Visa reqts for US

Jonathan Bryce wrote:

The US doesn't have a human rights act.

It doesn't need one. It has the Bill of Rights instead.

It has one of the worst human rights
records of any country in the world today.

Right........

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:37:13 +0100, "Farmer Giles"
wrote:

snip

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?

No, but if you have a criminal record - or even have ever been
arrested, depending on which bit of US gov. you believe! - you are not
eligible to travel to the US on the 'visa waiver' program, you have to
apply for a visa well in advance of your travel date.

(visa waiver allows visitors in to USA for short stays without a visa
- you just fill in a form on the plane - if visitor is from one of a
list of 'good guys' countries, including the UK)

Mike
http://www.corestore.org
For sale: Al Qaeda rifle. Never fired. Dropped once.

Gaz wrote:

Name a better system of rational, limited and democratic government.

Ask a black in Mississippi.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:03:18 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
wrote:

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.

They're wrong.

There are quite a few which are worse - Zimbabwe being the most
obvious, but several of the middle east countries, and a few South
American ones.

But almost all the ones which most people would think have a worse
position are dictatorships rather than democracies.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:03:18 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
wrote:

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.

They're wrong.

There are quite a few which are worse - Zimbabwe being the most
obvious, but several of the middle east countries, and a few South
American ones.

But almost all the ones which most people would think have a worse
position are dictatorships rather than democracies.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:17:32 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:


"Alex Heney" wrote in message
.. .
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!

Name a better system of rational, limited and democratic government.


It's not a question of whether their system of government is the best,
although most European countries have at least as good, if not better,
and so do a number of others.

Human rights records have little to do with the system of government.
They are more about abuse of power by officialdom, and what laws are
in existence.

Even the most perfect democracy possible can still pass laws that
restrict human rights.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:17:32 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:


"Alex Heney" wrote in message
.. .
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!

Name a better system of rational, limited and democratic government.


It's not a question of whether their system of government is the best,
although most European countries have at least as good, if not better,
and so do a number of others.

Human rights records have little to do with the system of government.
They are more about abuse of power by officialdom, and what laws are
in existence.

Even the most perfect democracy possible can still pass laws that
restrict human rights.

Gaz wrote:

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
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.

Bwwwaaahaahahahahahah! ROTF, LMAO! Talk about fantasies.

I can't imagine how you could type that with a straight face after
the war crimes committed in Abu Ghraib, after the appalling defiance
of international law in Guantanamo, and after criticism from Amnesty
Internation for officially executing more children than any country
in the world (hand-in-hand with Iran in the Axis of Evil).

Thanks for the laugh; many people might think you're serious.

--
Ken Tough

Gaz wrote:

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
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.

Bwwwaaahaahahahahahah! ROTF, LMAO! Talk about fantasies.

I can't imagine how you could type that with a straight face after
the war crimes committed in Abu Ghraib, after the appalling defiance
of international law in Guantanamo, and after criticism from Amnesty
Internation for officially executing more children than any country
in the world (hand-in-hand with Iran in the Axis of Evil).

Thanks for the laugh; many people might think you're serious.

--
Ken Tough

Mike wrote:

What's ABH stand for?

Actual Bodily Harm. Would translate to Assault and Battery.

I'm an American who has given up on internationalism since Sept '01.
Actually, there's some interesting travel to be made domestically.

'Internationalism'? (Do us a favour, see if you can convince
your Administration to follow suit).

Good point about the domestic travel. It's also better for the
environment if it uses less energy in transport and has less
impact on natural sites.

--
Ken Tough