Being found to be breaching your visa conditions, especially in a pre-meditated way, is somewhat worse than being kicked out of an Airbnb.
Tread carefully.
Billionaires don't tend to their business affairs when they're abroad?
It's just that no state would bust them on a "no business visa" issue for that, they want their money and investments.
CBP Agent: Purpose of stay?
Nomad: Pleasure
CBP Agent: types It appears you work for a remote startup. Are you currently working for them and/or do you plan on continuing to work within our country?
Maybe they let you stay if you're honest? Likely you're on the next flight out and you incur the possibility of a visa blacklist.
Disclaimer: Have an associate who has been blacklisted from US entry due to lying to CBP. Don't lie at border control.
More likely they could not care less, and welcome the money you'll spend in the country.
Those "work" restrictions are for poor immigrants that they want to discourage coming in (the kind you see on Mexican border and such) not for first worlders with mucho dinero.
Except there are.
You think the UK would want France's unemployed for example?
https://twitter.com/mysonabsalom/status/1072223868717289473
People sidestepping that fee because they're "digital nomads" are not welcome.
If you're, say, a US citizen visas aren't required in a lot of cases and visas on arrival often don't distinguish between business and tourism.
And by all means talk to your congressman about passing such laws
I for one will be not paying my income tax this year, as I bring income to the country when my landlord/restaurant/cinema pays taxes.
From the government's perspective, it's a razor thin margin policy endeavor. For you as a digital nomad, you think it's a great deal for them. For a government, they'll just work towards more tourism instead (which nets them greater ROI; way more tourists in the world compared to remote workers).
I somewhat agree with you, depending on the circumstances (as always, "it depends"). I'm pointing out where we are today. Be the change, sell it to countries if you want to see it implemented.
It doesn't even matter if by coming in they'd made you more money, you could very well not want to get more money that way, but instead e.g. prefer your peace, cultural coherence, and lack of Starbucks.
...surveillance of
social media
and LinkedIn.
Only the dumbest of the dumb operate a social media persona. Specifically because only the dumbest of the dumb give up control of their details, and dump them out in the open to get crawled and surveilled.
It’s the low hanging fruit that will get popped for a LinkedIn (or other social) avatar.
Word of mouth is the only professional channel that matters. It’s the only trustworthy channel that can be relied on in a professional context.
On the other hand if your employer has a business presence in-country that can be quite problematic for the employer because it may cause them to run afoul of local visa regulations for employees. US companies also can run into tax problems if they make payments to people resident in other countries as this may look to the IRS like aiding tax evasion. (IANAL but have some experience with this issue from the employer perspective.)
What countries have explicit visas to accommodate remote workers (e.g. https://www.wherecani.live/blog/view/digital-nomads--the-sel...)
What countries are popular with digital nomads because they're cheap, tropical, and no one is probably going to ask too many questions if you hang out on your tourist visa for a good stretch.
To work legally in Thailand you need a work permit which you can only get on an eligible visa. A tourist visa or visa exempt stamp, which digital nomads enter on, is ineligible. And it requires an employer to sponsor it. Even volunteering requires a work permit.
As long as you keep it quiet and don't make enemies you can fly under the radar. But if someone rats you out or the police see an opportunity to make some easy money you will have a very bad time.
Tax issues aside, people working remotely for a company based in another country would be a pretty clear source of incoming money into an economy, with very little added in terms of the kind of governmental infrastructure support that would usually needed to entice companies to locate/relocate there.
I'm not saying that's the way the laws are written; just that I could easily see a reason that it would makes sense to allow it.
Digital nomadism however usually implies that you run a properly set up business in some country and also properly pay taxes for any profit you generate. Sure, the country you're currently living in probably wouldn't reject getting a share of that profit, too, but the currently accepted taxation principle is that you pay your taxes where your business transactions take place. Admittedly, in a connected, digital economy this can cause problems, some of which are exploited by international corporations in order to save taxes, but this is the current legal framework.
As a digital nomad you also typically don't take away job or business opportunities from locals because your business doesn't happen in your country of residence anyway.
Finally, digital nomadism probably - and pretty much like ordinary tourism - is beneficial to countries these nomads flock to as well, simply because you pay for goods and services locally, which not only supports the local economy but in most cases implies some sort of indirect taxation / VAT as well.
How do these immigration laws even make sense themselves? What does a country loose when a freelancer travels in, lives there and spends money received from abroad?
1. Sovereign countries are permitted to care about whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. They can enact any laws they wish, protect their border however they wish, and grant anyone the right to work in their country based on whatever reason they may have. When a country is not granted the right to permit (or not permit) someone from entering/working, they lose a part of their sovereignty.
2. How would a country enforce its own tax laws without a formal entry/authorization process?
3. How would a country enforce international tax treaties without a formal entry/authorization process?
4. Working abroad, without any kind of work visa, would make it incredibly easy to evade paying taxes in your own country.
But you're working abroad for a company that's treating you as if you are living in your own country and is, presumably, depositing your paycheck into a bank in that country. The fact that I'm traveling somewhere (on business or pleasure) during a given month basically doesn't affect anything. I travel maybe 100 days a year, in part outside the US. I don't consider myself a digital nomad but the reality is that I'm outside my home country for a decent chunk of the year.
There is a limited range of activities permitted on those, including attending meetings and conferences.
But mostly, US and EU citizens in particular have visa waivers or, at most, a visa on arrival that lets them do normal business travel things. They just can't take a local job.
To the upthread comment, neither myself nor anyone I know has ever been aware of any particular tax implications associated with ordinary business travel.
It can affect your taxes dramatically. Bump that up to 335 days / year outside the US, and you're entitled to the foreign earned income deduction, which last I checked was about $120,000.
That's not evading, though; it's a formal deduction.
The local poor might also not appreciate raised rents that benefit the few owning houses for rent (the AirBnB effect but with longer term "nomad" stays).
Western ex-pats in the developing world have a long history of being and behaving as self-entitled scum, which doesn't win many sympathies.
Besides hipster "nomads" are among the most insufferable of people.
But even more so, and on a more serious note, a lot of those laws are to discourage mass immigration from even poorer places, not the occasional "digital nomad".
I imagine from the host countries' point of view, they were the same as ordinary tourists - how they manage to finance their month-long "vacation" is usually not in the interest of the host country, and in this case, they happened to finance it by working remotely during the stay.
Now what happens when they exceed the maximum stay time of a tourist visa due to being stranded is a different question.
My understanding is working for your day job from another country can be tolerated, but it's usually outside of the law in most countries if you are on a regular tourist visa. So having a business resolving around that seems careless, as your customers might be subject to jail time and deportation. Think about it, it makes sense that this is not allowed, it will be way too easy to evade immigration laws if that was allowed on a massive scale.