work' might play a role here, too.

The aspect of a German company paying her in British pounds. shouldn't be a problem at all. After all, that's what the EU single market should be about. Theoretically, that is ... It seems as if the EU can't get anything right anymore these days, though.

Just claiming VAT you payed in another EU country has become so ridiculously complex I have given up on it. Fortunately, in my case it's just things like the occasional conference fee so the loss is minimal but I can't imagine how anyone could run say an eCommerce business in Europe and sell in more than one EU country these days without having to resort to founding a company in each of those countries.

<comment><USER52> No, border crossings have been like this since long before the PATRIOT act. Computer scientists were turned away at the borders trying to fly in to give Black Hat talks; I worked for a Canadian company and had strict instructions to tell the Canadian border people I was traveling to see friends, and so on.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with visa classifications, and the skittishness of countries about people visiting (or, the concern is, immigrating) to do work.

<comment><USER53> Also: as a reminder, the UK has long been concerned about people smuggling arms and the like for the sake of terrorism: the majority of arms used by the IRA originated in the US for decades before 9/11 (after which the US supply largely dried up, as did US funding of such terrorist groups).

<comment><USER54> That does not sound correct to me. The IRA got most of its weapons from Libya [[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/wea...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/weapons.html)] from the 1980's on, and the Good Friday agreement was signed (presumably suspending arms smuggling) years before 9/11.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Unrelated to the issues raised by the article - I love that the callout text was not simply repeated quotes from the body.

I wish more sites/people would follow this author's lead.

</comment><comment><USER56> This is a horrible experience that she went through, but one quote stuck out:

> The room's only other occupants were men. I do not feel comfortable in rooms > full of men I do not know with the door closed.

Why? This doesn't make sense. What does she think is going to happen? Are most men really presumed to be rapists or something?

<comment><USER57> It's a Bayesian thing: relatively low risk that a given man will assault you multiplied by the extreme personal suffering of being assaulted = high alert in situations where it would be easy for a man to assault you. She's already vulnerable and exhausted. I would feel uneasy too.

<comment><USER58> To add insult to injury, these men were already selected as suspicious by the immigration officers. The psychological effect is quite easily imagined, regardless of the usefulness of their definition of "suspicious".

<comment><USER59> If she was innocent, could they not have been too?

<comment><USER58> That's why I added the last half-sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Not that I dont feel sorry for the author of the story, since this is terrible experience, no matter who experiences it, but as an American, a citizen of a country that has one of most restrictive and humiliating border procedures around the civilized world (try landing with valid visa on JFK as non American human being...) complaining at this sounds - well, odd.

<comment><USER61> Better to keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen because other countries do the same thing?

She can't talk about her experience with USA treatment of non-citizens because she didn't experience it. Though she did call it out in the article: _And it goes both ways: a colleague I immensely respect will no longer speak or hold workshops in the USA because he was denied entry at our border in a similar process._

<comment><USER60> I've not said OP should be quiet, nor it was my intention to imply so. I simply felt strange to read complaints about something, that the OP's country excels at. Shall it be connected with some awareness about that fact (much more than the mere line you're quoting) it wouldn't feel odd to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> > The handlers, they talk like you aren't listening.

Experienced this at US border a few months ago. Officers repeatedly referred to my wife and another man's wife (both Chinese) as "bitches". After flying 12 hours from Hong Kong and not wanting to be put back on a plane, the best you can do is shut up and play their games until they let you through.

I was also told by the officer that I was stupid for having shown my visa and "nobody does that" (I'm a Canadian who works in the US, I was under the impression I had to show it each time I re-entered... still confused about what he meant).

</comment><comment><USER63> Stepping slightly back from this particular horrible experience, I don't understand _why_ this particular set of institutional rules are in place.

Was there a thought that foreign speakers who were subsidized by foreign governments were inciting rebellion?

Are there tax issues?

Was this some big money laundering loophole or something?

Is there a concern that people were using this as figleaf to immigrate illegally?

<comment><USER64> generally speaking, countries don't want you to be in them and be paid by a foreign company.

Think about it, if you're in the UK but being "paid" by a German company, are you really paying the right kind of taxes? What's to stop every major corp from having the Cayman Islands branch hire you.

Usually people working for foreign corps end up actually being contractors (and paying self-employment taxes or whatnot).

<comment><USER65> Being paid by a company in _any_ country is equally not OK. It seems the Germany-part is just a red herring/the officer being a dick (it seems they could have easily rejected her straight at the desk - you're here to work, you don't have the visa, done, have a nice flight back, next please).

<comment><USER53> > it seems they could have easily rejected her straight at the desk - you're > here to work, you don't have the visa, done, have a nice flight back, next > please

They can't actually do that, any refusal has to be signed off by the duty head of the port (IIRC; I presume each terminal at LHR has a separate one!), as far as I'm aware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I'm Scottish, and I absolutely detest traveling through Heathrow. The security and border controls there are some of the most oppressive I've ever encountered.

Depending on where you're flying, that could include multiple baggage searches and multiple biometric photos (flying OUT of the UK, I counted three - security, a secondary queue before entering the terminal concourse, and at the gate). Questioning why you're being photographed (let alone asking about data retention policies) just invites further scrutiny and questioning.

Recently I had my bag emptied (I wasn't allowed to unpack it carefully) and was questioned very rigorously as to why I was carrying so many cables (I had a micro-USB cable to charge my phone, a laptop charger, and an HDMI cable to watch some Netflix at the hotel). I had to justify each item in my bag.

The attitude is the worst part. I feel like I'm being treated like a criminal and have to prove that I'm not. Every time I travel in or out, I feel the anxiety rise. It's difficult to explain.

That's not to suggest Glasgow Intl Airport is much better. Flying to the US last month, I check-in queues for AA were enormous. Some staff (I assumed they were customer service agents trying to keep the queuing travellers happy) were walking up and down, chatting with people.

They cheerily asked "Where are you going?". "Oh that's exciting. Have you been before? I love that city! Did you have to save up much spending money for an 8 day trip? What are you planning to do when you're there?"

As the questions went on, I got more suspicious.

"What do you do for a living? Oh that sounds exciting. Did you grow up in Glasgow? What about your fiancée, what does she do? Oh, you got engaged in the US? How long was that trip and what did you see when you were there?"

At the end, the guy asked for my passport and attached a "Security cleared" sticker to it.

I'd been surreptitiously interviewed and subject to behavioural profiling by staff from a contractor named ICTS [1]. It wasn't a good feeling. I felt deceived. It felt like they were putting a friendly face on trying to catch me out.

This only seemed to be happening in the AA line, and I've never been subject to this sort of interview in the past.

Does this actually work? I'd assume that any determined terrorist or trouble- maker would have a big smile and a well-rehearsed story.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTS_International](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTS_International)

<comment><USER39> The Israeli government swears by this method. Given the high threat-level and low incident rate one shouldn't say it's ineffective. Honestly, I would rather have such a method than the almost useless security theatre we face at every airport.

(After clicking the link I noticed that it's actually founded by former Israeli intelligence workers.)

<comment><USER66> I think the threats are a little different here, however.

I can understand the need for more compromise somewhere like Israel where there's a very visible and real terror threat. It's perhaps a more applicable system in that environment. We don't have that here - I don't think it's particularly useful given the threat landscape in the UK.

Perhaps at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland, where there was a tangible threat of terrorism.

If we're to be interviewed in line by security officers, I'd prefer that they identify themselves as such and make it clear that this is a security screening and not just a friendly chat from a genuinely interested CS agent. To do otherwise just seems deceitful.

Edit: To add, while I don't necessarily agree with your assessment, I did upvote your comment - I think it adds to the discussion and provides some valuable perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I'm sorry she had a terrible experience. But the visa requirements are pretty clear, and she needed a standard visa.

Here's the "do you need a visa" website. [https://www.gov.uk/check-uk- visa](https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa)

Walk through it. She's from the USA. She's travelling for work, academic or business. She's planning to stay less than six months.

Here's the result:[https://www.gov.uk/check-uk- visa/y/usa/work/six_months_or_le...](https://www.gov.uk/check-uk- visa/y/usa/work/six_months_or_less)

        You don't need a visa for some business and academic visits, but you must get a visa to work in the UK.
        You may be able to come to the UK without a visa if you:

        are invited as an expert in your profession
        come for other business or academic activities

[...]

        If you're invited as an expert

        You can stay in the UK for up to 1 month without a visa, but you can only be paid to do certain things, eg:

        give guest lectures at a higher education institution
        provide advocacy in legal proceedings
        take part in arts, entertainment or sporting activities

        Check the full list of what you can be paid to do - it's the same as what you can do on a Permitted Paid Engagement visa.

[...]

        If you come for other business or academic activities
        You can stay in the UK for up to 6 months without a visa, but you can only do certain academic or business-related activities, eg:

        go to a conference, meeting or training
        take part in a specific sports-related event
        perform as an artist, entertainer or musician
        do academic research or accompany students on a study abroad programme

        Check the full list of what you can do - it's the same as what you can do on a Standard Visitor visa.

Here's the permitted paid engagement visa: [https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid- engagement-visa](https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa)

Here's the standard visa: [https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor- visa](https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa)

<comment><USER61> She's an animation artist giving a talk about an web animation API, doesn't that fall under _If you're invited as an expert ...take part in arts, entertainment or sporting activities_?

<comment><USER68> No. Permitted paid engagements are:

"An expert may give lectures in their subject area, if they have been invited by a UK Higher Education Institution; or a UK based research or arts organisation provided this does not amount to filling a teaching position for the host organisation."

"A professional artist, entertainer, musician or sports person may carry out an activity directly relating to their profession, if they have been invited by a creative (arts or entertainment) or sports organisation, agent or broadcaster based in the UK."

She doesn't qualify for either. The former because she wasn't invited by any UK institution, nor a Higher Education, Research, or Arts organisation. The latter because she is not a professional artist or entertainer, nor invited by arts or entertainment organisation, agent, or broadcaster based in the UK.

I have to say, the rules are fairly straightforward. I followed the application process online as if I was her, and it's really quite obvious that she'd need to apply for a visa. It tells you to check the list of what you're allowed to be paid for, and what I quoted above is what it says.

Her blog post can be summed up as:

1\. Was refused entry to UK because I didn't have the right docs. Will make damn sure I have the right documentation next time!

2\. Go back. Oh shoot, I didn't have the right docs this time either.

3\. British border control doesn't treat you too nicely when you show up _again_ without the proper visa. Poor me.

4\. Well then, I'm never going back. _huff_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> What a horrible story, but sadly not surprising to me anymore.

UK Border Control: a uniformly hostile and spiteful organisation.

</comment><comment><USER70> I can't imagine a circumstance where I would be entering a country like the UK or US, and when asked what my visit was for, I would say anything except for "I'm on holiday". Being out of the ordinary is very dangerous.

That said people shouldn't be subjected to such unnecessary unpleastantness.

<comment><USER71> Because getting caught lying to these authorities would make for a much better outcome.

<comment><USER53> Deception to an immigration officer in an attempt to obtain leave to enter (regardless of whether it was successful or not) can result in a one-year ban from (re-)entry to the UK. Deception on a visa application can result in a ten-year ban from (re-)entry to the UK.

<comment><USER72> If the travel is in the other direction, entering the USA, the penalty for "misrepresentation" is a lifetime bar.

Yes, there are potentially waivers available, but lying to border agents -- and getting caught -- can make your future travel plans range from very difficult to impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> My biggest problem with this is that Speakers at conferences are NOT paid. This has to be the biggest lie ever told.

I know some 'conferences' are small and for the good of the development community. Then the entrance fee should be free.

I have been to conferences that paid nothing or 'honorarium' amounts to speakers, but they charge THOUSANDS of dollars to enter. PLUS expensive Hotels.

This is what everyone should say when asked to speak at a conference: NO SPEC WORK. SHUT UP- PAY ME.

</comment><comment><USER74> gov.uk might look pretty, but often the language used on it is imprecise and often inaccurate. directgov (the previous site) was terrible to use and look at, but the information on it was unparalleled in its accuracy and comprehensiveness, which is what I really want from the government.

sadly gov.uk have stated that they are more interested in making the information easy to read, rather than accurate.

<comment><USER75> It's frustrating. The site is now full of bullet lists about things like when you need to fill in which forms and what documentation you need to provide, and half the time it's not made clear whether you need to meet ALL of bullet points or just one of them.

Also the team redoing the website, GDS, seem to be closely affiliated with the firm Govknow, which keeps spamming every email address at my non-profit including non-personal/automated addresses and refusing to unsubscribe anyone, in contravention of the rules about email marketing on the government's own website.

(I'm not sure if there's an official link but certainly most or all of the speakers at most of the conferences I get spammed about are from the GDS.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> The author quite rightly points out that most of the English speaking countries would treat people exactly the same way, however I find it a little odd that she wouldn't ever go back to the UK, but makes no mention of visiting these other countries. It seems that her opinion of the UK doesn't quite match up with the statement that they are all the same.

<comment><USER77> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> It bothers me that people have to already know their rights to be able to take advantage of them.

On one hand, due process. I can see that the option to waive one's rights might be occasionally beneficial, but mostly to the police/border force, rather that to the individual. Police do at least have to tell someone their basic rights, but I find it really difficult to understand people who think that it makes sense to try to deny anyone due process by not doing that (see the Boston Bombers).

On the other hand, there are positive rights mentioned here, like the right to go to a hotel to get some sleep. It doesn't seem likely that anyone would know about it unless they were told, so why don't we tell them at the appropriate time? Again, time constraints might mean that in some cases people don't want to take advantage of their rights, but I'm disappointed at how much worse the author's experience was than it should have been.

</comment><comment><USER79> That's a very detailed account of what happens for EU citiziens at the US border.

</comment><comment><USER80> As someone whos job was to oranize visas for various countries around the world for some time, here is my advice. If you are doing this kind of semi- business/semi-pleasure/speak-at-aconference/whatever trips, just get a tourist visa. Everything else is a giant mess.

<comment><USER81> No. Or make sure you only state your purpose of entry as tourism.

If you go to a conference in the US (merely for attending) you're entering for _business purposes_. If you have only a B-2 visa, you _will_ be turned back

<comment><USER82> Depends where you're from (VWP allows attending conferences, company meetings, etc).

<comment><USER81> Correct, what I said applies if you're not on any visa waiver program and need an actual visa

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Perhaps it's a generational thing. The OP and many posters here on HN had very nice, supportive parents who told them that the world is on their side, that they would succeed in whatever they tried to do, and that people are generally good-willed.

I on the other hand am afraid of figures of authority. I fear the police. I don't think that things will necessarily go well. And I'm especially afraid at the border. I answer the officer's questions as laconically as possible, usually in monosyllables. Things usually go well.

Imagine a thought experiment, where the OP's middle class white mind was teleported into an African American's body, dropped into a poor part of town, and stopped by the police. She would have been just as traumatized.

</comment><comment><USER84> Several generations from now people are going to tell their kids stories of how there used to be people that traveled between countries.

I don't see how technology can prevent this outcome, if anything it will make it worse.

Governments are just too paranoid and criminals/terrorist too eager to make them punish everyone for their crimes.

Vaguely related, did you know Japan has taken in a total of THREE immigrants this year? Japan imprisons applicants and makes life living hell for anyone that wants to migrate there because they are paranoid about outsiders. Tourism is fine as long as you leave.

<comment><USER85> Strange, I know a couple of people who have worked in Japan for periods of a few years - legally I hasten to add - and who have experienced no special difficulties. Those periods of work were pre-2000 and a decade ago more or less.

Is this a new phenomenon?

<comment><USER84> Were they on a work visa with a defined ending date?

Probably seen as not a threat like immigration.

But I bet overstaying a visa ends very badly there.

<comment><USER85> Ah, yes a visa with definite end date would be likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I remember when I came to the US 3 years ago.

I had a return ticket. I had sufficient funds to pay for a hotel, food, travel around the city. I had medical insurance. I was self employed.

The problem I had? When I told the border patrol inspector who was asking me questions, that my stay was 3 months vacation. His reaction was like... NO WAY, THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

This was in New Jersey. I was brought to the back, answered all the questions. They took my phone and went through it. When the other border guard came back, he said there were "inconsistencies" with my story. I just said "Oh ok" and held firm.

He called the contact I had even him and I think what helped, was the woman who answered. Bitched at him for 5 minutes straight, she was at the airport. I was staying with her until I got a hotel and she was demanding to know "as a tax payer". Why I was there, when I was visiting her and I was a tourist.

They let me through.

After the 3 months, I returned back to the UK for 2 weeks. I then went back to the US. This time, I had learnt my lesson and went via New York. The border patrol officer this time didn't even look at me. I presume he saw my previous flight information and that AGAIN, I was staying for 3 months.

He stamped my passport and "off you go".

I've travelled all over the world. Wherever I go and for whatever duration. I am a tourist. End of story.

<comment><USER87> It's good form wherever possible to prefix conversations American immigration authorities with "I'm an American citizen and..." Sounds as if your companion instinctively knew the drill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> England has probably the toughest border to cross of any country I have been to.

<comment><USER89> Try entering from Scotland.

<comment><USER9> I'm always entertained by how there's a big "Welcome to Scotland" sign on the A1 going north, and no corresponding "Welcome to England" sign in the other direction.

The UK has an open land border with another EU country - Ireland - and so far the Brexit campaign have been very unclear about whether this would continue and what implications that might have for ""controlling immigration"" and ""protecting borders"".

<comment><USER39> From what I know the Common Travel Area with Ireland would almost surely not be effected by a Brexit. In fact, it predates the countries' EU membership by quite a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Pretty much the same sort of experience you'd get travelling any international borders.

<comment><USER91> Except inside the Schengen Area. Every time I travel I realize how lucky I am to have this freedom (and wary of political movements trying to kill it).

<comment><USER92> It doesn't make sense to compare going from France to Germany with going from France to the US. A better comparison would be France to Germany vs. California to Arizona.

Both European states and US states are sovereign political entities with their own laws and territory, but with an agreement for freedom of movement. (the US constitution in one case; the Schengen agreement in the other).

<comment><USER91> The affirmation that US states are sovereign is not unanimously agreed upon :)

That said, even if that's technically true, I think it blurs the history, which is part of what makes it feel special. An US citizen takes that border crossing for granted since birth, but as an European, I'm aware that my grandmother already as an adult had to cross it clandestinely, at the risk of her own life, and even my parents still had to pass through customs and declare the purpose of their trip. I'm the first generation of my family for whom crossing the border is truly a free experience.

<comment><USER92> "Sovereign" might have been the wrong choice of words, then. It's not a binary thing -- sovereignty is a leaky abstraction that groups together a very wide range of different statuses. US states are not 100% sovereign, but what I was getting at was that they are, in many but not all respects, more similar to sovereign nations than to administrative subdivisions of a country. They have totally independent legal systems, budgets, administration, and so on. Even in countries in Europe that are also federations, the level of sovereignty of the sub-entities is usually less (in Germany, for example, criminal law is handled centrally, not delegated to Lands).

One notable exception is the sub-entities of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland), which have a high degree of autonomy.

As for the historical bit, we have simply had more time than you :). The current push for European integration only started after the war - 70 years ago. It's been going on in America for over 200 years, and our last major _internal_ war was 150 years ago.

I'm not disputing your sentiment, though. I think anything that improves freedom of movement for people is great, and I'm happy that Europe has been moving steadily in that direction since the war.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> foreign bands coming to play SXSW have the same problem entering USA

</comment><comment><USER94> UK border guards and customs people are, literally, Vogons.

</comment><comment><USER95> The writing style is muddled and kind of hard to read. I'm sorry this happened to her, but it seems like she could be a candidate for a perfect storm of miscommunication.

<comment><USER96> I thought the writing style was pretty clear at conveying the disturbing, unsettling nature of an experience like this. I don't think it was miscommunication though: it was an exercise of the arbitrary power held by bureaucrats. Every day it is exercised, sometimes in a reasonable way, sometimes not. We usually only hear about it when it's one of "us" getting shafted.

If it's Group 4 Security strangling a black man on a deportation flight, you might get to hear about it... and then forget a couple of years later.

I thought the article was good at asking us all to think about how much power we want to invest in a bureaucracy. They always want more: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> For the OP: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okIjr7vJC0E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okIjr7vJC0E)

</comment><comment><USER82> "I'm here for vacation."

Or

"I'm attending a conference."

The end. Say as little as possible, nicely. Don't turn it into a thing.

</comment><comment><USER97> "I just follow the rules". - So were the participants of the Milgram experiment.

</comment><comment><USER98> If you ever feel like being dehumanized in the most senseless fashion, immigration is definitely the way to go.

Currently an immigrant in Canada, I recently went through a bit of an ordeal. I've been a Temporary Foreign Worker for a few years now, and every year or so, you are required to renew your work permit. So far, this is pretty standard. My first work permit was issues in about five days under a special clause for French speakers, allowing my to forego the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). It went really smoothly overall.

The next year, I renewed my work permit, only this time around it took three and a half months. The clause for French speakers had been renamed and moved to a different set of documents, but I had found it. My original work permit had expired while waiting for the renewed one, but at least I was on implied status, so I could work, though I no longer had access to free healthcare, nor could I leave the country (as it would mean losing implied status).

Then last year, I went through the same motions to renew my work permit. This time, it took even longer than the previous time and the same "implied status" thing applied. Four and a half months later, I received a message telling me that as of a specific date, the same date I received the message, I no longer had status, because of a missing form from my employer. As it turned out, Canadian immigrations had changed the rules the previous year, and employers were now required to submit a fee along with a form to essentially prove they wanted to hire you (different from an LMIA). This is quite obviously a money- grabbing scheme, but let's not get caught up. I was never made aware of this change in the rules, and clearly my employer didn't pick up on it, yet I was the one paying the consequences. This is all knowing that the conditions of my employment have remained completely unchanged during my whole time in Canada.

Not knowing what was going to happen, I was pretty distraught. On top of that, my original application fees had essentially gone down the drain, and I had to re-submit my application and the associated fees, including a premium to restore my status (all within thirty days), all the while receiving no income and not being eligible for Employment Insurance (which I pay, but ironically am not entitled to, since no work = no status = no benefits). I thought I could at least leave the country and go work somewhere else for a while, but that would have invalidated my work permit altogether, a risk I could not take.

So I went through the motions, again, getting and submitting information I had already provided countless times. My friends and family kept asking how long it was going to take, to which I had absolutely no answer, nor any recourse to get any sort of clarifications. I had no idea how long my money would last or what my life would become (I've very much settled here, relationship, friends, etc.). Trying to find reassurance through other people or on the Internet ended up achieving the opposite (some of the stories you can read on immigration forums just want to make you cry).

A few months later, my work permit was thankfully restored. I now have to mention my work permit refusal and restoration in all immigration-related matters, in the same section that asks you whether you've been associated to terrorists, have murdered somebody and the likes.

There are many situations far worse than mine, people having their immigration applications cancelled out of the blue, people unable to work but stuck in the country for up to a few a years at a time, not knowing what the outcome will be, etc.

The uncertainty and opaqueness of the whole process is truly mind-boggling. It is genuinely impossible to find a single, reliable source of information. The Canadian Immigration website contains a lot of conflicting and outdated information, lots of links don't work, the language is wildly inconsistent, and more. Calling Canadian immigration will have you on hold for extended periods of time, to eventually be told in one form or another that they won't provide you with any information that's not explicitly on the website. Should you ask for any clarifications, or god forbid point to a problem with the information that's provided, you will systematically be told to seek private help. This essentially means finding immigration lawyers, who I learnt later (from an immigration lawyer friend as I did/could not hire one) do most of their work based on precedent, as immigration law is so unpredictable.

This is actually an absurdly compact version of the whole story. I could have mentioned the inherent stress of never knowing whether you have done something wrong, the profiling of immigrants in the name of equality, the rampant abuse of the immigration system by elected officials, the government-backed ponzi scheme for immigrant qualifications, and many more. Hopefully though, for those who are new to this game, this is enough to digest for now.

</comment><comment><USER99> "I told him point blank: there is nothing I can tell you to make you happy. I have to be very careful what information I volunteer, because if I talk too much, you get angry. And now if I don't talk enough, you get angry."

It was over for her right here.

She came across as nervous, evasive, defensive and then antagonist. She is leaking privilege all over this post.

And she really was treated just like everyone else in detention. Of course she wasn't a terrorist, but she was being detained and that never feels good, nor is a hotel. That's reality.

Border agents have enormous latitude. Your attitude matters when dealing with any authority. Maybe it shouldn't, but there are roles here and when you step out of the expected role you start triggering something. How would she have spoken to a judge in a court of law?

Sure, she didn't deserve this, but she didn't do anything to improve her situation, either. It doesn't matter how little sleep she had, or how virtuous her cause, or whether she is a big deal in her industry. It's naive to think that any of this is relevant, frankly.

No border guard cares about your self-perception of virtue. They are about tax avoidance and illegal immigration. And just like a pediatrician develops the ability to instantly detect a "funny looking kid," a border guard who sees thousands and thousands of people has similar behavioral flags.

"I'm here for a conference."

"What topic?"

"Web development."

"How long are you staying?"

"One week."

"What else will you be doing?"

"I will do a little sightseeing while I'm here."

"Have a good stay."

CLUNK

No lies, nothing cagey in this. There are bins and categories; don't do anything that puts you into a special bin. It's not that hard. Be like the other thousand people they saw this week who are attending a conference.

I travel all over the world to speak at conferences. Apart from China and Russia, I never mess around with invitation letters or special papers. I am calm and matter of fact, and so is the border agent. Each of us plays our role and then we move along.

"I'm here for a conference." Which is true.

FFS, I live in the US and my wife (a Finn) has a UK permanent residency and works in London. I go back and forth about six times a year, I stay for weeks. When they ask the purpose of my visit I simply say, "I'm visiting my wife." I'm friendly and calm.

"Are you planning to immigrate?"

"Maybe some day."

I thought being married to a UK resident would be a flag, but it actually isn't. They care about illegal immigration and tax avoidance because that is their job. I am calm, even friendly, and I don't trigger any suspicion. I finally applied for Frequent Traveler status and now just use the UK /EU electronic gates. That wasn't hard, either. Didn't even need to give a reason for that!

Don't be defensive, don't provoke suspicion, don't volunteer unnecessary details. Don't lie, but be shrewd about this situation. Don't trigger special handling.

OP does seem to express a bit of a special snowflake tone in her piece. Privilege. Not a good vibe once they are triggered. Earnest humility is the tone you want to adopt. That is proper etiquette given the real power differential. This isn't being subordinate, it's just like being in court. Respect the judge. This border agent is actually judging you--that's their job.

None of what happened to her was personal and no one here was ever going to say, "well, you seem like a decent person doing good work; I guess we can just fudge this a teeny bit." They can't and won't do that, and frankly, her attitude probably evoked a little contempt, thus reducing her chances for even what teeny latitude she might have had.

Her experience was exactly what people who expect to get a little special handling have when they encounter faceless rule-driven systems. "But this is ME! Why are you doing this to ME?"

People without privilege have no such illusions and understand these situations.

</comment><comment><USER100> _> They are now in a database for ten years where they will be shared with all members of the EEA, which is most European countries._

Given that she's an American, I really have no sympathies for this. I've had to give my fingerprints to the US border agents _every time_ I went to the US.

<comment><USER101> I do have sympathy for her, but I absolutely agree that Americans need to recognize that they are doing the same thing to others.

If you don't want to live in a world like that, start petitioning your own government to change standards for foreigners that come to your country. Positive example is the only reasonable way to convince other countries to follow it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> Last time I flew into the US (from Sweden) for another week of work meetings with the team in the Bay area something almost like this happened to me. I wasn't deported though, just sent off to secondary interrogation and was scared and delayed for an extra hour because of nothing.

The reason? I was asked by the clerk when I last flew out of the US. Being quite groggy from a very long trip, having made made, many other international trips since that date in January, I was not able to quickly enough answer him in a "confident" manner. I was not allowed to use my phone to actually look up the date.

At almost every step until the absolute last minutes, when I actually got to talk to someone, explain my situation, show my business card etc, I was met with passive aggressive hostility.

My passport was taken away with my by some random uniformed person who just walked away with into some other room. I had no trust in this obviously incompetent system, so I worried about actually getting the passport back. Everything just seemed incredibly... stupid and arbitrary.

If it's just a matter of keeping these mouth breeders occupied it would be a lot more transparent and less disruprupting if you'd just ask an entry fee to your magic kingdom, to pay for the upkeep of these people.

</comment><comment><USER103> Meet the Leviathan. British one is a rather small creature comparing to the US one.</comment>


extsrc.js - make all your [script]s 'async' (works with document.write too) - <AUTHOR> http://whiteposts.com/extsrc

<comment><AUTHOR> Yesterday I wrote a topic "Your social widgets are losing you visitors right now". Today I present you solution to very old problem of scripts delaying page loads: just _change src=""_ to _extsrc=""_ and use 'extsrc.js':

      <script extsrc="..."></script>

Now all of your scripts are loading AFTER the page renders. It works even if scripts use _document.write_

I've tested with Chrome/Ubuntu and Firefox/Ubuntu - works like it should.

ALPHA! Test it and let me know if your browser matches the reference rendering. If it doesn't - maybe we can do some fallback.

Quite a few bugs fixed by now. Please test it and leave bug reports.

<comment><USER2> Good job, now lets get the major sites (especially blogs) to use this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Too early, need to polish out quite a few bugs with Opera/IE right now.

UPD. Major bugs with Opera fixed. IE probably too, waiting for confirmation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Asynchronous document.write (<http://github.com/eligrey/async-document-write>) does mostly the same thing, and actually supports real async and deferred script execution on browsers that support it. Also note that extsrc.js waits until everything, including large images which may take a while, on your page is loaded before running the "asynchronous" scripts, which doesn't sound that asynchronous to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> From the looks of it - it means that you have to modify external scripts in ADW, right?

FIXED loading time to browser-specific DOM ready events. Don't see the need to use actual DEFER. Any reasons to do it?

<comment><USER3> The only reason is so that you can use the browser's native async and defer script scheduling. And yes, you need to modify the external scripts (only adding a single line to the start and end).

If you can't convince the widget provider to change the script, you can place <script>document.write.to = "the URI of the following widget script";</script> right before the widget script itself.

Also, on your fixed loading time thing: with onload, it still won't run until every image and iframe on your website has loaded too.

<comment><AUTHOR> How many browsers support 'document.write.to'?

It uses browser-specific event. onload is fallback.

I've tested the slow image (20 second delay instead of image) - no, it doesn't require loading of images, scripts fire up as soon as HTML finishes loading. Sorry.

<comment><USER3> document.write.to isn't something used by any browsers, it's something that my asynchronous document.write library uses instead of polluting the global namespace. Those image results are interesting, and I admit that I only took a quick skim of your code, so I may have been wrong to assume that it would be limited by onload.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was. Thank you for noting that. It was your comment that made me look into window.onload and scrape it, replacing with more sophisticated browser- specific code. Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE. Thanks for testing everybody, sadly there are serious problems that need fixing. So for now the project is closed.

<comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE2. IE now works. Chrome works. Opera works. Firefox works.

Test it and tell me if you can break it! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> async= works as you would think but extsrc= loads all javascript sequentially which can make total page load times longer. I wrote up a bit about the tests here:

<http://bit.ly/aIvHa6>

</comment><comment><USER5> Looks interesting, will be even better if the script has a demo page.

<comment><AUTHOR> It has. Look at the yellow blocks.

<comment><USER5> Ah yes, you are right. Thanks for reminding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a handy piece of thing!</comment>