Trump 2.0

[Woodchopper]

And yet volunteering labour has been popularised by Race Across the World (or something like that) as a way to stay over on a budget.

I don’t know about them, but in terms of international work there’s a general problem with people being encouraged to do things that are either illegal or are in a complex regulatory grey area that could leave people in trouble if something goes wrong. Similar problems with ‘digital nomads’ who want to travel and work remotely for an employer in another country’.

This was a BBC reality series so they were probably actually on a working visa due to shooting a programme, but the impression to the audience was that they were just travelling and roughing it. tThey were deliberately given a limited budget and a booklet containing places they could stay in exchange for labour. I never watched a whole series, but I did see some of the one they were travelling across Canada.

Yes, I assume that they would have a work visa if they were filming for long periods. It might be a problem if someone without a visa tried to do the same.

[bob sterman]

And yet volunteering labour has been popularised by Race Across the World (or something like that) as a way to stay over on a budget.

I don’t know about them, but in terms of international work there’s a general problem with people being encouraged to do things that are either illegal or are in a complex regulatory grey area that could leave people in trouble if something goes wrong. Similar problems with ‘digital nomads’ who want to travel and work remotely for an employer in another country’.

Not just a problem for the individual - can be a problem for large employers if enough of their employees start working remotely from a particular country - this can create tax/regulatory issues for the organisation.

[Gfamily]

And yet volunteering labour has been popularised by Race Across the World (or something like that) as a way to stay over on a budget.

I don’t know about them, but in terms of international work there’s a general problem with people being encouraged to do things that are either illegal or are in a complex regulatory grey area that could leave people in trouble if something goes wrong. Similar problems with ‘digital nomads’ who want to travel and work remotely for an employer in another country’.

Not just a problem for the individual - can be a problem for large employers if enough of their employees start working remotely from a particular country - this can create tax/regulatory issues for the organisation.

I worked part time (2 days per week) for 10 weeks from a place in France during the first lockdown in summer '20.
I'd found a legal site that said it shouldn't have been an issue as it was sufficiently short to not affect my tax residency, and did not involve any commercial activity in France itself.
However, I later heard there were 'questions asked' from HR and Legal, so I was advised "don't make it obvious if it happens again".

[Woodchopper]

I don’t know about them, but in terms of international work there’s a general problem with people being encouraged to do things that are either illegal or are in a complex regulatory grey area that could leave people in trouble if something goes wrong. Similar problems with ‘digital nomads’ who want to travel and work remotely for an employer in another country’.

Not just a problem for the individual - can be a problem for large employers if enough of their employees start working remotely from a particular country - this can create tax/regulatory issues for the organisation.

I worked part time (2 days per week) for 10 weeks from a place in France during the first lockdown in summer '20.
I'd found a legal site that said it shouldn't have been an issue as it was sufficiently short to not affect my tax residency, and did not involve any commercial activity in France itself.
However, I later heard there were 'questions asked' from HR and Legal, so I was advised "don't make it obvious if it happens again".

Yes, the complicated bit is whether employing people remotely in another country counts as economic activity carried out by the employer. If it does then your employer would need to comply with French laws, which would be costly and a lot of hassle. I don’t know about France, but in other places the threshold isn’t clear (probably deliberately to make it harder to game the system).

[IvanV]

A German woman was detained by ICE at the US/Mexican border and has been in custody for weeks now.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigr ... n-facility

That one is much more egregious, because it's only for being suspected of intending to work because she happened to have equipment with her while transiting through the US.

Thinking about this a bit more. The German woman's equipment was for tattooing. She said she was going to "make art" with her friend. I think some people do carry out tattooing for the love of it, not just as a commercial service.

So that made me wonder about taking your paintbrushes and paints when you go to another country, as King Charles might, as well as less famous people. Are you intending to illegally work as an artist? Where does a hobby end and work start?

Or taking a bicycle with you, as I have many times when travelling as a tourist. Are you intending to work as a bicycle courier? In fact I know a British person whose first illegal work in the US was as a bicycle courier in New York. Later he worked in advertising, before eventually getting a green card.

And indeed taking your laptop, as we have been discussing, and so many, many people do.

I suppose tattooing equipment is a rather unusual thing to be found in a traveller's possession, which maybe why immigration found it rather hard to construct it as a hobby, as they might if they found the other potential work equipment I mention.

[dyqik]

Not just a problem for the individual - can be a problem for large employers if enough of their employees start working remotely from a particular country - this can create tax/regulatory issues for the organisation.

I worked part time (2 days per week) for 10 weeks from a place in France during the first lockdown in summer '20.
I'd found a legal site that said it shouldn't have been an issue as it was sufficiently short to not affect my tax residency, and did not involve any commercial activity in France itself.
However, I later heard there were 'questions asked' from HR and Legal, so I was advised "don't make it obvious if it happens again".

Yes, the complicated bit is whether employing people remotely in another country counts as economic activity carried out by the employer. If it does then your employer would need to comply with French laws, which would be costly and a lot of hassle. I don’t know about France, but in other places the threshold isn’t clear (probably deliberately to make it harder to game the system).

At the same time, working for your employer while on business travel obviously shouldn't trigger that kind of rule. I'd guess that some rules around the ratio of time "at home" and "abroad" would be applied, even if they are ad hoc/developed by the courts.

[Woodchopper]

I worked part time (2 days per week) for 10 weeks from a place in France during the first lockdown in summer '20.
I'd found a legal site that said it shouldn't have been an issue as it was sufficiently short to not affect my tax residency, and did not involve any commercial activity in France itself.
However, I later heard there were 'questions asked' from HR and Legal, so I was advised "don't make it obvious if it happens again".

Yes, the complicated bit is whether employing people remotely in another country counts as economic activity carried out by the employer. If it does then your employer would need to comply with French laws, which would be costly and a lot of hassle. I don’t know about France, but in other places the threshold isn’t clear (probably deliberately to make it harder to game the system).

At the same time, working for your employer while on business travel obviously shouldn't trigger that kind of rule. I'd guess that some rules around the ratio of time "at home" and "abroad" would be applied, even if they are ad hoc/developed by the courts.

Certainly, there are usually exemptions for that and other activities such as attending a conference or being a member of the crew of a ship or aircraft. But someone going to another country to work remotely may not be covered by an exemption.

[Woodchopper]

Not just a problem for the individual - can be a problem for large employers if enough of their employees start working remotely from a particular country - this can create tax/regulatory issues for the organisation.

I worked part time (2 days per week) for 10 weeks from a place in France during the first lockdown in summer '20.
I'd found a legal site that said it shouldn't have been an issue as it was sufficiently short to not affect my tax residency, and did not involve any commercial activity in France itself.
However, I later heard there were 'questions asked' from HR and Legal, so I was advised "don't make it obvious if it happens again".

Yes, the complicated bit is whether employing people remotely in another country counts as economic activity carried out by the employer. If it does then your employer would need to comply with French laws, which would be costly and a lot of hassle. I don’t know about France, but in other places the threshold isn’t clear (probably deliberately to make it harder to game the system).

And another thing. Someone going abroad to work remotely may complicate things regarding employment laws and regulations. As with dyqik’s comment, a person who is sent abroad by their employer is a different case and should be in a well defined position.

But it is more unclear if they went abroad of their own accord. For example, if they get sick are they covered by UK regulations or company policy on sick leave and sick pay? They might not as they’re not in Britain and British laws don’t apply in France, and they weren’t sent to France by the company. On the other hand, French laws don’t apply where the employer is located. I can see why HR just wouldn’t want to have to work it all out.

[philbo]

So that made me wonder about taking your paintbrushes and paints when you go to another country, as King Charles might, as well as less famous people. Are you intending to illegally work as an artist? Where does a hobby end and work start?

A few years back, I was pondering a holiday in the US, and some friends over there said they'd set me up with some gigs (I was planning on calling it my world tour)

It strikes me that if I took any kind of payment, I could be flung out unceremoniously, but if not... that could still happen if they thought I might get paid :-/

[discovolante]

A German woman was detained by ICE at the US/Mexican border and has been in custody for weeks now.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigr ... n-facility

This is a very odd story, and I end up suspecting it is cock-up rather than a conspiracy.

Many people are denied entry for being suspected of intending to work, not just arriving in the US but arriving in the UK and Europe, etc. They are normally just sent back fairly quickly. But when someone turns up at an airport, immigration typically has a rule that the airline that brought them has to take them away. So it is easy to get rid of them very quickly.

Here they are spending lots of money locking her up. Maybe they couldn't just turn her away at the border and send her back to Mexico, because she no longer had the documents to enter Mexico with her flight home being from LA. They could have sent her home for free on her own ticket for the flight home from LA on 15 Feb, but they failed to do that. That looks like a cock-up.

No need for a visa to enter Mexico: https://embamex.sre.gob.mx/finlandia/in ... ling/visas although there is a limit to how long you can stay there: https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advic ... quirements 180 days from the UK so I assume it's the same for Schengen.

[Imrael]

Working remotely abroad (whether long term or on a business trip) may have data protection implications, depending on the data you work with and whether the countries involved have appropriate agreements in place.

When it comes to activities where someone accomodates you for a leisure thing, that seems too grey/gray an area for immmigration to get serious about. A couple of years ago it was suggested that I could take a trip to the US, GM a couple of TTRPG games at a convention and someone would provide accomodation. Since the convention charged a small table fee I might fall foul of a partocilarly strict/silly interpretation of the rules, but even in these times of madness I wouldnt see it as a risk.

[bolo]

So that made me wonder about taking your paintbrushes and paints when you go to another country, as King Charles might, as well as less famous people. Are you intending to illegally work as an artist? Where does a hobby end and work start?

A few years back, I was pondering a holiday in the US, and some friends over there said they'd set me up with some gigs (I was planning on calling it my world tour)

It strikes me that if I took any kind of payment, I could be flung out unceremoniously, but if not... that could still happen if they thought I might get paid :-/

Technically, I believe you need a visa if you're planning to perform, even if you're not going to get paid. With some exceptions that don't sound like they apply here.

[IvanV]

Trump got exceedingly angry yesterday when the Canadian province of Ontario announced a 25% exit tariff on electricity exports to the US. Trump hadn't put any tariff on imports of Canadian electricity. Presumably for this particular thing, he finds it quite convenient to buy it cheaply, for all that it puts US generation workers out of a job, ha ha. I'm presuming some near-border communities, perhaps Trump-voting, are quite dependent on Canadian electricity. Canada is a substantial net exporter of electricity, which usually puts you in Trump's bad books.

Other countries have been putting retaliatory tariffs on, and Trump usually seems to think that's just what happens. But this particular retaliation by Ontario really got his goat. He threatened to double the Canadian steel and aluminium tariffs to 50%. That has been sufficient to get Ontario to step back.

So the bully won, sadly. And demonstrates such consistency in his thinking.

[dyqik]

Trump got exceedingly angry yesterday when the Canadian province of Ontario announced a 25% exit tariff on electricity exports to the US. Trump hadn't put any tariff on imports of Canadian electricity. Presumably for this particular thing, he finds it quite convenient to buy it cheaply, for all that it puts US generation workers out of a job, ha ha. I'm presuming some near-border communities, perhaps Trump-voting, are quite dependent on Canadian electricity. Canada is a substantial net exporter of electricity, which usually puts you in Trump's bad books.

Almost the whole set of northern border states import electricity. Trump was happy to apply tariffs to electricity imports from Canada when he thought that only blue New England would be affected, but likely relented when it was pointed out that purple to red Upstate New York, red Indiana, and red areas of Michigan and Wisconsin would be affected. Particularly manufacturing businesses in those regions.

[dyqik]

Unrelated to Trump, but there's been a big recent court case about a referendum in Maine blocking the construction of a power line bringing Canadian hydropower electricity to Massachusetts.

The main alternative is to build gas power stations in Massachusetts that emit pollution that gets blown up the Maine coast.

[Rich Scopie]

He really is f.cking insane, isn’t he?

[bjn]

Canadian woman detained at the border with Mexico. Told there was an issue with her visa and she needed to go and get is sorted before she came into the USA, then rather than refusing entry and allowing her to go and get the issue sorted at a consulate, she gets detained and put in chains to be shipped to a for profit facility in Arizona.

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/ ... ego-border

[discovolante]

I mean, SvL's brother was detained at the border several years ago (can't remember if it wad under Trump or not) for outstation his visa for a few days because he'd accidentally thought it was a 3 month visa, not a 90 day one. He was visiting his aunt and hasn't dared to go back since.

[bjn]

I mean, SvL's brother was detained at the border several years ago (can't remember if it wad under Trump or not) for outstation his visa for a few days because he'd accidentally thought it was a 3 month visa, not a 90 day one. He was visiting his aunt and hasn't dared to go back since.

Was he put in chains and shipped around the country?

[discovolante]

I mean, SvL's brother was detained at the border several years ago (can't remember if it wad under Trump or not) for outstation his visa for a few days because he'd accidentally thought it was a 3 month visa, not a 90 day one. He was visiting his aunt and hasn't dared to go back since.

Was he put in chains and shipped around the country?

No. And SvL, who really wants to go visit his (elderly, ill) aunt is quite worried about going now. Certainly things are getting ramped up under Trump but US immigration has never been known for treating people fairly and with dignity. I just get a bit uncomfortable when the news goes into overdrive over some new policy/government behaviour in a way that seems to imply that things were more or less hunky dory before then.

[bjn]

It looks like Trump is trying to criminalise climate science. They have directed the FBI to investigate the charity Habitat for Humanity for taking climate grants from the EPA, their funds have been frozen by Citibank.

"The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. "

https://newrepublic.com/post/192660/tru ... anizations

[dyqik]

It looks like Trump is trying to criminalise climate science. They have directed the FBI to investigate the charity Habitat for Humanity for taking climate grants from the EPA, their funds have been frozen by Citibank.

"The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. "

https://newrepublic.com/post/192660/tru ... anizations

That's going to result in a bunch of government lawyers being sanctioned.

[nekomatic]

I mean, SvL's brother was detained at the border several years ago (can't remember if it wad under Trump or not) for outstation his visa for a few days because he'd accidentally thought it was a 3 month visa, not a 90 day one. He was visiting his aunt and hasn't dared to go back since.

This sort of issue comes up on Travel Stack Exchange from time to time, and people seem to get sensible sounding advice there (even if it is sometimes ‘in your case, consult an immigration lawyer’).

I realise this is not unadjacent to your sort of field so this may be superfluous and mansplainy, in which case apols.

[discovolante]

I mean, SvL's brother was detained at the border several years ago (can't remember if it wad under Trump or not) for outstation his visa for a few days because he'd accidentally thought it was a 3 month visa, not a 90 day one. He was visiting his aunt and hasn't dared to go back since.

This sort of issue comes up on Travel Stack Exchange from time to time, and people seem to get sensible sounding advice there (even if it is sometimes ‘in your case, consult an immigration lawyer’).

I realise this is not unadjacent to your sort of field so this may be superfluous and mansplainy, in which case apols.

Thank you. It's not something that can really be resolved rationally I don't think though.

[Martin Y]

It looks like Trump is trying to criminalise climate science. They have directed the FBI to investigate the charity Habitat for Humanity for taking climate grants from the EPA, their funds have been frozen by Citibank.

"The FBI has told Citibank that recipients of EPA climate grants are being considered as potentially liable for fraud. "

https://newrepublic.com/post/192660/tru ... anizations

Perhaps the most excruciating aspect of this is that Trump is opposed to tackling climate change because he objects to a windfarm spoiling the view from his golf course. Therefore climate science is fraud, windmills give you cancer etc etc. He's getting to make world-endangering decisions based on petty personal peeves.