7 ms·

Most countries of the world have maximum visit lengths as part of a visitor visa. And those maximum visit lengths are counted on an annual basis. So you can on

Most countries of the world have maximum visit lengths as part of a visitor visa. And those maximum visit lengths are counted on an annual basis. So you can only visit the US 179 days out of 365. So they need to know when you came in and when you left. It's not good enough to just leave and not tell anyone.

jacobolus 7y ago
They don’t “need to know” for reasons which are of significant practical benefit to citizens/residents. But institutions like governments only “see” via data collection, and in general are happy to collect whatever is technically and socially feasible, and people involved in setting up databases seldom stop to think about the risks or trade-offs involved in collecting various types of data, or whether that data is meaningful or useful. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...
- irrational 7y ago
  It seems to me that being opposed to someone breaking the law is not equivalent to being a sadistic xenophobe. Finding people who rob banks at some point and punishing them is of great interest to people fearful of robbers who like disrupting robbers’ lives for no practical purpose because they gain sadistic satisfaction from cruelly exercising power over other people.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I think the robbers argument isn't directly applicable because mere physical presence without committing a crime doesn't hurt anyone -- does it? I think Congress for all its flaws agrees, as simply being present and out of status in the US isn't a criminal matter, it's civil, and congress has repeatedly, and even recently, refused to change that classification. You punish a robber ostensibly to stop them from robbing again, lest you end up the victim of a robbery. What does being the victim of someone's unlawful presence even mean?
    - caseysoftware 7y ago
      Their "mere physical presence" after their visa has expired is the crime. There is nothing unique about the US in that regard. Most countries have a limit on how long you can visit.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        No, it's not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter. It's illegal in the same way as parking somewhere you're not supposed to. Not everything that's illegal is a crime. "It is generally accurate that the simple act of being in the United States illegally is not, by itself, a crime. Rather, it’s a civil violation that puts the individual at risk for deportation, but not for criminal prosecution." [1] This isn't always a good thing, of course, as there's less due process involved in handling such situations. Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor, lying to a border guard is a crime, and unlawful re-entry after deportation can be, also. [1] https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/florida-conference-catholic-bishops/being-united-states-unlawfully-crime/ https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/fl...
        caseysoftware 7y ago
        Ok, point withdrawn. Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense. That's a new one for me. Thanks. I think your "who is hurt" approach is weak though. If a country can't enforce its own laws - or worse selectively enforces them - no one is obviously "hurt" but it erodes trust in the systems and process itself. It leaves everything up to the judgement of the people on the ground and damages the concept of equality under the law. It's a dangerous game to play.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you about law enforcement, particularly selective law enforcement. It is indeed a dangerous game to play, and while definitely a left-leaning individual I just can't get behind the whole "abolish ICE" thing. I do think that immigration laws in the US are absurdly strict and I have a hard time buying the "America's Full" argument. That said, while laws exist on the books they should be enforced. I was suggesting one has a clear victim and the other doesn't so it may not be directly comparable. The "who's hurt" question was something I'm curious the consensus answer to rather than an excuse for not enforcing the law.
- mrighele 7y ago
  > They don’t “need to know” for reasons which are of significant practical benefit to citizens/residents. Staying for more than six months is usually one of the main measures to determine if one is resident and should pay taxes in the country, so there is at least a very good reason (although I don't know how much this applies to the USA specifically).
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    Anyone who earns income working in the USA has to pay US income and payroll taxes.
    - sksksk 7y ago
      you pay income tax in the country you live, not where you work (i.e. if you were employed by a US company, but working remotely in the UK, you'd pay income tax in the UK)
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - taejo 7y ago
        Any country can try to extract any tax from anyone it likes, and in general the US does.
    - mgbmtl 7y ago
      Except if you are working for a company that is sending you to the US (your company makes the income). It's easy to argue for 2-3 weeks, harder to argue for over 2 months.

jacobolus 7y ago

They don’t “need to know” for reasons which are of significant practical benefit to citizens/residents. But institutions like governments only “see” via data collection, and in general are happy to collect whatever is technically and socially feasible, and people involved in setting up databases seldom stop to think about the risks or trade-offs involved in collecting various types of data, or whether that data is meaningful or useful. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...

irrational 7y ago
It seems to me that being opposed to someone breaking the law is not equivalent to being a sadistic xenophobe. Finding people who rob banks at some point and punishing them is of great interest to people fearful of robbers who like disrupting robbers’ lives for no practical purpose because they gain sadistic satisfaction from cruelly exercising power over other people.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I think the robbers argument isn't directly applicable because mere physical presence without committing a crime doesn't hurt anyone -- does it? I think Congress for all its flaws agrees, as simply being present and out of status in the US isn't a criminal matter, it's civil, and congress has repeatedly, and even recently, refused to change that classification. You punish a robber ostensibly to stop them from robbing again, lest you end up the victim of a robbery. What does being the victim of someone's unlawful presence even mean?
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    Their "mere physical presence" after their visa has expired is the crime. There is nothing unique about the US in that regard. Most countries have a limit on how long you can visit.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      No, it's not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter. It's illegal in the same way as parking somewhere you're not supposed to. Not everything that's illegal is a crime. "It is generally accurate that the simple act of being in the United States illegally is not, by itself, a crime. Rather, it’s a civil violation that puts the individual at risk for deportation, but not for criminal prosecution." [1] This isn't always a good thing, of course, as there's less due process involved in handling such situations. Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor, lying to a border guard is a crime, and unlawful re-entry after deportation can be, also. [1] https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/florida-conference-catholic-bishops/being-united-states-unlawfully-crime/ https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/fl...
      - caseysoftware 7y ago
        Ok, point withdrawn. Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense. That's a new one for me. Thanks. I think your "who is hurt" approach is weak though. If a country can't enforce its own laws - or worse selectively enforces them - no one is obviously "hurt" but it erodes trust in the systems and process itself. It leaves everything up to the judgement of the people on the ground and damages the concept of equality under the law. It's a dangerous game to play.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you about law enforcement, particularly selective law enforcement. It is indeed a dangerous game to play, and while definitely a left-leaning individual I just can't get behind the whole "abolish ICE" thing. I do think that immigration laws in the US are absurdly strict and I have a hard time buying the "America's Full" argument. That said, while laws exist on the books they should be enforced. I was suggesting one has a clear victim and the other doesn't so it may not be directly comparable. The "who's hurt" question was something I'm curious the consensus answer to rather than an excuse for not enforcing the law.
mrighele 7y ago
> They don’t “need to know” for reasons which are of significant practical benefit to citizens/residents. Staying for more than six months is usually one of the main measures to determine if one is resident and should pay taxes in the country, so there is at least a very good reason (although I don't know how much this applies to the USA specifically).
- jacobolus 7y ago
  Anyone who earns income working in the USA has to pay US income and payroll taxes.
  - sksksk 7y ago
    you pay income tax in the country you live, not where you work (i.e. if you were employed by a US company, but working remotely in the UK, you'd pay income tax in the UK)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - taejo 7y ago
      Any country can try to extract any tax from anyone it likes, and in general the US does.
  - mgbmtl 7y ago
    Except if you are working for a company that is sending you to the US (your company makes the income). It's easy to argue for 2-3 weeks, harder to argue for over 2 months.