[potato3732842]

>I think the news feeds within the US may be approximately equal in their delivery of "this is good change" versus "this is catastrophic change", whilst internationally it's almost entirely "this is catastrophic change" with minor pockets of intolerance apologia.

Exactly.

Americans generally don't understand the degree to which the rest of the world gets the CNN 5min recap of what's going on in the US, and it's very much the CNN recap and not the Fox one.

"Tourists locked up, school children shot, government defunded, California on fire, tune in at 11 for more".

The fact that ~half the country doesn't think ICE should be locking up tourists without good reason and the other ~half doesn't think ICE should be locking up anyone gets skipped.

Edit: Just to head off the nitpickers, by "good reason" I mean stuff that border guards of any nation would lock anyone up for if they found, regardless of visa type, status or nation or origin.

[bondarchuk]

When you are in stuck in a border control jail for 2 weeks it does not particularly matter who does or does not think you should be there.

[ABS]

assuming your point is correct about what almost the entire country thinks about ICE locking up tourists (and I don't think it is) it's irrelevant: ICE does it anyway and that's all I as a potential turist care about

[footy]

exactly. As a Canadian I don't really care that half or more of the country thinks that ICE should not be locking up random Canadians or that the annexation threats aren't real or that the tariffs are a negotiating tactic. It is not relevant to my life how they feel if any of these things affect me.

[mannykannot]

I doubt that seeing the Fox spin on US events would persuade many people that the US is currently a place of rationality and the rule of law.

[DeathArrow]

Doesn't the crime rate go down when Republicans hold the power?

I think the crime rate is a major concern for every tourist.

Doesn't Florida have a much lower crime rate than California? As a tourist, I rather visit Florida than California.

[mcphage]

> Doesn't the crime rate go down when Republicans hold the power?

I don't think that's true—or at least, not a strong correlation. Crime rates were going significantly down since the early 90s, regardless who is in power. There was a smaller spike during COVID years, which has I believe returned to normal.

> I think the crime rate is a major concern for every tourist.

It is, but it isn't the only concern, and ICE sending tourists to prison is by definition not a crime, but is just as relevant to potential tourists.

> As a tourist, I rather visit Florida than California.

I really don't think you really want to look at the state level crime rates, you should look at the crime rate for the place you're going to visit. For instance, the violent crime rate in Florida was 260 per 100k people in 2022 (according to Wikipedia)... but if you're going to Walt Disney World, specifically: it's a whole lot less.

[d3nj4l]

Yeah, tourists like to go to places with low crime rates. In fact, when I’m a tourist, I pick where to go solely based on the crime rates!

[DeathArrow]

I hope that's true. In some places there are high chances to be robbed, killed or kidnapped as a tourist. The more wealthy you seem to the criminals, the higher the danger.

[triceratops]

> Doesn't the crime rate go down when Republicans hold the power?

Federally? There's no reason to think the federal government changing hands would impact local crime rates. Overall violent crime has seen steady decline from the 1970s to the present day. [1] That period has seen both Democratic and Republican administrations.

At the state level it's a different picture. 8 of the top 10, and 17 of the top 25 states for homicide rate are "red" states.[2] I think poverty and per-capita income rates in a state are a better predictor of crime rates than which party is specifically in power.

> Doesn't Florida have a much lower crime rate than California?

If you consume exclusively right-wing news media (or your favorite social media ragebait) you'd have that impression. Depending on your source they're either about equal (FBI stats) over the past 2 decades or Florida's murder rate is higher (CDC).[2] Either way it is not "much lower". For "much" lower I'd go to states like Massachusetts, Utah, or Hawaii which have murder rates closer to Western Europe.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Cri...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

[the_af]

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not. I'll answer assuming it's in earnest.

> Doesn't the crime rate go down when Republicans hold the power?

Does it? And what about police brutality? As a tourist, I'd rather go to a country where I'm less likely to be treated badly by the police.

> As a tourist, I rather visit Florida than California.

I think this in general has very little to do with crime rates. There are confounding factors. I'd rather not visit Florida regardless of crime rate.

[DeathArrow]

>Does it? And what about police brutality? As a tourist, I'd rather go to a country where I'm less likely to be treated badly by the police.

Why would the police treat you bad? I you don't commit any crime it's most likely you have nothing to do with the police.

[the_af]

> Why would the police treat you bad? I you don't commit any crime it's most likely you have nothing to do with the police.

It's not true, in general, that police won't treat you badly as long as you don't commit a crime. (As an aside, you also have to interact with police officers if you've been the victim of a crime, and again, there's no guarantee they'll treat you well in this situation either).

Same with border officers.

[the_af]

Plus it's false that the rest of the world doesn't get the Fox spin along with the CNN spin. We get both.

[phr4ts]

Really? In my country, CNN is Coca cola and Fox is Dr. Pepper

[neogodless]

I do not understand this analogy!

For me, Coke tastes like acid, and Dr. Pepper is sweet and spicy.

But... uh... that doesn't translate well when applied to sources for "news".

[the_af]

Like the sibling comment, I don't understand the analogy.

Also, I'd like to emphasize what someone said elsewhere in this comments section: the rest of the world doesn't see the US through the "CNN vs Fox" lens, that's almost exclusively an American phenomenon.

[csa]

> Like the sibling comment, I don't understand the analogy.

Ubiquitous (distribution) versus relatively limited (distribution).

[palata]

When the President of the United States threatens to invade ex-allies, I don't think that the threatened people give a shit about what the American people think about it. The fact that this guy is the President means that most Americans were not against it, right?

Of course most Americans don't want random people detained. But still, this is happening in the US.

And one thing that I believe is absolutely clear outside the US (whether it's true or not), is that most Americans are perfectly fine with "America First". Americans don't really care about the impact of Trump on the rest of the world; they care about the impact on themselves. Boycotting US products is a way to impact the American people, in the hope that the American people will eventually realise that what's best for them is also better for the others.

Something that I found interesting: when Canadians started booing the US anthem in NHL games, Americans started booing the Canadian anthem. Why? Canada didn't do anything to the US. Does it sound that most Americans are against what's happening, when they defend it? There is this kind of American patriotism where people seem to be like "Yes, my government, is bullying you, but I won't admit it and I will fight against you if you say it. But I'm a good guy, I don't want my government to bully you. I'll just support it because it's my country".

So yeah... pretty sure that it feels a lot different from the outside than from the inside.

[brookst]

> most Americans are perfectly fine with "America First".

I agree with everything you said, except this. Sub “many” and I’d go with it. But at least here, in blue state / more-sane land, there is widespread horror and outrage. We’re only at the “tens of thousands of people protesting” stage and I’ll be the first to say Americans need to do more, but I think it’s going to far to say most Americans don’t care about the impact elsewhere.

[palata]

I can't edit it, but my point was that this is the perception from the outside. And really I believe that the perception is that most Americans are fine with America First.

[b112]

but I think it’s going to far to say most Americans don’t care about the impact elsewhere.

Indeed.

Recently in Palo Alto for a few months. Saw lots of people protesting Tesla dealerships, lots of interesting and creative anti-Trump and Elon signs.

Not one word of Canada, of Greenland. Trumps stated goal of destroying Canada's economy to force annexation, or to outright just take Greenland seem not protest worthy.

Most people I spoke to seemed barely conscious of the issue.

To be fair, other matters may be higher pri in their minds, so if other events were not happening in parallel, it may be different.

But when 65 billion dollar defence hardware purchases are being dropped (they are), when future military purchases are not going to happen, when police cars, municipal vehicles are not going to be from US companies any more, when natural resources are going to be sold to the EU and China instead (sadly), the US is going to feel this for a very long time.

Because these are choices for decades. And it's not only Canada making them.

[pseudalopex]

The Hands Off protests had signs and chants saying hands off Canada and hands off Greenland. And I think it's understandable current events have higher priorities than possible events.

[DeathArrow]

Why should US citizens deeply care about Canada? It's not their country, they don't live there. Don't tell me Canadians lose sleep thinking about the well being of US.

[pseudalopex]

> Why should US citizens deeply care about Canada?

You don't have to deeply care about Canada to oppose annexation threats.

> Don't tell me Canadians lose sleep thinking about the well being of US.

A Canadian prime minister said Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.[1]

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau#1969

[palata]

Ask that to the US companies that were relying on Canada, I suppose.

A partnership goes both ways. Caring about a partner is caring about yourself.

[DeathArrow]

Yes a businessman might care about his trade partner. I was asking why should Joe a Average from US care about Joe Average from Canada.

[thaneross]

Because nationality is an accident of birth and being unconcerned with causing harm to others is sociopathic.

[ivan_gammel]

> There is this kind of American patriotism

Doesn‘t look much different from Russian, Israeli or Chinese patriotism. When outsiders criticize your tribe for doing bad things, many are standing in support of the tribe, not the values, and they are the most visible.

[palata]

Sure. But when the US threaten to invade an ally militarily, therefore destroying the status of "allies" for the foreseeable future and looking more like enemies, I suppose it's more shocking for those ex-allies than... say... when the US find a bullshit reason to invade Irak.

[DeathArrow]

Isn't it natural to support your people?

[ivan_gammel]

It is false association. Your government != your people. It is not natural to defend your government regardless of their actions.

[palata]

Probably, but if your dad starts beating a kid in the street, I hope you'll do something about it. Also for your dad's sake and for your family reputation.

[thesuitonym]

> The fact that this guy is the President means that most Americans were not against it, right?

I don't know if that's strictly accurate. United States citizens are some of the most heavily disenfranchised in the western world. Our oligarchs have spent decades making it more difficult to vote, especially for people of color, who overwhelmingly disapprove of the current administration. In some urban areas, it can take hours of standing in line to vote, and we don't get time off from work to do so. We've also had a decades long propaganda campaign telling us our vote doesn't matter.

More people didn't vote in the last election than voted for Trump. That's not to say they all would have voted against him, but it's not really the will of the American people.

[mvdtnz]

Stop making excuses for Americans. The American people have spoken.

[mikepurvis]

And yet today's polling still shows a 43% approval rating for this president and administration:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-approval-rating-now-...

As a Canadian who normally travels to the US 3-4 times a year, that tells me everything I need to know about what "most Americans" think.

[neogodless]

I don't blame your sentiment, but as part of the 57% that MASSIVELY DISAPPROVES of that nutjob, I don't like the "most" word being used here ;)

Try to remember our weird Electoral College, and that ultimately the vote came down to ~230,000 votes in swing states. (I'm in one of them, and I voted against the felon.)

Also hate that "mainstream news" like ABC and CBS covered Saturday's protests with the phrase "tens of thousand" while the protest organizations reported MILLIONS of protesters (about 1% of the population.)

[mikepurvis]

I'm not going to split hairs over what 43% means, but the point is that we are still in an ecosystem where "Trump supporter" is a viable political stance and very much has a seat at the table of discourse.

That state of affairs is utterly unacceptable, and signals that overwhelmingly the country doesn't get it yet. Look at how many Greenlanders like Trump— those are the numbers you need to be pulling at home. Once 80-90% of the US population agrees that he's not only a bad president but a threat to democracy and a criminal, then we can talk about feeling safe to travel there again.

[neogodless]

Oh I agree. I'm angry that the 77 million people voted for Trump. I'm angry that ~22% of the population got out there and voted and supported Trump. And I'm angry that so much of the eligible voting population did not vote. And I'm angry that he's tearing my country apart from the inside.

And zero judgement of anyone's wise decision to avoid or boycott our country, or arm themselves against us.

Also don't know what to think of polls, but anything above 0% approving of Trump is stupid. It's still not "most", which is my only contention. But whether or not it's most doesn't matter as long as all of our checks and balances have disintegrated, and there's one person in charge and making horrible decisions that hurt many Americans, threaten tourists, and are currently wreaking havoc on the stability of the global economy.

[thesuitonym]

I'm curious what your definition of "most" is, when a majority of people disapprove.

[scottLobster]

"Most" in this case means 49.81% of the vote, with 48.34% voting against. And that's with people largely expecting Trump to behave the same way as last time and a historically unpopular Democratic candidate. Whatever right wing cope you may have read, if the election were held today he'd probably lose.

Granted I don't blame foreigners for not risking ICE abuse. And Hockey fans can just be dumb sometimes. A lot of Americans have severe recency bias, the right is saying "the same people telling you this will be catastrophic were the same ones who locked down schools over a cold and told you inflation would be transitory". These people are going to have to touch the stove to learn it's hot, and then they'll admit that it's hot but deny that it's burning them, and then enough at the margins will start to defect such that they start losing elections, leaving a hard-core to endlessly complain about how if they'd only held on until 3rd degree burns the stove would have turned itself off.

[palata]

> Whatever right wing cope you may have read

I haven't. I am just telling how I believe it is perceived from outside the US. It seems like Americans here find it a bit excessive for tourists to choose not to come to the US "just because of a mistake at the border". I'm trying to say that from the outside, the US is behaving at least like a big bully, sometimes like an enemy. You don't go on vacation in a country that threatens to attack you militarily.

[badgersnake]

There’s no reason to lock tourists up. If you don’t want them put them on the first flight back. Locking people up is expensive and if they’re willing to leave anyway, totally pointless.

You would think that a country with a whole department devoted to government efficiency could work that out.

[ta1243]

10 nights in an ICE jail is very lucrative to the company that runs that jail. Can be funded by the taxes the poorest in America pay.

[exe34]

I'm surprised they don't require the victim or their family to pay to have them released. Make Piracy/Kidnapping Great Again.

[rqtwteye]

There are places where you get charged something like $60 for a day in prison.

[johnnyanmac]

damn, 1800 a month? What am I doing paying rent? /s

[ornornor]

Aren’t a lot of jails private and for profit? Just bill the tourist for the stay and detain until they pay in full (accruing even more debt in the meantime). It makes perfect business sense which is all that seems to matter to the US nowadays.

[potato3732842]

>Aren’t a lot of jails private and for profit?

No, it's a small-ish minority of them. Most are government owned and run.

That said, there's a huge incentive to piss away money holding people so you can justify your budget and use poor conditions to justify increases in budget. And on top of that the contractors that supply government jails are pretty evil too.

So it's really a distinction without a difference at the end of the day, it's all a pretty rotten system.

[johnnyanmac]

ICE sure isn't. That is tax payer money at work, sadly.

But yes, there are incentives that do reward cells and even individuals for number of imprisonments. And no, they do not check nor punish "administrative errors".

[sillywalk]

> ICE sure isn't. That is tax payer money at work, sadly.

Taxpayers are paying the private companies, but they're very much for profit.

About that:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/01/29/billi...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/private-prison-...

https://afsc.org/newsroom/ice-signs-massive-contract-profit-...

[account42]

There's no reason to lock criminals up. If you don't want them doing crimes send them home. Locking people up is expensive and if they are willing to stop being bad, totally pointless.

Or maybe in both cases the point is deterrence.

[johnnyanmac]

>There’s no reason to lock tourists up.

As has been a rising sentiment as of late: "The cruelty is the point"

You're right that it isn't efficient in any sense. But the kinds of people who go into and are chosen for "law enforcement" tend to be the very people that should never be given a weapon. It's just a large scale Stanford Experiment in that regard.

[shmel]

Do their opinions matter at all? If you do get locked up, will you find this information helpful?

[ajross]

> ~half the country doesn't think ICE should be locking up tourists without good reason and the other ~half doesn't think ICE should be locking up anyone

That is not remotely a good faith representation of the controversy.

[pearlsontheroad]

I've lived my entire adult life in the USA (international student -> non-immigrant temp worker -> resident -> citizen). People are delusional if they think the USA is split in half about immigration. The anti-immigrant sentiment among whites, blacks and some naturalized immigrants (like Cubans in FL) is truly the only thing that crosses political boundaries here.

[shadowgovt]

For everyone outside the US, the fact that half the country doesn't think ICE should be locking up tourists without good reason is irrelevant since that half isn't barricading detention centers and tearing prison gates open with their cars.

... not that these things would make it safer to travel to the US. In the short run.

The status quo of power is that it is less safe to be a foreigner in the US than it has been in a long time. Possibly at any point in time the US wasn't actively at war with another nation.

[pjmlp]

MSNBC, CNN, folks on instagram and YouTube, currently there is still quite a few sources free of dictorship style media.

Still wishing citzens manage to get control of the country back, before the administration adopts even stronger control mechanisms.

[jajko]

Nobody watches or cares about some CNN, that stuff, or Fox and your bipolar political stuff US very much internal US matter. We care about outwardish things, trump mood swings and so on.

[account42]

Then maybe Europeans should consume more alternative media instead of just state propaganda.

[Juliate]

More alternative like... Fox News which is officially (and self endorsed) an _entertainment_ channel?

As opposed to... a news organisation/channel?

[coliveira]

Feelings of Americans don't matter much in this equation. Most are delusional about what is happening in one way or another. People from other countries will not get even close to the US while there is a chance they will be jailed and sent to a lawless detention center for looking different.

[DeathArrow]

>People from other countries will not get even close to the US while there is a chance they will be jailed and sent to a lawless detention center for looking different.

I am from Europe. I don't think I look different than an American.

[ulfw]

What are you trying to argue though? I am a bit at a loss to follow. Be so kind and explain.

You want foreign readers to read news about how half of the US wants you, the foreign tourist, be locked up in a jail cell? The news is already out there. Everyone assumes it's so wanted, because well... it does actually happen

[potato3732842]

I'm not arguing anything. I'm agreeing. Why do I have to be arguing?

"ICE goes crazy looking for crimes, hapless tourists caught up in the boondoggle"

and

"ICE detaining tourists for no good reason"

Are both 100% true ways to headline the same events. Which framing is Europe getting?

This is something to watch out for on all issues, not just immigration/foreign affairs.

[bondarchuk]

But what does it matter? "Hapless tourists caught up in the boondoggle" is just as bad (and maybe worse) from the POV of said tourists.

If you're worried, though, that "ICE goes crazy" is an underrepresented perspective in the rest of the world, I can reassure you on that count...

[ulfw]

As a potential tourist to the US of A I could not possibly care less if I am detained due to a boondoggle or for no good reason. Both make me not want to ever go there again.

So ...?

[footy]

both framings are equally bad for the potential tourist.

[soco]

Let's face it, this is the "regular" newsflash we are getting everywhere: one part world catastrophes and one part local news. Or almost. And as the US is a big player in the world, or used to be at least, most eyes are on your catastrophes.

[sofixa]

> Americans generally don't understand the degree to which the rest of the world gets the CNN 5min recap of what's going on in the US, and it's very much the CNN recap and not the Fox one.

No, Americans generally don't understand that the rest of the world, and the rest of the world's news, genuinely don't see things in this dual "us vs them", "CNN vs Fox", "Democrats vs Republicans" lens.

When Trump does shit, media from around the world say what he did and why it's bad.

When Biden or Obama before him did shit, media from around the world say what he did and why it's bad.

Fox are genuinely deranged hypocrites who themselves claimed in court that nobody sane would believe them. Very few of the world's media reflect their point of views, because they are absurd. CNN is all over the place, so sometimes their point of view matches with e.g. BBC or Guardian or Süddeutsche Zeitung, sometimes it doesn't.

[Fauntleroy]

Suggesting that giving the rest of the world the "fox news viewpoint" would somehow improve foreigner's views or knowledge of America is spurious at best, and delusional at worst.