Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[nw1]

Yugoslavia ceased to be in 1992.

The original Yugoslavia, yes, but apparently the name was still used for Serbia and Montenegro until 2003.

 

[martin butler]

Yugoslavia ceased to be in 1992.

The problem isnt in how Iran would react, we know how they would, radicalised people who have a very good reason to hate the west, it would be cells of terrorists, who target soft targets in every western city, Everyone regardless of if you supported Trump will be in their eyes a target, Trump will be long since gone, but the threat will still be there, If the Western world had any sense, they would cut all ties with the US, the moment bombs start to fall on Iran.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Yugoslavia ceased to be in 1992.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, yes.

The state that was then constituted as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed until 2003, when it was renamed Serbia and Montenegro. This state wasn't legally recognised as a successor state to the SFRY internationally, but it was still known as Yugoslavia in short.

At the time of the 1999 Kosovo War, Milosevic was President of Yugoslavia, not Serbia, as he was constitutionally banned from running again in 1997. In practice, he was always the most powerful person, but as President of Serbia, he was theoretically lower in importance than the federal President and Prime Minister.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2026 ==

The original Yugoslavia, yes, but apparently the name was still used for Serbia and Montenegro until 2003.

Yes, it was the official name of the country until 2003. Serbia and Montenegro were just constituent states of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nothing more, although Montenegro often simply ignored Serbia on many issues.

 

[Annetts key]

The problem isnt in how Iran would react, we know how they would, radicalised people who have a very good reason to hate the west, it would be cells of terrorists, who target soft targets in every western city, Everyone regardless of if you supported Trump will be in their eyes a target, Trump will be long since gone, but the threat will still be there, If the Western world had any sense, they would cut all ties with the US, the moment bombs start to fall on Iran.

If everyone remembers, there was an agreement between many western countries and Iran to monitor their nuclear programme. But some reckless president came into power and wreaked that by taking his country out of that.

As much as we hate the leadership of that country, the normal process is to try dialogue and diplomatic ways first. But Trump doesn't understand or like that method. For a president that promised to end wars, starting new conflicts is a funny way to go if he really did want the Nobel peace prize...

But then again, he is not fit to be in such a position of power. He should be restricted to cheating, sorry, playing at golf, not in government.

 

[najaB]

If everyone remembers, there was an agreement between many western countries and Iran to monitor their nuclear programme. But some reckless president came into power and wreaked that by taking his country out of that.

That damned Obama! It's always his fault.

#MAGALogic

 

[Annetts key]

#MAGALogic

Logic requests that it not be associated with those MAGA people. It doesn't want any part of their reputation. Not even fuzzy logic wants to be associated with them

 

[SargeNpton]

Journalts now being arrested for covering a demonstration at a church...

Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed Fort and Lemon’s arrests on social media.

“At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota,”.

 

[styles]

Journalts now being arrested for covering a demonstration at a church...

Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed Fort and Lemon’s arrests on social media.

“At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota,”.

Not even no-name local journos. Don Lemon is a pretty big-hitter to be arresting.

 

[martin butler]

And when it comes out that there is no legal case for the arrests, Bondi will be facing a lawsuit that will end her career, assuming she has one post this, she will facing several criminal charges once trump and Maga are history, What's the odds her plea will be "I was only following orders"

 

[nw1]

Journalts now being arrested for covering a demonstration at a church...

Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed Fort and Lemon’s arrests on social media.

“At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota,”.

This proves, I think, that the US is now effectively run as a tyranny with no freedom of speech for some. First Amendment? Only if you are right-wing or far-right, it appears.

Arresting people because they are perceived as interfering with the operations of a church reminds me of Putin's Russia. Anyone remember the Pussy Riot scandal? The moment it became clear that Putin was a nasty, dangerous authoritarian.

It's funny that for a country that sometimes prides itself as being "libertarian", the Federal US is perhaps the worst example of controlling, authoritarian statism in the entire Western world. It's always been like that to a degree but now it really is ratcheting up that aspect several orders of magnitude.

The only libertarian aspect of the US Right is concerning tax avoidance, I suspect.

Time for people to cancel any planned US holidays this summer, I feel. The Federal US needs to be shown that the rest of the world does not approve of its actions. For one thing, I would consider it dangerous for anyone who is at all critical of the regime to visit there right now, as there is a risk that some authoritarian border guard might start sniffing through your personal devices to check you're "on-message", and then throw you in a cell if you've robustly criticised ICE or the Federal apparatus.

 

[Cdd89]

Time for people to cancel any planned US holidays this summer, I feel. The Federal US needs to be shown that the rest of the world does not approve of its actions.

Firstly, the US federally does not give a crap about tourism, if they did they wouldn't have stayed shut for spurious Covid reasons for almost two years.

Secondly, refusing to visit a place because you don't like the government harms the people and businesses you wish to support, not the government. If you were going to boycott travel because you don't agree with how the country behaves, there are many better candidates than the US in the list. It's just not how I approach global travel.

Obviously it's a personal decision, but I've been taking advantage of the low fares and have a lot of visits planned this year (done 2 already!). I certainly won't be pressured into cancelling them!

would consider it dangerous for anyone who is at all critical of the regime to visit there right now, as there is a risk that some authoritarian border guard might start sniffing through your personal devices to check you're "on-message", and then throw you in a cell if you've robustly criticised ICE or the Federal apparatus.

That would be wrong. However, what wouldn't be wrong is determining that a visitor is overly invested in US politics in general. No country has to admit a visitor, and in these febrile times someone with incredibly strong views, who might partake in disorder, is a risk.

 

[Purple Train]

Journalts now being arrested for covering a demonstration at a church...

Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed Fort and Lemon’s arrests on social media.

“At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota,”.

I love how Bondi and others have been parroting lines like "Jesus would never disrupt a church event in protest against the church leaders".

Who's going to tell them about the money-lenders...?

 

[nw1]

Firstly, the US federally does not give a crap about tourism, if they did they wouldn't have stayed shut for spurious Covid reasons for almost two years.

Secondly, refusing to visit a place because you don't like the government harms the people and businesses you wish to support, not the government. If you were going to boycott travel because you don't agree with how the country behaves, there are many better candidates than the US in the list. It's just not how I approach global travel.

Except that if there's less tourism, people might start pressuring the government to behave itself.

I have a list of several countries that are on my personal no-go list and not just the obvious ones.

 

[Cdd89]

Except that if there's less tourism, people might start pressuring the government to behave itself.

There was zero tourism from the UK/Europe throughout 2021, despite the Covid risk being as low as it was going to get near the start of that year once the US vulnerable population was vaccinated.

If US businesses couldn't pressure the government to reopen earlier in that scenario (which it bears repeating was zero tourism!), then they definitely won't pressure the government in response to a slight (or even fairly big) drop in this scenario, except to the extent they are pressuring the government already.

 

[najaB]

No country has to admit a visitor, and in these febrile times someone with incredibly strong views, who might partake in disorder, is a risk.

It is true that all countries have the absolute right to deny entry to those who might pose a risk, however I will also be avoiding the USA for the time being for a couple of reasons.

Firstly because, as we have seen, the current government's definition of 'risk' is incredibly loose. To the extent that citizens exercising constitutionally protected rights such as freedom of assembly, expression, and religion have been defined by the administration as threats and domestic terrorists - see NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-7:

Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.

Link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...c-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/

If citizens can be designated as domestic terrorists for such simple things as being atheist or acknowledging that transgender people exist and deserve equal treatment under the law, then who is to say what views I might hold which might be enough to get me on a list?

Secondly, because unlike most other countries where people who are denied normal entry are either held at the airport or allowed limited entry* the USA operates ICE detention facilities which are run, in many cases, for profit and there is a documented history of people being sent to these facilities and then getting lost in the system for days, weeks or months.

What we are witnessing in states like Texas, Florida, and across the country is the emergence of a new model of immigration detention. Some state-run facilities, like “Alligator Alcatraz,” operate more like extrajudicial sites than traditional detention centers. They function with little public visibility, minimal accountability, and practices that fall far short of any basic standard of humane treatment, making what was already a terrible system even worse.

Across these cases, the failures are consistent. People disappear from public records for days or weeks. Internal transfers occur quietly across state lines. Agencies refuse to disclose any basic information, and medical care and phone access vary drastically between facilities.

These past few months have made one truth painfully clear: People are not going missing in the detention system. They are being disappeared by it.

Link: https://afsc.org/news/how-ices-detention-system-makes-people-untraceable

These two factors - that what constitutes unsuitability for entry is nebulous at best, and that people get stuck in the system - provide enough reason for me not to want to visit.

*I've seen this in the UK where some Mexican friends were denied entry and, because the next flight they could afford wasn't for a few days, they were initially detained overnight in a facility at/near the airport and then after they'd booked the return flight they were given limited entry: their passports were retained and they had to report to the police every evening but were otherwise free to meet with the people they had intended to stay with.

 

[nw1]

That would be wrong. However, what wouldn't be wrong is determining that a visitor is overly invested in US politics in general. No country has to admit a visitor, and in these febrile times someone with incredibly strong views, who might partake in disorder, is a risk.

You honestly believe it's OK to prevent someone entering the US who is "overly interested in US politics"?

I can see why Trump et al might want to do that, but it doesn't make it (morally) right.

I don't go along with the principle of "no country has to admit a visitor". I would argue the opposite from a moral standpoint: a civilised Western country needs to provide a good reason not to admit a visitor.

 

[Cdd89]

You honestly believe it's OK to prevent someone entering the US who is "overly interested in US politics"?

Yes, and I'd apply that to any country. The key word being "overly"; interested in it beyond any implications to one's own country.

If someone arrived in the UK, and had a phone full of strong-minded (but not illegal) alt-right content targeted toward the UK despite not being connected to the UK, plans to meet like-minded friends, and posted every day on social media about Sadiq Khan despite having no connections to London, I would have no problem with them being refused admission (with certain exceptions such as being on a special journalism Visa). That has nothing to do with politics, it's just the profile of someone not visiting purely for tourism reasons. It's a risk countries have to accept from citizens, but it's not one they have accept from visitors.

I don't go along with the principle of "no country has to admit a visitor". I would argue the opposite from a moral standpoint: a civilised Western country needs to provide a good reason not to admit a visitor.

I do actually somewhat agree with this, and think this would be a better model for the world - but it's not the world we live in. Restricting visitors is a politically very easy thing to do, and as 2021 (and 2022-2023 in some cases!) demonstrated, a good reason is not needed.

 

[najaB]

I don't go along with the principle of "no country has to admit a visitor". I would argue the opposite from a moral standpoint: a civilised Western country needs to provide a good reason not to admit a visitor.

I don't have a problem with countries being free to deny entry - the ability to visit another country is a privilege rather than a right - but equally you are correct that countries generally benefit from having more accommodating border policies that encourage interaction and sharing of culture between their peoples.

If someone arrived in the UK, and had a phone full of strong-minded (but not illegal) alt-right content targeted toward the UK despite not being connected to the UK, plans to meet like-minded friends, and posted every day on social media about Sadiq Khan despite having no connections to London, I would have no problem with them being refused admission (with certain exceptions such as being on a special journalism Visa).

I would. That is denying someone entry based on nothing more than the views that they hold and express, and the people they are friends with. Freedom of expression has to apply to everyone or it doesn't mean anything for anyone.

 

[Cdd89]

These two factors - that what constitutes unsuitability for entry is nebulous at best, and that people get stuck in the system - provide enough reason for me not to want to visit.

You make very good points. I must admit it is something that concerns me, although I still view the US as a low risk country - these stories are notable precisely because the US was formerly so adherent to process and this is becoming less applicable; plenty of other countries I bidit have never had due process in the first place. I would also have confidence it would eventually resolve itself eventually with a deportation, as compared to somewhere like Singapore or Thailand where you can end up imprisoned or sentenced to death because someone put illegal drugs in your bag.

Freedom of expression has to apply to everyone or it doesn't mean anything for anyone.

That's a fair take! I think I disagree, since lots of other rights are restricted to citizens, and using information as a one-time picture to determine admissibility is different from rounding someone up on the street because of what they said, but I understand where you're coming from.

 

[najaB]

I think I disagree, since lots of other rights are restricted to citizens, and using information as a one-time picture to determine admissibility is different from rounding someone up on the street because of what they said, but I understand where you're coming from.

I have no issue with governments using social media postings, etc as one factor in the decision to deny entry. Using your example above:

If someone arrived in the UK, and had a phone full of strong-minded (but not illegal) alt-right content targeted toward the UK despite not being connected to the UK, plans to meet like-minded friends, and posted every day on social media about Sadiq Khan despite having no connections to London...

If you were to add "and previous arrests/prosecutions for anti-government activities" then I'd support denying them entry.

 

[The exile]

I would. That is denying someone entry based on nothing more than the views that they hold and express, and the people they are friends with. Freedom of expression has to apply to everyone or it doesn't mean anything for anyone.

If we refuse to admit Mr Smith from Canada because of the views about the UK that they have expressed (and can prove that they have expressed those views) - we are not denying them freedom of expression - just making it clear that that freedom comes with responsibilities. Other than in very specific circumstances (primarily those laid down by the conventions on asylum),no one has (nor should have) an automatic right to enter any country other their own. That said - "merely" criticising the regime / head of state should not be grounds for such exclusion - but making it clear that one has no respect for the rule of law in that country (for example) might well [in my eyes].

The right to Freedom of Expression is hedged around with quite a lot of qualifications:

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." (Article 10. Para 2, Humans Rights Act 1998)

 

[najaB]

If we refuse to admit Mr Smith from Canada because of the views about the UK that they have expressed (and can prove that they have expressed those views) - we are not denying them freedom of expression - just making it clear that that freedom comes with responsibilities. Other than in very specific circumstances (primarily those laid down by the conventions on asylum),no one has (nor should have) an automatic right to enter any country other their own. That said - "merely" criticising the regime / head of state should not be grounds for such exclusion - but making it clear that one has no respect for the rule of law in that country (for example) might well [in my eyes].

I disagree. If they haven't incited violence, advocated for the overthrow of the government, stated an intent to participate in illegal actions, or similar then denying them entry simply because we don't like what they've said sets a very bad precedent.

 

[dgl]

Naturally there is a massive difference between "I want to kill the president of the USA" and "I hate Donad Trump and want him removed from office and locked up".
It would seem some people in America see simply hating Trump as being a reason for not being allowed entry to the country.
Personally I think liking Trump is more a reason to to be denied entry to a country!

 

[Cdd89]

The other thing is that our discussion about being rejected explicitly for political views is somewhat theoretical. I think the way it would actually play out is like this:

• Someone has a borderline case for admissibility (most cases are borderline when you think about it, since entering the US is an inversion of "innocent until proven guilty"; you have to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent, the onus to persuade/evidence that this is not the case this is on the visitor).
• The officer looks through your devices, and has wide personal discretion on whether or not to admit you.
• The officer discovers strong political opinions they dislike, and this biases the officer (consciously or subconsciously) to reject your case.

I think it's likely that this is how the infamous Vance Meme incident played out, where the tourist believed they were rejected for the meme, but CBP say they were rejected for other factors. Their case was probably borderline, but the meme rubbed the officer up the wrong way.

This is more of a social problem than a matter of strict procedure; it's obviously in one's interest for the person assessing your case not to dislike you, and in my case I ensure my social media / phone is as apolitical as possible.

 

[nw1]

I don't have a problem with countries being free to deny entry - the ability to visit another country is a privilege rather than a right - but equally you are correct that countries generally benefit from having more accommodating border policies that encourage interaction and sharing of culture between their peoples.

But doesn't that mean border guards with an "attitude" could deny entry for the most arbitrary of reasons? Anything from sexuality, gender identity, political views, race, or nationality to something as arbitrary as the way you look, your accent, or the colour of your hair? Presumably if foreigners do indeed have no rights, the border guards of any country have an absolute right to deny entry to foreigners for any of these reasons (rather like a pub landlord can bar people for no particular reason), and the foreigner has no recourse to challenge the decision (which seems to me very wrong)?

I would always say the default position should be that you should have the right to travel anywhere you like within "friendly" countries for short-term stays, unless there are good reasons (e.g. criminal activity or threats of criminal activity, national security) to revoke that right - and that countries who wish to attract tourists should sign up to an international "visitors' rights" charters to enshrine these rights in international law.

It also means that there is no comeback, presumably, if border guards mis-interpret restrictions on length of stay; a tourist denied entry, or told to leave prematurely, based on a misunderstanding of the rules by border guards presumably has no comeback in this kind of situation. (I've been in this situation myself, and, due to believing I had no recourse, had to accept what the border guards told me on required departure date even though multiple websites, including the UK Government's, told me they were wrong. Hence, this is rather a sore point personally).

But I suppose that's just me, I'm very much an open borders person and I have similar views on countryside access which I see as rather analogous. I believe the default position ought to be that you should be able to walk where you like, unless there are good reasons not to do so (e.g. crops, disturbing livestock or wildlife, infringing on landowners' privacy by getting too close to their home).

If someone arrived in the UK, and had a phone full of strong-minded (but not illegal) alt-right content targeted toward the UK despite not being connected to the UK, plans to meet like-minded friends, and posted every day on social media about Sadiq Khan despite having no connections to London, I would have no problem with them being refused admission (with certain exceptions such as being on a special journalism Visa). That has nothing to do with politics, it's just the profile of someone not visiting purely for tourism reasons. It's a risk countries have to accept from citizens, but it's not one they have accept from visitors.

If they had a phone full of anti-Starmer, anti-Labour, anti-Khan and anti-woke rants, and that was the end of the matter, then yes, I'd have no problem them being here. They would not be a very nice person (to put it mildly) but that is not a reason to put travel restrictions on an individual. Otherwise you are essentially denying them freedom of speech.

You seem to be saying that people with strong views would never visit a country merely for tourism. I don't think that's true! For example I visited the USA in 2003 around the time of the Iraq war. I hated the Iraq war, but didn't visit the USA to try and stir up trouble on the matter!

Only if they had history of threatening violence (presumably against left-wing people or minorities in this case) or insurrection would I have a problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2026 ==

Their case was probably borderline, but the meme rubbed the officer up the wrong way.

And therein lies the problem. Tourists it appears have no rights in these situations. There needs to be scope for a tourist to challenge (legally if necessary) a border guard who has treated them unfairly. For other authority figures, such as the police, there is normally recourse a person can use if they believe they have been unfairly treated; why should it be different for tourists and border guards?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2026 ==

Yes, and I'd apply that to any country. The key word being "overly"; interested in it beyond any implications to one's own country.

Worrying. This essentially means that if you have any strong opinions on the politics of any other country, it's reasonable to be excluded.
What if you had personal connections to another country, and knew quite a bit about its politics as a result; enough to have opinions? Should you be excluded for this? Seems extraordinarily authoritarian.

Why were Covid travel restrictions unreasonable yet restrictions based on opinions on a country's politics reasonable? While I thought the former were excessive, I'd say they were less unreasonable than the latter.

 

[najaB]

But doesn't that mean border guards with an "attitude" could deny entry for the most arbitrary of reasons? Anything from sexuality, gender identity, political views, race, or nationality to something as arbitrary as the way you look, your accent, or the colour of your hair? Presumably if foreigners do indeed have no rights, the border guards of any country have an absolute right to deny entry to foreigners for any of these reasons (rather like a pub landlord can bar people for no particular reason), and the foreigner has no recourse to challenge the decision (which seems to me very wrong)?

From watching various fly-on-the-wall series in border control in the UK, Canada and Australia, while a decision to admit is entirely up to the border guard, decisions to deny entry have to be reviewed/approved by a more senior officer. So it should rarely come down to one person with a grudge.

However, bringing it back specifically to the USA, the issue is that the grounds for which someone might be deemed inadmissible appear to be quite broad if one assumes that they apply similar standards to those they apply to their own citizens. Again, the administration has stated that "anti-Americanism", "anti-capitalism", and "anti-Christianity" are grounds to be classed as a domestic terrorist.

 

[nw1]

From watching various fly-on-the-wall series in border control in the UK, Canada and Australia, while a decision to admit is entirely up to the border guard, decisions to deny entry have to be reviewed/approved by a more senior officer. So it should rarely come down to one person with a grudge.

I suppose here in the UK, foreign visitors from a good number countries have an easier time as they can use the automated gates and avoid the border guards entirely. Thus, a computer program (which one might think is objective) would be responsible for denying entry, which means it could presumably only happen for legitimate reasons.

However, bringing it back specifically to the USA, the issue is that the grounds for which someone might be deemed inadmissible appear to be quite broad if one assumes that they apply similar standards to those they apply to their own citizens. Again, the administration has stated that "anti-Americanism", "anti-capitalism", and "anti-Christianity" are grounds to be classed as a domestic terrorist.

Anti-capitalism?

I have heard that membership of a Communist party of any country is grounds to be banned entry, but it sounds like it could go even further than that. Sounds like you'd be a terrorist, end of.

 

[edwin_m]

Seeing as certain ICE agents appear to think they are above the law - to the extent they are killing people who aren't a threat - I wouldn't personally have much confidence that a border control agent would make a rational judgement.

 

[Cdd89]

Why were Covid travel restrictions unreasonable yet restrictions based on opinions on a country's politics reasonable? While I thought the former were excessive, I'd say they were less unreasonable than the latter.

I wasn't intending to imply that one was more or less reasonable than the other, in fact I think we're on the same page in thinking travel should be something of a right! (Even though I understand that it is not). I merely used it to show that the US is in a unique position in terms of being non-reliant on international tourism (as the vast majority of their travel and leisure spending, something like 90%, is domestic).

I was following the briefings pretty closely at the time, and it almost felt like the administration forgot they were closed as the topic never really came up (unlike the UK where the travel restrictions were weekly news while applicable). Also the fact that the list of countries that can visit the US (ie bring tourist revenue) without a visa is actually pretty small - if the US cared about tourism, that would obviously be expanded. International tourism is just not on their radar and if zero tourism was barely noticed, a 10-20% drop from travel boycotts certainly won't be!

while a decision to admit is entirely up to the border guard, decisions to deny entry have to be reviewed/approved by a more senior officer

I think in the first half of your sentence, you are effectively agreeing with my assertion! Given the choice between the border guard deciding to admit (or referring for confirmation but saying they probably feel ok about it), and a border guard referring to a supervisor with a view to deny, one is obviously best to hope for the first outcome.

Also, I am of the opinion that if someone wants to deny you entry, something can always be found to do so. There will be something on most people's devices, if someone digs hard enough; or if you turn up with a wiped device, that in itself would be considered suspicious and grounds to deny. (On the other hand, I've had devices searched years ago when entering the US, and the stuff found was obviously used as a reason to admit me as the photos/chats backed up my claimed interests and reasons for visiting!)

 

[GusB]

I merely used it to show that the US is in a unique position in terms of being non-reliant on international tourism (as the vast majority of their travel and leisure spending, something like 90%, is domestic).

Is the US really so non-reliant on international tourism? While it's not unusual to see "Visit <insert country of choice>" adverts at this time of year, it's only recently that I've really noticed "Visit USA" adverts.