The USA, for being appealing enough to make Linus want to (first) move here and (now) take on citizenship, instead of just telnetting from Finland - or anywhere else on the planet he might have liked better.
Or being so inflexible with regard to immigration that the only way to work there without facing immediate deportation if you change jobs is to become a citizen.
I can live and work permanently in 27 countries (including Finland) without having to change nationality.
I'm pretty sure it's 30. I have an Icelandic citizenship (Iceland is one of the 30 in the EEA), and I'm working freely in one of the 27 EU countries currently.
All I had to do after I moves was to register with the local city authorities to indicate that I had moved there, and provide documentation proving that I had a job so that they knew they didn't have to put me on social security.
One might also make the counterpoint that while we can move between 30 states in the EEA US citizens can move between 50 states in their union, and their superstate comprises almost twice the surface area of the EU.
There are some differences, a US friend of mine did law in the UK which meant she could work anywhere from Finland to Greece. But when she passed the New York bar she couldn't work in New Jersey.
No. She could 'work in law' in the same way in New Jersey as she could in Greece - as a 'jurist' or 'company lawyer', but not initiate court proceeding. Being admitted to the bar in one Member State does not automatically mean admittance to the bar in another Member State, nor does it even mean that one is eligible to just take the bar exam in that other Member State (although this last part is under proceedings before the European Court for restricting movement of persons within the Union.
In contrast, one doesn't even need a law school degree to be able to take the bar exam in any US state. (admittedly it's almost impossible to pass without one).
> one doesn't even need a law school degree to be able to
take the bar exam in any US state
Not quite: In a number of US states, a prerequisite to taking the bar exam is either graduation from an ABA-accredited law school, or a foreign law degree with additional training in a U.S. school. See Chart III at http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Comp_Gui... and the supplemental remarks afterwards, also Chart X.
Not as a qualified lawyer she couldn't - even within the UK there are different legal systems that require you to qualify separately. There is a lot more to being a lawyer/solicitor than getting a law degree. (e.g. Here in Scotland it is a further post graduate qualification plus two years training in a law firm before you qualify).
No but it's still a hassle not being a citizen - especially if you travel a lot.
By contrast Canadian permanent residents are treated exactly the same as citizens - except you can't vote in federal elections. Although with the choices on offer that's probably a blessing !
That's not the case with my family, at least. My mom was a green-card holder for almost 40 years until she finally got her citizenship a few years ago, and there was never any real hassle. She eventually got her citizenship mostly to simplify retirement planning (if she and my dad, who's a U.S.-born citizen, had different citizenships, apparently things get complicated with things like pensions and survivorship). I guess that's a kind of hassle, but a very cerebral one; she didn't get hassled at customs or anything, at least any more than I do. Probably being a middle-aged woman with an American family made her fit a low-risk profile anyway, but becoming a citizen has basically made no difference for her on that side of things.
Never had a green card - but going in and out of the USA on a european country passport with an H1-B was always a hassle.
Especially one return from a conference where the minimum-wage-moron on passport control didn't understand the concept of visas (to be fair he had a limited understanding of the concept of passports or even other countries) and allowed me in for 24 hours which I spent queuing at LA's delightful immigration office downtown.
Still, well done to him for protecting the USA from another foreign Caltech physics prof.
Ah yeah, I could imagine that. Foreign passport + visa puts you in the "foreigner" line, even if it's a long-term visa, which is usually slower and typically has more suspicious / less helpful staff. Green card holders get to go through the "U.S. Citizens & Permanent Residents" line, which is a bit friendlier and faster.
(Not that I disagree that the whole setup is ridiculous and probably doesn't meaningfully add to security.)
To be fair, that's like saying I can live in and work permanently in 50 states and a handful of territories, protectorates, and possessions without having to change nationality.
The funny thing is that in practice US must be the most flexible developed country regarding immigration.
There are more than 12 millions illegal immigrants in US. Illegal immigrants owns houses, driver cars and go to college. I find it amazing. In Japan, if you're an illegal immigrant you're pretty much relegated to the underworld.
He is a EU Citizen. That’s not that much better than the freedom to work or live wherever you want within the US. It only sounds so impressive because those 27 nations are all substantially smaller than the US. It’s nonetheless one of those achievements of European integration I most certainly don’t want to give up.
The US (mostly) all speaks the same language and has a much more similar set of laws and a largely homogeneous society.
By comparison e.g. Spain and Germany and almost any two countries in the EU you care to name speak different languages, are very different culturally, and have different customs.
Thats the big advantage - imagine having a choice of bread or cheese that actually tastes different!
Apart from a few of the more 'third world' european countries (like France) if you speak english and work in high tech it's not a big problem to work in Scandanavia/Germany/Netherlands.
The main difficulty is they drive on the wrong side of the road - but as consolation the coffee and women are much better.
It was 'irony' - France is notorious for obeying only those EU laws which benefit it. In particular there are lots of unofficial barriers to other EU individuals/companies working in France - even though they are legally allowed to. Is't common for various levels of government to delay required licencing for years.
It's an issue even with international collaborations - the European Space agency is in the Netherlands and CERN is officially HQed in Switzerland - there was a lot of concern over ITER before it was built in France, the French 'promised' to play nicely with people working there.
Wow, who put the more money initially in ESA and ITER? It's France, beside one of the 4 fields medal this year was a Vietnamese that had worked in France many years (then was recently naturalized) it's maybe not too bad to work in France when you're a foreigner. And frankly I've traveled in almost all EU and the two countries with the more immigration IMO are France and UK. "France is notorious for obeying only those EU laws which benefit it" a great thing of EU it's when one of its member does not respect the laws and treaties there are sanctions so the law is the same for every EU nations. Stop spreading FUD, please.
They had the last millennia to homogenize and it didn’t happen. The United States really are very much unlike Europe. That’s not to say it won’t happen but I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion.
Yeah, but it's been what, 60 years since they stopped trying to invade each other? I don't think it's a foregone conclusion either, but I think it's definitely the trend the EU is on.
A lot of the countries in Europe have strong independent governments that were established long before the USA existed. European countries have large complex systems of law that have taken thousands of years to develop and grow. We also have hundreds of millions of people. What was the original population of the USA?
How difficult would it be to wipe and rewrite the constitution of the USA today? Imagine something 100 times more difficult than that, and that is how difficult it would be to create anything resembling the USA in Europe.
You could have given the same arguments 50 years ago to say Europe would never have a successful political union, continent-wide military alliance, or currency, and today they have all three.
Incidentally, I don't know about "a lot". Many European countries formed as unions of smaller states not that much longer ago than the colonization of America--the UK, Spain, Italy, and Germany all formed this way, Germany after the United States and the UK only a couple decades before. And nearly every country on the continent of Europe has already had its constitution rewritten within the past century.
> That’s not that much better than the freedom to work or life wherever you want within the US. It only sounds so impressive because those 27 nations are all substantially smaller than the US.
As a US citizen, it's a very appealing idea. While we do indeed have 50 different places I can live and work without applying for new/temporary status, the cultural, and historic nature of the places is certainly not as diverse as in Europe.
I'm not sure why we're both getting downvoted for this. It was a valid question, and a valid response. Thanks for the answer. I did not realize the EU had this privilege.
I suspect in my case it is because I said "European country" rather than "European Union country." Not all European countries are in the EU. The Wikipedia article on the EU has all sorts of interesting information:
Sure--but, if that's the case, you'd think someone would reply and correct you, instead of just blatantly down voting an otherwise "get the point across answer", and forcing you to speculate. :)
good for you, too bad the same flexibility does not apply to non-EU/EEA citizens like me who work legally in one of those countries but moving between them is nonetheless quite PIA.
You think he obtained American citizenship because he likes the USA more than any other country, including his home one?
You don't know his motives. Maybe he just did it because it's more convenient for him to currently work there, and constantly having to organise visas was a pain in the arse?
For all we know, he's the first in a series of genetically-engineered Finnish super-programmers, part of a growing sleeper cell of infiltrators hell(sinki)-bent on Finlandizing the USA via secret trapdoors in their code, all waiting for the flip of a single bit to instantly erase all memory of the Constitution and replace it with a Scandinavian welfare-state, then killing our leaders and converting us all to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland -- their state religion!
Or maybe he just likes living with his family in the Pacific Northwest. It's hard to tell, for all we know!
And to bring it all back around: that an exceptional person who could easily choose to live in comfort in dozens of countries, chooses to live in the USA, is a legitimate source of pride for the locals.
The number one product of a legal jurisdiction is providing a desirable place to live. The political system is designed to make citizens feel like the local jurisdiction is 'their' product. When your target market embraces your product, pride is natural and healthy.
An immigrant doesn't have to 'love' the USA more than the mother country; indeed the freedom to still love the ancestral land but build cool stuff here is one of the USA's greatest hacks. (Brain drain FTW!) The immigrant's children will 'love' their new land; that's more like a chick imprinting than any rational choice.
It must be a cultural thing then. I can't personally imagine ever being proud of someone moving to the UK (where I live). I understand that Americans place a much higher value on patriotism than most of the developed World though.
It's bigger than that though. The whole concept of feeling proud about something to which you had no input seems very strange to me.
Well, the animating idea of modern democracies is that we do have input into governance. (Whether that's a foundational truism or a useful myth is a separate issue -- people are supposed to believe they have input, and most do believe that.) At least some of the difference between the governance of Portland versus Houston, or California versus Texas, or the USA versus the UK or Finland, is due to different preferences of the governed.
And, even ignoring formal political 'input' (or the simulacrum of same), we all make the culture and economy as neighbors and workers. When a smart, productive, and freedom-loving person with many options chooses to live closer to me, under the same standing rules, it's a positive indicator about my desirability as a neighbor and an external validator of choices I've made previously. Hence, 'pride'.
That depends. I assume you are the most google'able Mike from Bath Spa. I stayed in UK to finish Bath Uni, so lecturers from there could probably feel proud of creating an environment where I felt welcome enough to stay for a longer time. It was their input into my environment and education and it did make a difference, because I still live in Bath.
Then again, this would be a personal situation and not "I feel proud, because some known guy wants to live in my country".
It's gotta be really, really "convenient" to be worth the hassle of arranging visas over the last 14 years (since he started working at Transmeta in California in 1996). Citizenship might be less paperwork, but there are other downsides he's taking on as a citizen.
