Stopovers/layovers

tm wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:
Sue Wright wrote:

Hi Miguel. We are flying from Toronto via Seoul. We were determined to
avoid transit through the US so this was the best we could get.

Just out of curiousity, why were you so anxious to make sure you didn't
transit through the US?

I don't know... Why or why could a traveler not want to enter the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/worl...-lawsuit050811
.html

If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional
rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David
Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from
a legal point of view.

Absolutely false. You have the same constitutional rights on US soil as
a US citizen. The stupidity of the statement can be gleaned by just
looking at what he said above. You have no constitutional rights even
if you are taken to a US prison because your still deemed to be outside
the US. Yes, you are deemed to be "sort of" outside the US when you are
in transit, but there are no US prisons there. So the statement is just
plain idiotic.

You can be detained by Immigration in any country, not just the US.
Canada has the right to do exactly the same thing, and does when it
feels proper. Any Immigration official can block you at any time for
any reason. But they don't arrest you.

If you are arrested by Immigration then you have the exact same rights
to any attorney and all other legal rights as anyone else in America.

Tell it to Maher Arar.
Please try to keep up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Learn to read. He wasn't arrested. He was refused entry into the US. He
was identified as a suspect terrorist and deported to the country that
wanted him.

I fly into Frankfurt regularly.

Gosh, aren't you special.

Gosh, aren't you juvenile?

German Immigration police greet planes
from Africa and some from Asia on the gateway just outside the airplane
door. If they don't like your paperwork they detain you on the spot.
You never even get to the Immigration counter. You don't even get to
the transit area.

Immigration is a lot tighter there than in the US. And a lot tighter in
many other countries I've been to.

Spent any time in a Syrian prison?

No, have you?

I take it you didn't have an intelligent response to the comparison
between US and German Immigration. But apparently you were afraid that
people wouldn't know that you couldn't make an intelligent response so
you had to prove to us all that you couldn't make an intelligent
response.

You did a good job.

In article ,
AA1 wrote:

When I look at some Cathay and Malaysia flights on a travels website,
they very long stopovers at Hong Kong or KUL airports. For example, 26
hours in total from Australia to Japan.

If there is a 12-13 hour stopover, would the airline provide a hotel
room in/near the airport?

Why don't you contact the airline to ask?

In message .com
"Tchiowa" wrote:


DevilsPGD wrote:
In message .com
"Tchiowa" wrote:

I don't know... Why or why could a traveler not want to enter the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/worl...uit050811.html

-- Start Paste --
Mason said the U.S. government is interpreting its powers in such a way
that passengers never intending to enter the U.S. connecting to
international flights at U.S. airports must prove they are no threat and
could be allowed to enter the country.

So? Takes about a minute. Maybe 2 to pass through. As long as all your
paperwork is intact.

Sure, unless you get refused entry. Me, I've never been refused, but
why take the chance if you don't need to? If you're not planning on
entering the US anyway, why let the US Gestapo have the opportunity to
detain you in the first place?

If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional
rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David
Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from
a legal point of view.

Absolutely false.

Really?

You have the same constitutional rights on US soil as a US citizen.

Maher Arar didn't. I might, but then again, I'm white, middle class,
not a dual citizen, and have never been outside Canada+US, so that
helps.

The stupidity of the statement can be gleaned by just
looking at what he said above. You have no constitutional rights even
if you are taken to a US prison because your still deemed to be outside
the US. Yes, you are deemed to be "sort of" outside the US when you are
in transit, but there are no US prisons there. So the statement is just
plain idiotic.

Yes, it is plain idiotic. In fact, I'd say it was out of the question
that such a thing could even happen in the "civilized world"

Unfortunately it has ALREADY HAPPENED.

This isn't a figment of my imagination, or a "this is what I think might
happen" rant, it's a "this is what already happened"

You can be detained by Immigration in any country, not just the US.
Canada has the right to do exactly the same thing, and does when it
feels proper. Any Immigration official can block you at any time for
any reason. But they don't arrest you.

True.

The tricky thing is what happens when immigration blocks you, but you're
already in the middle of the country, as is the case for most(1)
international flights.

In theory, you're returned to your country of origin if the destination
country refuses entry, or in the case where you are simply passing
through, you should simply be escorted by armed guard to the next plane
which will take you out of the country.

The US denied Maher Arar entry, held him, didn't torture him where
torture is defined as pain consistent with that of major organ failure
or death, then the US shipped him to a third country (not his origin,
destination, nor to a country to which he was a citizen. He was not
extradited, he was simply shipped out)

If you are arrested by Immigration then you have the exact same rights
to any attorney and all other legal rights as anyone else in America.

You'd think so, but no.

Did you even read the news article that was linked above?

I fly into Frankfurt regularly. German Immigration police greet planes
from Africa and some from Asia on the gateway just outside the airplane
door. If they don't like your paperwork they detain you on the spot.
You never even get to the Immigration counter. You don't even get to
the transit area.

Immigration is a lot tighter there than in the US. And a lot tighter in
many other countries I've been to.

Sure, but how many need to redefine the word torture in order to claim
that their activities don't involve torture?

--
They say you shouldn't say anything about the dead unless it's good.

"He's dead. Good."

Tchiowa wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:
In message .com

If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional
rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David
Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from
a legal point of view.

Absolutely false.

Actually it is entirely accurate.

Tchiowa you are dodging the issue, which is about changing planes at
airports. When I fly, I am happy to change planes because it's so easy
and convenient. Who the hell would want to go through immigration
procedures to enter the US if they are just changing planes??

I would NEVER change planes at a US airport. Get that into your thick
head. It is not convenient. I don't care about these legal and political
issues.

Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article ,
AA1 wrote:


When I look at some Cathay and Malaysia flights on a travels website,
they very long stopovers at Hong Kong or KUL airports. For example, 26
hours in total from Australia to Japan.

If there is a 12-13 hour stopover, would the airline provide a hotel
room in/near the airport?


Why don't you contact the airline to ask?

It was more of a general question to find out if it is standard
practise, but I will certainly call the airline before booking.

Hilary wrote:

DEP Brisbane 2350 ARR KL 0605 #1
DEP KL 1100 ARR Tokyo 1900


But what about return?


I'm not a travel agent you know

Return times not so good - mandatory overnight in KL from 1940 to 0920.

Good, I'll call them and demand a free hotel stay before booking. BTW
how do you access those timetables? I went to the worldspan website and
couldn't find that function.

AA1 wrote:
Tchiowa you are dodging the issue, which is about changing planes at
airports.

Who is dodging the issue? I asked a question and got a couple of
responses. Both were about legal issues, not about changing planes.

When I fly, I am happy to change planes because it's so easy
and convenient. Who the hell would want to go through immigration
procedures to enter the US if they are just changing planes??

Me if it was a whole lot easier than flying thousands of miles out of
my way and spending several more hours in the air and spending 10-12
hours on a layover (which was the original topic, remember?).

I would NEVER change planes at a US airport. Get that into your thick
head.

Ah, a nice adult response. Did you mommy see your write this?

It is not convenient. I don't care about these legal and political
issues.

But several people obviously did. They are the ones who brought up the
topic. Pay attention. You might learn something. Now time for you to go
to bed. Tonight's a school night.

They do have a point though, for some (or rather a lot) it's a whole
lot easier to go thousands of miles out of thier way and spend more
hours in the air and in layovers than it is to have to deal with the
whims (getting and spending for a visa, being
photographed/fingerprinted, etc.) of US Immigration and Customs just to
change planes.

Mel3k wrote:
They do have a point though, for some (or rather a lot) it's a whole
lot easier to go thousands of miles out of thier way and spend more
hours in the air and in layovers than it is to have to deal with the
whims (getting and spending for a visa, being
photographed/fingerprinted, etc.) of US Immigration and Customs just to
change planes.

And if that is the decision that some people make and the reason that
they make it, that's fine. That's the answer to the question I asked.
Too bad I didn't get your answer first rather than the 2 or 3
"Americans are all Nazis and Bush is the Anti-Christ" responses or the
rather infantile response from the original poster.

But this is Usenet, isn't it?