VISA Cops Imprison Innocent UK Tourists

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:24:55 +0000, mtravelkay wrote:

devil wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:18:43 +0000, mtravelkay wrote:


James Robinson wrote:


mtravelkay wrote:


devil wrote:



The thing that stands out about the US is that they appear to do their
best to make the whole thing as unpleasant as they can. But eh, big
surprise...

I suspect he was detained until an available flight back to the UK. He
had to be detained somewhere, right? Or should they have simply let him
in to wonder the US freely after he tried to enter illegally?


The absurdity was that he didn't need a visa at all if he was on
vacation. What kind of threat was he to the country that he had to be
locked away. Just who was being protected from the "criminal"?

I don't need a visa to vacation in the UK. If I went to the UK without a
visa and told immigration at LHR that I was there to work buildng
bridges, what would happen? Would they issue me a visa on the spot?


I would think they would send you back. But if you were working for your
company and you just would have missed the paperwork, who knows?
Regardless, I would exprect they would treat you reasonably decently until
sending you back. Probably get you back to the airline and leave you past
security and immigration in the airport or something like that?


Really, that is all? I have seen reports of Africans not being treated
this way when it was felt they were trying to violate immigration laws
in the UK.

I woldn't be surprised one bit if the UK (and many European countries)
would treat Africans in a different way that they would treat you. Not
that I approve.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:44:54 +0000, James Robinson wrote:

mtravelkay wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Why not simply issue him a visa and tell him not to do it again?

What visa were they supposed to issue him, if they don't issue
journalist visas at the POE?

I can see you'd make a perfect bureaucrat. You want to make things more
difficult than is justified. Kind of like trying to talk rationally to
the IRS.

Then let him in without the visa, and tell him to get on next time.

Actually, some of these folks are reasonable, or at least used to. I once
was connecting in the US. They had run out of the green visa waiver form
at the smallish Canadian point of entry. I still had a visa waiver form
that had just expired a couple of days earlier. He just let me in on the
expired one.

mtravelkay wrote:
devil wrote:
I would think they would send you back. But if you were working for your
company and you just would have missed the paperwork, who knows?
Regardless, I would exprect they would treat you reasonably decently until
sending you back. Probably get you back to the airline and leave you past
security and immigration in the airport or something like that?

Really, that is all? I have seen reports of Africans not being treated
this way when it was felt they were trying to violate immigration laws
in the UK.

There's a difference between someone who intends to immigrate permanently
and illegally, and someone who is gainfully employed in his home country,
coming over for a couple weeks, having done so a dozen times in the past
without issue.

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

mtravelkay wrote:
He was treated as a human being and sent to a jail to be detained with
other people that also violated immigration law.

"Immigration law" is overbroad and deliberately clouds the issue.

If someone who falls behind on their property tax payments is put in
facilities used for mass murderers, do you just say "he was treated like
other people who violated state law"?

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

VISA Cops Imprison Innocent UK Tourists

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Sun, Apr 18, 2004, 11:48pm (CDT+5) From:
(devil)
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. =========================== .
No one is making an excuse or apology.
His company put him in the detention center by NOT keeping up on the
changes of Homeland Security here in the USA.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Miguel Cruz wrote:
mtravelkay wrote:

He was treated as a human being and sent to a jail to be detained with
other people that also violated immigration law.


"Immigration law" is overbroad and deliberately clouds the issue.

If someone who falls behind on their property tax payments is put in
facilities used for mass murderers, do you just say "he was treated like
other people who violated state law"?

There is no detention of people who don't pay property taxes, their
property would normally go through the foreclosure process. The US
doesn't have separate detention facilities in all locations for people
entering the US without the proper visa, and they may be housed in local
jails. it might be shocking to you, but in the US, people that are
arrested for being drunk got to the same jail as those just arrested for
murder. So, rather than clouding the issue by saying he was placed in
the same facilty as murderers, you could say he was placed in the same
facility as other immigration law violaters AND people that have been
arrested for being drunk in public.

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
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.

However, in the thread about mytravelkay, and Cisco, I mentioned there
how keystroke loggers can be detected and detroyed. I have already urged
that he use such programs to annihalate any keystroke loggers that they
may have placed on his work computer. I once again post the following URLS:

http://www.safer-networking.org/
http;//www.spycop.com

These are easy to use, they will detect and destroy any keystroke
loggers
that the machine has installed. They detect and destroy all spyware,
regardless of who installed it in the machine. If your employer, spouse,
Internet cafe, etc, etc, has a keylogger installed, programs, such as
the above will detect and destroy them. Keyloggers can hide from
SpyBot, or SpyCop.

Charles Newman wrote:

However, in the thread about mytravelkay, and Cisco, I mentioned there
how keystroke loggers can be detected and detroyed. I have already urged
that he use such programs to annihalate any keystroke loggers that they
may have placed on his work computer. I once again post the following URLS:

http://www.safer-networking.org/
http;//www.spycop.com

These are easy to use, they will detect and destroy any keystroke
loggers
that the machine has installed. They detect and destroy all spyware,
regardless of who installed it in the machine. If your employer, spouse,
Internet cafe, etc, etc, has a keylogger installed, programs, such as
the above will detect and destroy them. Keyloggers can hide from
SpyBot, or SpyCop.


Why should I care about a keystroke logger? The only person who has been
abusive is Max/Nomen/Edo/Starwars/Kenneth, or whatever he calls himself.

The employer doesn't need to log your keystrokes as all of my
conversations on newsgroup is in plain text, so all they need to do is
sniff the network.

"Charles Newman" wrote in
message ...

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
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.

However, in the thread about mytravelkay, and Cisco, I mentioned there
how keystroke loggers can be detected and detroyed. I have already urged
that he use such programs to annihalate any keystroke loggers that they
may have placed on his work computer. I once again post the following
URLS:

http://www.safer-networking.org/
http;//www.spycop.com

These are easy to use, they will detect and destroy any keystroke
loggers
that the machine has installed. They detect and destroy all spyware,
regardless of who installed it in the machine. If your employer, spouse,
Internet cafe, etc, etc, has a keylogger installed, programs, such as
the above will detect and destroy them. Keyloggers can hide from

That shold say, "can not hide"

SpyBot, or SpyCop.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
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?


Try that approach at Heathrow and you'l get the same response.

Keith