I once flew to the US for a week on ESTA to attend a few meetings (pre-COVID), but I mostly just did my regular developer work in the US office. By today’s standards, would I have been shackled for that?
Even team members visiting from Canada were told very explicitly to not say they're coming to the US to "work" but rather for a business trip. But practically of course everyone do some amount of actual work. From checking their email / slack to doing some white boarding designs etc. If those aren't even allowed, then I don't see how any in person team meetings can be conducted.
Right but the purpose of the trip was to attend the business meeting and the person on the trip was also conducting their regular duties as a developer as well.
Attending meetings and conferences are rarely the main duties of an employee but they are the main purpose of trips.
Similarly to how, if you go to Mexico on a Tourist Visa but answer a critical work phone call you would not be breaching the terms of your visa as the purpose of your trip is still vacation. However if you rent a house for 5 months and spend most of that time doing developer work, I think that the authorities there might be a little upset.
From what I've read it's still an ESTA violation. When I went to the CES a few years ago my goal was clearly work, not vacation, and I did work from my hotel. I should have been arrested and put in chains, then publicly shamed for that I guess, even though my employer asked me to.
Was only planning a single family trip in the US in the next few years anyway, and Trump nicely gave me an argument to visit the Carribbean instead (because yes, I intend to work a few days from my vacation,I have to when I take more than a month off).
Is it "work" if it's done on behalf of the foreign company? It doesn't interact with anything in the US; people or taxes, so it has no impact on the US labor market or taxes.
Not that I agree but Governments take a very nuanced view on what they consider impact. Remember, growing your own corn for feed outside of the government quota was considered as having an impact on "Interstate Commerce".
In a hypothetical; If you were employed by an Canadian company, doing internal tech support and then you then move to Belize because you hate the cold. No interaction with anything in Belize.
The Belize government might say, "Not so, you moved here and are taking advantage of our infrastructure, societal governance, etc. but are not helping pay for it." Furthermore, natives of Belize may be upset that because you have a higher income than the native population you are affecting the cost of goods(not one person individually but if 1000 people with high income show up and are all looking to rent houses, the rental rates would rise both due to demand and the ability to pay.)
If we think about things especially from the second point of view, it would be very bad for a country to allow unlimited rich foreigners to come into their country and live there; Even if they are contributing by purchasing local goods and services, they are in competition with local workers as well; They might even stunt the economy if it becomes reliant on them and then they all move out suddenly; and the foreigners would also start shaping the culture of the country as well, which could be neocolonialism depending on your view of things.
EDIT to add: I like the idea of being able to live wherever I want to but it is also important to consider the views of those who are in those countries as well. I think that some(most?) people from Europe and North America don't have a strong national identity and don't see any value in such things. But there are people in other countries that do take a lot of pride in where they are from and how long their family has lived there. Some of this pride is what builds the culture and the local charm that those without enjoy but it becomes a sort of "We are destroying the thing we love by trying to experience it" situation.