Visa reqts for US

"Michael Ross" wrote in message
news:1095610899.VhXQyoBt8huKLKTe6DfmtA@teranews...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:25:51 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found
guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these
circumstance this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously
travelled to the US many times without problems.

That is the US requirement and always has been. AFAIK you have always had
to
declare this so you may have problems explaining to the US Imigration
service why you did not do so before. You need to obtain a copy of your
file
on the Police National Computer. You can get an application form at any
police station.

Suggest the OP reads the thread we had around a month ago:

http://tinyurl.com/4qv2d

Executive summary: The US Embassy London website clearly states you
need a visa if you have ever been arrested OR if you have a criminal
record.

The State Dept. website clearly states you only need a visa if you
have a criminal record.

I'd believe the State Dept. At worst, it's a perfectly good excuse.

The fingerprinting is a red herring; it's all about catching people
who are on the run *in the USA*, and making sure they do a better job
of keeping track of people entering the country than they did
pre-9/11. They don't run your prints past Scotland Yard!


Excuse me for butting in here, but I would be grateful for some
clarification about what I am reading here. Are you saying that no-one with
any sort of criminal record will be allowed entry to the US?

"Michael Ross" wrote in message
news:1095610899.VhXQyoBt8huKLKTe6DfmtA@teranews...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:25:51 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found
guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these
circumstance this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously
travelled to the US many times without problems.

That is the US requirement and always has been. AFAIK you have always had
to
declare this so you may have problems explaining to the US Imigration
service why you did not do so before. You need to obtain a copy of your
file
on the Police National Computer. You can get an application form at any
police station.

Suggest the OP reads the thread we had around a month ago:

http://tinyurl.com/4qv2d

Executive summary: The US Embassy London website clearly states you
need a visa if you have ever been arrested OR if you have a criminal
record.

The State Dept. website clearly states you only need a visa if you
have a criminal record.

I'd believe the State Dept. At worst, it's a perfectly good excuse.

The fingerprinting is a red herring; it's all about catching people
who are on the run *in the USA*, and making sure they do a better job
of keeping track of people entering the country than they did
pre-9/11. They don't run your prints past Scotland Yard!


Excuse me for butting in here, but I would be grateful for some
clarification about what I am reading here. Are you saying that no-one with
any sort of criminal record will be allowed entry to the US?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:00:43 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:


"Jonathan Bryce" wrote in message
...
sniper wrote:

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found
guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance
this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the
US many times without problems.

The US doesn't have a human rights act. It has one of the worst human
rights records of any country in the world today.

rofl. Only in the world of fantasy relativism.

The US doesnt need a human rights act, it has a near perfect system of
limited government. Easily the most successful in the history of mankind.


And you accuse *him* of living in a fantasy land!

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:00:43 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:


"Jonathan Bryce" wrote in message
...
sniper wrote:

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found
guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance
this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the
US many times without problems.

The US doesn't have a human rights act. It has one of the worst human
rights records of any country in the world today.

rofl. Only in the world of fantasy relativism.

The US doesnt need a human rights act, it has a near perfect system of
limited government. Easily the most successful in the history of mankind.


And you accuse *him* of living in a fantasy land!

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:00:43 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:


"Jonathan Bryce" wrote in message
...
sniper wrote:

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties? If I'd been found
guilty then maybe I could have understood it but in these circumstance
this seems totally unfair, especially as I've previously travelled to the
US many times without problems.

The US doesn't have a human rights act. It has one of the worst human
rights records of any country in the world today.

rofl. Only in the world of fantasy relativism.

The US doesnt need a human rights act, it has a near perfect system of
limited government. Easily the most successful in the history of mankind.


And you accuse *him* of living in a fantasy land!

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:05:12 +0100, "sniper"
wrote:

snip

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties?

this is the US you are talking about.

While there are many worse countries in the world, their civil
liberties position is about the worst in the so called "free" world,
those with anything approaching a genuine democracy.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:05:12 +0100, "sniper"
wrote:

snip

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties?

this is the US you are talking about.

While there are many worse countries in the world, their civil
liberties position is about the worst in the so called "free" world,
those with anything approaching a genuine democracy.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:05:12 +0100, "sniper"
wrote:

snip

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties?

this is the US you are talking about.

While there are many worse countries in the world, their civil
liberties position is about the worst in the so called "free" world,
those with anything approaching a genuine democracy.

Alex Heney wrote:

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties?

this is the US you are talking about.

While there are many worse countries in the world, their civil
liberties position is about the worst in the so called "free" world,
those with anything approaching a genuine democracy.

According to Amnesty International, only China and Iran are worse.

Alex Heney wrote:

Surely this is an offence against Civil Liberties?

this is the US you are talking about.

While there are many worse countries in the world, their civil
liberties position is about the worst in the so called "free" world,
those with anything approaching a genuine democracy.

According to Amnesty International, only China and Iran are worse.