>We spoke two totally different languages. Mine, the language of reasoned hope and optimism. Theirs, the language of suspicious cynicism, fear and ignorance.
Another word for their language would be the language of security, threat assessment, and law enforcement. It's probably safe to assume that anyone with a badge speaks this language and to act accordingly. At some level, it's a function of their training, experience as an officer, possibly of their upbringing. I have relatives who live in that world and it's always interesting to hear their perspective on things.
Edit to add:
>Are we truly welcome here as budding foreign entrepreneurs or will we forever be perceived as unwanted immigrants?
Unfortunately, the answer is both. I hope this person can get the visa situation figured out and going forward, get the sense that people like her are welcome in the US.
> Another word for their language would be the language of security, threat assessment, and law enforcement.
If deporting social entrepreneurs on the basis of their nationality and the word "hacker" is what's meant by "security" and "threat assessment", I submit that these people are incompetent. Sure, everyone is a product of their environment, but to the extent to which that environment allows them to make terrible, destructive decisions with other people's lives without meaningful accountability, they are very much operating out of fear and ignorance, and we should condemn them accordingly. I don't see how throwing around flimsy terms like "threat assessment" does anything but give a broken process an air of artificial legitimacy.
I'm no fan of the current system (being an immigrant worker in the US myself), but I don't understand your proposal. Are you saying that immigration officers should have the authority to selectively apply rules because someone is a "social entrepreneur" instead of, say, a farm worker?
That sounds like a recipe for corruption and disaster.
Not at all. It's not even clear what rules they were even applying here, other than their own discretion. My point was that if "security" and "threat assessment" were the operative parts of their decision, they couldn't possibly been doing it right.
I dont believe we know enough facts to assess the competence of the officers - but I'm not defending their actions nor was I trying to legitimize them. The purpose of my comment was to make people aware that in general they see the world very differently than the typical entrepreneur. Not how I would like it to be, but it does seem to be a general fact.
I have become somewhat sensitive to the fact that different people saying the same words can have vastly different intentions.
I propose that government employees with opportunities to exercise some measure of legal authority over others actually switch off portions of their brain when they go on duty. Reason and logic, empathy, trust--all these seem suppressed with particular vigor. Anyone incapable of doing so either burns out and leaves voluntarily, or is shuffled out of the career track and systematically denied promotion, or any other opportunity to affect change from within.
In LA, I once asked a stranger I'd overheard hiring a car where he was from, because I couldn't place his accent. He thought that was hilarious - he was from Australia (like me), but he'd worked on losing his accent because, in his words: "Americans love Australians... unless you're taking money from them. If you want to do business in America, you should probably lose the accent"
Considering who she was detained with ("I soon found myself locked in a room with a pedophile, a woman smuggling $25,000 in cash and unsavory others"), they were right perhaps to not give her the initial benefit of the doubt.
Er, how Kafkaesque is that? They (or, rather, their coworkders) are the ones who detained her in the first place. "So, we locked you in this cell with these other unsavory people. Notice how now you're in a cell with unsavory people -- very suspicious!"
Sorry, that wasn't what I had meant at all. I meant that if they're used to dealing with people who are constantly working the system, why would they ever go into their job thinking positive thoughts about the people they're dealing with. If she is the exception, she will likely be considered nefarious until proven otherwise, they just don't usually give the chance to actually prove anything, otherwise or not.
Another word for their language would be the language of security, threat assessment, and law enforcement. It's probably safe to assume that anyone with a badge speaks this language and to act accordingly. At some level, it's a function of their training, experience as an officer, possibly of their upbringing. I have relatives who live in that world and it's always interesting to hear their perspective on things.
Edit to add:
>Are we truly welcome here as budding foreign entrepreneurs or will we forever be perceived as unwanted immigrants?
Unfortunately, the answer is both. I hope this person can get the visa situation figured out and going forward, get the sense that people like her are welcome in the US.