VISA Cops Imprison Innocent UK Tourists

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:05:49 GMT, mtravelkay wrote:

Pan wrote:


He didn't escape; he was deported. And how could reporting on his
experiences be a violation of anything? He wasn't asked to sign a
non-disclosure agreement, was he?

I think the other poster was referring to the fact that he did the same
thing he got in trouble for. In other words, he was denied entrance
because he wanted to gather information for an article he was going to
write. If he needs a visa to do this, then it might be logical that the
article written about the "visit" he had in the US would also fall under
the same restriction.

The reason I wouldn't have thought of this is that it's absurd. He has
the right to write about his experience and is no longer violating
anything, as he is no longer in the country.

it will presumably harm any future
entries - as much as any other breach of visa conditions.


I don't understand. How could his story harm any future entrants? If
anything, it might serve as an object lesson to them to make sure they
get the right visa.


I think the other poster was referring to the journalist's future
entrie, since this article was based on "research" he did while in the US.

Oh, I see. That's what he meant by "entries." Yeah, publicizing the
experience probably increases the likelihood that the reporter may be
denied a visa in the future.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

Johnny Zoom wrote:
BIG MISTAKE. He should have LIED to Customs about what he was doing in the
USA. He should have told them he was there on holiday. If you are writing
for a newspaper, magazine, or Internet publication, hiding your activities
is EASY.

I am illustrating this by posting on Goggle Groups, using a proxy server in
Brazil. This same type of HTTP proxy can also be used to access Hotmail, or
anything on the Web. Basically, if a newspaper, magazine, or Internet
journalist wanted to lie to Customs, and then hide his/her activities, this
is how you would do it. If you look at the headers in the address, you will
see NNTP-Posting-Host: 200.182.136.2. This is an open proxy server in Brazil,
based on what one proxy list said. You can not only hide your source point,
but your destination point as well.

Not many reporters want to work without a byline, so all this is moot.

Someone could walk into an Internet cafe, and do a simple change of
configiuration on the Web browser at the computer station they were on. If
Homeland Security, Customs, or the FBI went to subpoena any records, they would
ONLY know that they went to a proxy at a specific address, but if that proxy
were outside the USA, it would be BEYOND the jurisdiction of any US court
to subpoena it.

But not necessarily beyond their capabilities to compromise the proxy
server. Or to have access to keystroke records from the machine. And foreign
law enforcement agencies do cooperate on a regular basis, though probably
not on something as rinky-dink as this.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

mtravelkay wrote

The journalist was attempting to enter the US on the Visa Waiver program
to do work that was not permitted by the VWP and that required a visa.
He indicated he has been entering without a visa for 10 years, so I
guess he thought he had right to better treatment than the people of
other nationalities he wrote about. The solution is quite simple. When
traveling to a foreign country, make sure you know what kind of visa is
required.

You think it is clever to lock up with common criminals a journalist
from the most important Sunday newspaper of the USA's principal ally
at a time like this?

Think again!

wrote in message
om...
mtravelkay wrote



You think it is clever to lock up with common criminals a journalist
from the most important Sunday newspaper of the USA's principal ally
at a time like this?


I think its rather obvious to anyone , especially a journalist
that the US was tightening the enforcement of visa
regulations. I work for the UK branch of an American company
and around a year ago we were advised that the previously
common practise of sending people on short term assignments
under the visa waiver program would no longer be accepted.

The more rigid enforcement os entry rules is scarcely
a secret, its been a topic of conversation on this newsgroup
for at least 18 months.

Keith

Bert Hyman wrote:

The same might be the case for the journalist, who was OK for ten years
before some bureaucrat decided to enforce the rule without any warning.

Enforce the rules without any warning?

Weren't the rules themselves sufficient warning?

Only an officious bureaucrat would grab a person who is allowed into the
country without a visa when on holidays, and incarcerate him, treat him
like a general criminal, and deport him because he was working as a
journalist on this particular trip. Whatever happened to simply issuing
him the appropriate visa on arrival?

I saw similar, but not as draconian, treatment of a visitor on arrival
at Houston last week. There are a number of lines for immigration - US
citizens, those eligible for visa waiver, and those requiring visas. A
person got in the wrong line by mistake, and after shuffling through it
for 30 minutes was berated, and told he had to go to the end of the
proper line, to shuffle for another 30 minutes. The agent wasn't the
slightest bit nice or helpful about it. Surely it could be handled
another way than by making the person feel unwelcome when entering a
foreign country.

In James Robinson wrote:

Bert Hyman wrote:

The same might be the case for the journalist, who was OK for ten
years before some bureaucrat decided to enforce the rule without any
warning.

Enforce the rules without any warning?

Weren't the rules themselves sufficient warning?

Only an officious bureaucrat would grab a person who is allowed into the
country without a visa when on holidays, and incarcerate him, treat him
like a general criminal, and deport him because he was working as a
journalist on this particular trip.

Because this fellow was breaking the law and knew it?

Besides, officious bureaucrats are what you find working customs and
immigration lines everywhere.

And I mean -everywhere.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Bert Hyman wrote:
Besides, officious bureaucrats are what you find working customs and
immigration lines everywhere.

And I mean -everywhere.

Nope.

In Ghana the guy gave me cab fare because I didn't have any local money and
it was pouring rain.

In Iraqi Kurdistan they chat amiably and give you a cup of tea while they
process your passport.

In Singapore they smile and give you candy.

The woman in New Zealand took the time to ask me if I had any questions
since it was my first trip, and explained in detail how to get the bus and
where I could find discount hotels in Auckland.

When I entered Australia with an invalid visa the inspector spent half an
hour getting me a new one on the spot.

I could go on.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:15:18 +0000, Bert Hyman wrote:


Besides, officious bureaucrats are what you find working customs and
immigration lines everywhere.

Really? In the USSR, sure. But most places I have been, I have dealt
with courteous and welcoming people.

In the US, however, it appears their job is to find excuses to keep
foreigners out. Mind you, yes, we are getting the message.

(We used to have a neighbor who worked for US customs. The poor fellow
stood out as the most illiterate and braindead guy around. Not that he
was a bad guy, he was just very good at making himself part of his
environment.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:53:59 +0000, Miguel Cruz wrote:

Pan wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:20:12 GMT, (Jim Ley) wrote:
it will presumably harm any future
entries - as much as any other breach of visa conditions.

I don't understand. How could his story harm any future entrants? If
anything, it might serve as an object lesson to them to make sure they
get the right visa.

Once you publish the story, you confirm yourself to be a journalist.
Therefore you had entered illegally, since your trip was gathering
information for your journalism.

But he never hid that. It's the very fact that he did not that got him in
trouble.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:09:28 -0500, Jo Jo wrote:

S Byers from the UK.,

Sounds like your Boss dropped the ball on this one. Your Boss should
have found out all of the details on Homeland Security and should have
kept up with the changes since his journalist (you) would be flying back
and forth. If anyone is to blame it is the paper/magazine you work for.
Don't blame the USA for your companies negligence.

But that is no excuse for the conditions in which he was kept in the
meantime.