Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[zero]

the German backpackers who were detained since they didn't have hotel booking for the entire duration of their five week stay

That is not the reason the German backpackers were denied entry to the US.

They had just spent a month in New Zealand. After their month in the US, they planned to spend another month in Japan. When asked how they were able afford such a long period of travel (bearing in mind they are 19 and 18 years old), they said they had earned money from doing freelance work online.

While they did not say they planned to do online work whilst in the US, there was a possibility they could do so, since after all it only requires a laptop. This would be in violation of the Visa Waiver Program under which they sought entry to the US. (Additionally, they mistakenly thought such work would be permitted as long as their clients were not in the US.) Furthermore they had no compelling reason that would require their return to Germany such as school/job/property ownership etc. As a result they were deemed inadmissible.

Normal CBP procedure is to return them to their origin (New Zealand) or their country of citizenship (Germany). They requested to rebook their US>Japan flights and be "deported" to Japan instead, and an exception was made.

The reason they were detained is because of the layout of US airports. When in a departure area of a US airport you may freely walk out, so it was not possible for them to just wait overnight at the gate for their flight to Japan (as would be possible in many Schengen airports or Heathrow). It looks like Honolulu airport doesn't have a 24/7 CBP service where they could have waited under supervision either.

Sadly they were not told that choosing to go to Japan meant they would have to spend the night in a regular jail alongside criminals. If they had chosen to be deported to Germany they may have been immediately put on a flight to the US mainland that would connect to a flight going to Germany, avoiding the dehumanising experience that they had to go through.

 

[najaB]

That is not the reason the German backpackers were denied entry to the US.

They had just spent a month in New Zealand. After their month in the US, they planned to spend another month in Japan. When asked how they were able afford such a long period of travel (bearing in mind they are 19 and 18 years old), they said they had earned money from doing freelance work online.

The initial reporting was that they were told the reason they were being denied entry was because they didn't have hotel accommodation booked for the whole five weeks. And, as we've seen here, there have been three different reasons given at different times: lack of hotel bookings, risk of work, and no onward flight. These could all be components of a consistent story, or it could be post-hoc justification.

 

[Grimsby town]

At the moment, while that orange idiot is in power, why would you want to travel to the U.S.A.?

If it's for leisure there are plenty of other countries to visit.

I don't have a problem with most of the American people, but those that voted the orange idiot in to power need to fully understand and unfortunately that means taking our trade elsewhere.

I agree with the sentiment but some people might have less flexibility to avoid the US. Personally I'm living in Toronto for a year so didn't want to lose the opportunity to visit Buffalo given its only a few hours away. I also had trips to Boston and New York planned before Trump came to power, as I'm sure others will. Plus I'm sure people will have to travel for work and tourism.

If people have a choice, I'd suggest giving the US a miss and coming to Canada instead. There's similar stunning landscape to the US and the cities feel a lot safer and more comfortable to walk around. Its also cheaper than the US.

 

[BingMan]

I agree with the sentiment but some people might have less flexibility to avoid the US. Personally I'm living in Toronto for a year so didn't want to lose the opportunity to visit Buffalo given its only a few hours away. I also had trips to Boston and New York planned before Trump came to power, as I'm sure others will. Plus I'm sure people will have to travel for work and tourism.

If people have a choice, I'd suggest giving the US a miss and coming to Canada instead. There's similar stunning landscape to the US and the cities feel a lot safer and more comfortable to walk around. Its also cheaper than the US.

I have worked in small town America and small town Canada. And my conclusion was that Canada has all the advantages of the USA but with much friendlier people

 

[WelshBluebird]

While they did not say they planned to do online work whilst in the US, there was a possibility they could do so, since after all it only requires a laptop.

I mean doesn't thay apply to lots of work now though? I mean I work from home so theoretically could work from anywhere including the US.

 

[edwin_m]

I mean doesn't thay apply to lots of work now though? I mean I work from home so theoretically could work from anywhere including the US.

I guess if they said they had done it before, and they weren't in employment at the time, that might cause suspicion. They probably consider working online in the US exactly the same as doing work that needs to be present somewhere.

I also work from home but my employer says it's not permitted to work from another country, unless travelling on company business. This is for tax/insurance reasons I think.

 

[Freightmaster]

I guess if they said they had done it before, and they weren't in employment at the time, that might cause suspicion. They probably consider working online in the US exactly the same as doing work that needs to be present somewhere.

But what exactly constitutes "work" in these cases?

I visit the USA (on holiday) regularly and while there I reply to emails from my customers,
answer questions on this and other forums, etc. Am I technically breaking the law??



MARK

 

[edwin_m]

But what exactly constitutes "work" in these cases?

I visit the USA (on holiday) regularly and while there I reply to emails from my customers,
answer questions on this and other forums, etc. Am I technically breaking the law??

I think for me it would be booking any time to work activity while overseas for personal reasons. But I appreciate that may not be applicable to all jobs.

 

[najaB]

I mean, look at the orange idiots latest move, threatening to impose 50% tariffs on the E.U. while negotiations are ongoing. How infantile is that when the E.U. countries are your allies?

Just to point out. The Orange One has threatened tariffs because his administration's negotiations on a EU/US trade deal have taken too long. The EU/Canada trade deal took what, nine years or more to conclude?

I also work from home but my employer says it's not permitted to work from another country, unless travelling on company business. This is for tax/insurance reasons I think.

That might be company policy and possibly a condition of their insurance, but the tax concern certainly isn't true in law.

As long as you don't work overseas for more than 183 days in any tax year there won't be any impact on UK taxes. There might be a liability to pay taxes in the second country, though typically you would need to work there for at least 90 days before that became a concern. I have one colleague who splits his time between the UK and the Philippines with his wife and kids and has to carefully manage his travel dates to ensure that he stays on the right side of the 183 day rule.

UK tests​

You may be resident under the automatic UK tests if:

• you spent 183 or more days in the UK in the tax year
• your only home was in the UK for 91 days or more in a row - and you visited or stayed in it for at least 30 days of the tax year
• you worked full-time in the UK for any period of 365 days and at least one day of that period was in the tax year you’re checking

Tax on foreign income

Find out whether you need to pay UK tax on foreign income - residence and ‘non-dom’ status, tax returns, claiming relief if you’re taxed twice (including certificates of residence)

www.gov.uk

 

[edwin_m]

There might be a liability to pay taxes in the second country, though typically you would need to work there for at least 90 days before that became a concern.

I think that "typically" might be the concern - quite reasonably the company doesn't want to get involved in admin purely so someone can work elsewhere for personal reasons. Plus I guess there's the theoretical possibility that the US or some other administration might go after the employer if they consider someone is working for them illegally while in that country.

 

[AlterEgo]

But what exactly constitutes "work" in these cases?

I visit the USA (on holiday) regularly and while there I reply to emails from my customers,
answer questions on this and other forums, etc. Am I technically breaking the law??



MARK

I travel to the USA as a freelance video creator, and am entirely upfront with CBP officers about what I do. When they ask "why are you here?" I simply respond and tell them what I do for work, that I'll take Amtrak and make a video on the sleeper cars, or somesuch.

I do always have hotel and travel bookings ready in advance and evidence of need/desire to return home. Never had an issue.

 

[Gloster]

I travel to the USA as a freelance video creator, and am entirely upfront with CBP officers about what I do. When they ask "why are you here?" I simply respond and tell them what I do for work, that I'll take Amtrak and make a video on the sleeper cars, or somesuch.

I do always have hotel and travel bookings ready in advance and evidence of need/desire to return home. Never had an issue.

Yes, but when did you last travel? The whole situation seems to have changed in the last couple of months and what did not worry Immigration a few months ago might now end with you in the slammer.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, but when did you last travel? The whole situation seems to have changed in the last couple of months and what did not worry Immigration a few months ago might now end with you in the slammer.

Last month.

I'm not defending the Trump administration but the German incident seems like a one-off; no compelling reasons to return to country of origin, cannot evidence plans in USA, always going to be an issue regardless of when you visit the US under VWP.

 

[Freightmaster]

I travel to the USA as a freelance video creator, and am entirely upfront with CBP officers about what I do. When they ask "why are you here?" I simply respond and tell them what I do for work, that I'll take Amtrak and make a video on the sleeper cars, or somesuch.

Sounds very much like you're "Wingin' It" to me...



MARK

 

[nw1]

Even back in 2004 I had a lot of suspicion from border guards at the I-5 crossing (Peace Arch) between British Columbia and Washington.

They demanded to know where I was going, I had presumably, on the visa waiver form, given them the name of the hotel I was staying in that night (in Seattle) but they said "no... where are you really going?"

My plan, already booked, was to travel down the west coast on Greyhound and my ultimate destination was a friend's house in LA County. They were only satisfied when I gave them the address of the friend's house but they were certainly very suspicious indeed. I found the border guards on that occasion were far more suspicious than anything I'd experienced in airports.

I'd also visited New York before Canada, so I was doing UK-US-Canada-US. Maybe that "did not compute" in their minds and was somehow automatically regarded as "suspicious". Thou shalt not return to Country A, having visited Country B in the interim

Maybe 9/11 was playing a part in the intense border guard suspicion in this era.

I suspect trying to do the same under Trump would be met with even more suspicion.

By contrast, the most easy-going border guards were those in Toronto airport some years later where the arrangement was you crossed the US "border" at Toronto before boarding your flight.

 

[Purple Train]

Well, this is interesting:

A US federal court blocks President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, in a major blow to his economic policies

Three judges rule that Trump overstepped his authority when he used an emergency law to impose tariffs on nearly every country
Businesses and trade experts are scrambling to understand what this latest twist means

The case was launched by a group of US businesses and states, and leaves the White House with 10 days to formally reverse the levies

But moments after the ruling, the Trump administration said it is appealing because it is "not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency"

The US is currently negotiating individual trade deals with dozens of countries - those talks have now been thrown into chaos

(Link to the BBC live text feed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2dekzjg6gzt - I wasn't entirely sure how to quote it correctly so I hope I've done it right.)

 

[brad465]

The way the markets have flip-flopped on Trump's tariff situation (besides possible manipulation), really makes me wonder what investors are thinking here: it's clear Trump is all about uncertainty and constantly changing his mind on stuff (or at least being forced to back down where he goes too far), in what way do you reinvest in the market when there's no clear stability?

 

[najaB]

...in what way do you reinvest in the market when there's no clear stability?

Short term investments. If you can guess exactly when DJT will chicken out there's a lot of money to be made.

 

[Yew]

Short term investments. If you can guess exactly when DJT will chicken out there's a lot of money to be made.

It's worth noting that if Trump was running a private company, and was giving tip-offs to his mates, that would be illegal insider trading.

 

[Magdalia]

Short term investments. If you can guess exactly when DJT will chicken out there's a lot of money to be made.

I have heard today that the financial markets are now using taco as shorthand for Trump always chickens out.

 

[edwin_m]

Quite possible Trump is relishing this latest "setback" as a chance to set up a confrontation that goes straight to the Supreme Court, and that panel of judges ruled last year that anything the President did as official business was (subject to a few caveats) legal.

 

[Annetts key]

I have heard today that the financial markets are now using taco as shorthand for Trump always chickens out.

Search for "trump taco meme" images and you can have a chuckle

 

[najaB]

Quite possible Trump is relishing this latest "setback" as a chance to set up a confrontation that goes straight to the Supreme Court, and that panel of judges ruled last year that anything the President did as official business was (subject to a few caveats) legal.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that their ruling said that anything a President does is legal, but rather that a (former) President can't face prosecution for official acts. Slight difference in that the tariffs themselves could be ruled unenforceable, but he won't face any legal consequences for implementing them.

 

[brad465]

Looks like we have another TACO moment down the line:

Trump: US to double steel import tariffs to 50%

President Donald Trump says the increase in tariffs will protect America's steel industry, along with an expected partnership with Japan.

www.bbc.co.uk

President Donald Trump has announced the US will double its current tariff rate on steel and aluminium imports from 25% to 50%, starting on Wednesday.
Speaking at a rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Trump said the move would help boost the local steel industry and national supply, while reducing reliance on China.
Trump also said that $14bn would be invested in the area's steel production through a partnership between US Steel and Japan's Nippon Steel, though he later told reporters he had yet to see or approve the final deal.
The announcement is the latest turn in Trump's rollercoaster approach to tariffs since re-entering office in January.
"There will be no layoffs and no outsourcing whatsoever, and every US steelworker will soon receive a well deserved $5,000 bonus," Trump told the crowd, filled with steelworkers, to raucous applause.
One of the major concerns from steelworkers about the US-Japan trade deal was how Japan would honour the workers' union contract which regulates pay and hiring.
Trump began his remarks by saying he had "saved" US Steel, America's biggest steel manufacturer, located in Pittsburgh, with the 25% tariffs he implemented during his first term as president in 2018.
Both sales and profits at US Steel have been falling in recent years.
Trump touted the increase to 50% as a way to ensure US Steel's survival.
"At 50%, they can no longer get over the fence," he said. "We are once again going to put Pennsylvania steel into the backbone of America, like never before."
US steel manufacturing has been declining in recent years, and China, India and Japan have pulled ahead as the world's top producers. Roughly a quarter of all steel used in the US is imported, and the country's reliance on Mexican and Canadian steel has angered Trump.
The announcement comes amid a court battle over the legality of some of Trump's global tariffs, which an appeals court has allowed to continue after the Court of International Trade ordered the administration to halt the taxes.
His tariffs on steel and aluminium were untouched by the lawsuit.

 

[nw1]

Looks like we have another TACO moment down the line:

Trump: US to double steel import tariffs to 50%

President Donald Trump says the increase in tariffs will protect America's steel industry, along with an expected partnership with Japan.

www.bbc.co.uk

All those who would consider voting Reform should be taking note of every single one of these Trumpisms, and reflecting on whether we want to be a weaker and less influential imitation of Trump's US.

 

[najaB]

Looks like we have another TACO moment down the line

I think this one might actually last a while. Maybe as long as three weeks. If only because steel has a long shelf life, and consequently a longer lead time.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that their ruling said that anything a President does is legal, but rather that a (former) President can't face prosecution for official acts. Slight difference in that the tariffs themselves could be ruled unenforceable, but he won't face any legal consequences for implementing them.

That is my understanding too.

 

[DelW]

There's more dissent in the Republican camp:

Musk calls Trump's tax and spending bill an 'abomination'

Musk has repeatedly struck out at the bill, saying it undercuts Doge's work to slash federal spending.

www.bbc.co.uk

Elon Musk hit out at President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill, posting on X that he "can't stand" the legislation and describing it as a "disgusting abomination".

And more widely:

Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, over the last few days has said he will not support the bill if it includes the provision to raise the debt ceiling.

""The GOP [the Republican Party] will own the debt once they vote for this," he told CBS News, the BBC's US partner, over the weekend.

Trump responded to Sen Paul with a series of angry social media posts, accusing him of having "very little understanding of the bill" and saying that the "people of Kentucky can't stand him".

"His ideas are actually crazy," Trump wrote.

I wonder if even those Republicans until now blinded by the enthusiasm of the MAGA mob, are realising that the mid term elections could be a disaster for them? Does Trump have the political skill to avoid that, or is he solely focussed on making as much money as he can before he's dumped?

 

[brad465]

There's more dissent in the Republican camp:

Musk calls Trump's tax and spending bill an 'abomination'

Musk has repeatedly struck out at the bill, saying it undercuts Doge's work to slash federal spending.

www.bbc.co.uk

And more widely:

I wonder if even those Republicans until now blinded by the enthusiasm of the MAGA mob, are realising that the mid term elections could be a disaster for them? Does Trump have the political skill to avoid that, or is he solely focussed on making as much money as he can before he's dumped?

Get the popcorn out! (again)