New immigration procedures

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Ivanna Getlaid wrote:
mrtravel wrote:

.. If
things start to get straightened out in Iraq they'll run out of them
relatively quickly.


I believe that you are right if you by this mean that the US should get out
as soon as possible and leave the country to the UN with a mandate to
localise the control of the country as soon as possible.

Nik.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:32:38 +0000 Simon Elliott
wrote:

:Binyamin Dissen writes
::Immigration procedures are the interface between a country and the rest
::of the world. They are not just internal matters.

:Nope.

:The foreigner has the choice to not attempt entry.

:Therefore they are not internal matters. They will affect the decision
:of someone outside the US, which will in turn either beneficially or
:adversely affect the US.

OK

:Should they attempt entry, they are subject to the "internal matters".

:Certainly.

::are in place is a matter between US citizens and their government.

:The procedures are, as well.

:Certainly.

::Whether the procedures are appropriate is a legitimate topic for, well,
::just about everyone. Obviously the US isn't obliged to listen to the
::comments, but would nevertheless be well advised to do so.

:Why?

:What are you gonna do about it?

:I'm going to do absolutely nothing about it. Restrictive and abusive
:immigration procedures which harm the US are not my problem. The US is
:big enough to take care of itself without any help from me.

::I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs, practices
::and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested in
::visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever
::restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there were
::such a country, I simply wouldn't go.

::Up to a point I'd go along with this. For example, I have little
::sympathy for those jailed for drinking alcohol in Saudi.

:What if they are whipped?

:I don't agree with this practice, but those caught drinking alcohol knew
:the risks.

So why not "I don't agree with this practice, but those caught attempting to
enter th USA knew the risks"?

::But when I don't like the human rights record of a country, I reserve
::the right to work to bring about change. I don't believe that
::fundamental human rights are trumped by national boundaries or by local
::culture.

:Feel free to fight windmills.

:But be aware that the argument "because YOU don't like it" tends to affect
:your family alone, if that.

:That's always a possibility. But those windmills aren't usually going to
:fall unless a lot of people agree to take them on. And I admit that the
:winds of change usually have to be blowing in the right direction.

You have to convince the American voters.

All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to
Americans.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Binyamin Dissen writes
:I don't agree with this practice, but those caught drinking alcohol knew
:the risks.

So why not "I don't agree with this practice, but those caught attempting to
enter th USA knew the risks"?

Because I think that immigration practice has wider implications:

1/ The drinker in Saudi has knowingly violated the law, or has been
guilty of culpable ignorance about the country he is visiting.

2/ The right to drink alcohol isn't up there among my all time ten great
human rights. YMMV.

3/ No other government is going to use the fact that the Saudis do
something as an excuse for doing the same sort of thing themselves.

:That's always a possibility. But those windmills aren't usually going to
:fall unless a lot of people agree to take them on. And I admit that the
:winds of change usually have to be blowing in the right direction.

You have to convince the American voters.

I've given my point of view in a discussion. That doesn't mean that I'm
obliged to start some long drawn out campaign to change US immigration
practices.

All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to
Americans.

I thought I had given a brief, reasoned and balanced set of reasons as
to why I believe this isn't in the interests of the US. It's disturbing
to discover that this has come across as a whine to at least one person.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:53:00 +0000 Simon Elliott
wrote:

:Binyamin Dissen writes
::I don't agree with this practice, but those caught drinking alcohol knew
::the risks.

:So why not "I don't agree with this practice, but those caught attempting to
:enter th USA knew the risks"?

:Because I think that immigration practice has wider implications:

:1/ The drinker in Saudi has knowingly violated the law, or has been
:guilty of culpable ignorance about the country he is visiting.

The same with the foreigner attempting to visit the USA.

:2/ The right to drink alcohol isn't up there among my all time ten great
:human rights. YMMV.

But you feel that visiting the USA is?

:3/ No other government is going to use the fact that the Saudis do
:something as an excuse for doing the same sort of thing themselves.

So the issue isn't America, it is that other countries might learn from
America?

::That's always a possibility. But those windmills aren't usually going to
::fall unless a lot of people agree to take them on. And I admit that the
::winds of change usually have to be blowing in the right direction.

:You have to convince the American voters.

:I've given my point of view in a discussion. That doesn't mean that I'm
:obliged to start some long drawn out campaign to change US immigration
:practices.

If you were not attempting to convince the American voters, the only people
who can force such a change, what was the point?

:All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to
:Americans.

:I thought I had given a brief, reasoned and balanced set of reasons as
:to why I believe this isn't in the interests of the US. It's disturbing
:to discover that this has come across as a whine to at least one person.

Try reading some American papers. You will learn how Americans think.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Binyamin Dissen writes
:1/ The drinker in Saudi has knowingly violated the law, or has been
:guilty of culpable ignorance about the country he is visiting.

The same with the foreigner attempting to visit the USA.

In most countries, including the US, the immigration authorities can do
unpleasant things even if the visitor hasn't broken the law.

:2/ The right to drink alcohol isn't up there among my all time ten great
:human rights. YMMV.

But you feel that visiting the USA is?

With some exceptions, I believe that travel is a Good Thing, and
therefore it follows that anything that restricts travel is a Bad Thing.

:3/ No other government is going to use the fact that the Saudis do
:something as an excuse for doing the same sort of thing themselves.

So the issue isn't America, it is that other countries might learn from
America?

The issue isn't America, the issue is unnecessary and unpleasant
immigration practices. I believe that unnecessary and unpleasant
immigration practices are a bad thing anywhere.

:I've given my point of view in a discussion. That doesn't mean that I'm
:obliged to start some long drawn out campaign to change US immigration
:practices.

If you were not attempting to convince the American voters, the only people
who can force such a change, what was the point?

My point is to demonstrate that unpleasant US immigration practices have
a cost, a downside. I want to encourage people outside the US (and
especially in the UK) to evaluate the costs before supporting such
practices in their own country.

I would have made similar comments if the OP had discussed the
immigration practices of any Western democracy.

But unpleasant immigration policies are in my opinion just a symptom of
a larger disease: the cult of the Necessary Security Measure which
governments so love to introduce in times of trouble. To combat this, we
all need to become instant security experts, to learn what works and
what doesn't, so that we don't get taken in by draconian window
dressing.

:All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to
:Americans.

:I thought I had given a brief, reasoned and balanced set of reasons as
:to why I believe this isn't in the interests of the US. It's disturbing
:to discover that this has come across as a whine to at least one person.

Try reading some American papers. You will learn how Americans think.

I think that would take a lot of time. I've visited small areas of the
US, just scratched the surface really. There was quite a diversity of
opinion and culture. The US is a big place and I'd be quite surprised if
there was a monolithic "how Americans think".
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

"Inserted Finger" wrote in message
...
PTRAVEL wrote:
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion
one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

Not when the USA breaks with international agreements. For instance,
instead
of refusing entry (the accepted procedure which results in the person
remaining airside and sent on the next flight back to their point of
origin),
allowing the person to enter, immediatly arresting the person, keeping
them in
a US jail for a few days and then sending them to a 3rd country without
allowing the person to make a phone call, without advising the country on
the
person's passport etc. The fact that they technically allow the person to
enter the USA is then no longer an immigration issue, it is a legal and
human
rights issue.

Deportation procedures require that the person have at least a deportation
hearing, that he be given the chance to contact his embassy etc etc. In
many
cases, the USA has broken those agreements. As a matter of fact, friends
who
recently got a USA visa told me thay had to sign a waiver to any
deportation procedures.

Yes, the USA has the right to refuse entry to anyone and everyone, but
when it
does so, it should act according to international agreed procedures.

Sending a grand mother traveling from europe to USA to visit a daughter to
a
jail upon landing in the USA is way out of bounds. Sending her back with a
simple "sorry mam, we can't let you enter the USA, we're sending you home
on
next available flight" would have been the right thing to do instead of
slapping some handcuff on the poor old lady.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the either the new
procedures, or the post to which I was replying.

Martin Euredjian wrote:
"SCHIAVONE: Some of the most fertile grounds for these deals are in Europe,
with big corporations taking U.S. tax breaks on everything from the Paris
subway to the Berlin subway to railroad tracks, power plants and town halls.

Ahh, the big country that likes to pretend it doesn't subsidize anything and
slaps on tarifs to any country it accuses of subsidizing anything.

Have americans been told that the average cow in the USA gets a subsidy that
is higher than the average wage in the rest of the world ?

Have americans been told that US wheat is one of the most heavily subsidized
in the world and is causing hardship in poor countries who find themselves
importing subsidized US and european wheat because it comes out cheaper than
to grow it locally, resulting in bankrupcies to local farmers who can no
longer afford to produce anything ?

It is amazing that Loo Dobbs, a staunch Bush Jr regime supporter, would
produce such **** reporting. Subsidies don't go to the Paris Metro, they go to
the US companies producing widgets, and that means jobs that stay in the USA
instead of being moved to India or elsewhere.

The bad news is that because of transportation and telecommunications, the USA
will now have to start to compete in a global basis against countries whose
standard of living is way lower. And the only way for the USA (and other
western nations) to compete is for their citizens to have lower standard of
living from a material point of view.

And what happens when the average american family can no longer can afford to
buy 2.7 cars per year ? The car industry will flounder. And when the car
industry flounders, so does Television because they derive so much revenu from
car ads. When the car industry flounders, so does steel etc etc etc.

"PTRAVEL" schreef in bericht
...

Please watch your attributions. I didn't write what you've attributed to
me.


Sorry - I made a mistake.

Sjoerd

"Simon Elliott" wrote in message
...
PTRAVEL writes
I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this
rather
peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S.
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

Immigration procedures are the interface between a country and the rest
of the world. They are not just internal matters. Whether the procedures
are in place is a matter between US citizens and their government.
Whether the procedures are appropriate is a legitimate topic for, well,
just about everyone. Obviously the US isn't obliged to listen to the
comments, but would nevertheless be well advised to do so.

I guess you missed the point of my post. Different countries have different
procedures. If you want to visit different countries, you follow those
procedures. If you don't want to follow the procedures, don't visit.

I believe that people have exactly the kind of government that they want.
If they don't like it, they vote it out, depose it or revolt against it.
However, it is not the place for non-citizens of a country to say, "This is
what you must do." For example, I'm sure that many posters in this thread
find America's current incursion into Iraq, in an effort to impose so-called
American-style democracy, offensive. You cannot object to America's attempt
to change the internal governance of another sovereign nation and, at the
same time, insist that America's own internal laws conform to your
preferences and beliefs.


I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs,
practices
and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested
in
visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever
restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there
were
such a country, I simply wouldn't go.

Up to a point I'd go along with this. For example, I have little
sympathy for those jailed for drinking alcohol in Saudi.

At this point I have little sympathy for anything Saudi Arabian, period, but
that's another thread. However, I'd stiill find a visit to that country
interesting and worthwhile, and would go fully prepared to follow whatever
restrictions and regulations were placed on me without criticism or
complaint.


But when I don't like the human rights record of a country, I reserve
the right to work to bring about change. I don't believe that
fundamental human rights are trumped by national boundaries or by local
culture.

The problem, though, is whose conception of human rights will you use? As
an example, the U.S. has constantly pressured the PRC to "reform" with
respect to human rights, and that has been true under both Democratic and
Repbulican administrations. The simple fact, though, is the vast majority
of Chinese are satisfied with their government -- _their_ conception of
human rights differs vastly from that of the various American
administrations. If they wanted a different conception, they'd have it.
For the average Chinese, "freedom" means the freedom to prosper, to keep the
fruits of one's labor, to see one's children enjoy a better life. American
conceptions of "freedom of speech," and "freedom of religion" are far down
the list. The Chinese people are not shy about revolution -- they've had at
least three significant ones in the last century. If they weren't satisfied
with their present government, they'd change things. So who is right? The
Chinese people who live within the parameters established by their
government, or the U.S. who wants things changed "for their own good"?

Similarly, I wouldn't want my wife living on the rules of Sharia in Muslim
countries (nor would she). However, unless and until the majority of Muslim
women rebel against the restrictions placed on them, we've got no business
telling them they're wrong. Of course, when the fanatics embark on a holy
crusade to impose their views on us, who don't want any part of them, we
have a right to respond.

--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

"Simon Elliott" schreef in bericht
...
I think that would take a lot of time. I've visited small areas of the
US, just scratched the surface really. There was quite a diversity of
opinion and culture. The US is a big place and I'd be quite surprised if
there was a monolithic "how Americans think".

And luckily, relatively few Americans think like Benyamin Dissen thinks.
Many, many Americans are more intelligent and more open to the world.

Sjoerd