VISA Cops Imprison Innocent UK Tourists
S.Byers
cops are imprisoning innocent British tourists if they have a wrong
visa. Read on:
The Sunday Times - Review
April 18, 2004
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1077986,00.html
Most wanted: how the US visa cops nailed me
David James Smith was one of many Britons put in a cell for not having
the right papers for a visit to the States
Though I do not usually take pleasure from other people's misfortune,
I must confess I was rather happy to read that Ian McEwan, the
novelist, had briefly been refused entry to the United States the
other day because he did not have the right visa.
There has been a spate of similar cases in recent months — a couple of
reporters from Australia, a large group of computer game journalists
heading to a convention, some friends of friends who had the wrong
visa, an expired visa or no visa at all. And me, glad of the company,
relieved to find that I am not the only turkey in the coop.
I flew into Los Angeles International Airport at about 3pm on March 2.
The immigration officer took my green visa waiver form and asked the
purpose of my visit. I told him I was on assignment for The Sunday
Times Magazine.
The officer asked me to follow him to the secondary inspection area
where he handed my passport to a colleague. I wasn't worried, I had
nothing to hide.
Then I was called to the counter and told that the green waiver form
was not intended for use by foreign journalists who were supposed to
have an I-visa. Again, I was not concerned. I had been travelling to
the States on assignments for nearly 10 years and had never had a
visa. I had always been open about the nature of my visit and had
never before been challenged, not even after 9/11.
I was told that the role of immigration had been subsumed into the
Department of Homeland Security and that the rules had been tightened.
Strictly speaking, as a journalist you should only ever have entered
with the I-visa but in practice it had not been necessary. Until now.
After five hours of anxious waiting I was told I had been refused
entry and would be going home the next day. I wondered if I'd be put
up in an airport hotel. But no, I was told I would be handed over to a
private security firm who would take me to a detention centre in
downtown LA. I was laboriously fingerprinted, digit by digit, three
times for three separate forms and photographed four times because one
of the pictures didn't come out.
When the private security officer came along he told me to empty my
pockets and remove my shoe laces and my trouser belt. He told me to
place my hands behind my head and frisked me. In the secure area I was
offered a cold drink and an apple and a bun. I was too sick to eat. I
wasn't allowed a cup of coffee, presumably because I might have used
it as a weapon. All my possessions were now in my bags which I could
use only with permission. I was not allowed the use of my mobile or
laptop or even a pen. I was given a red soft felt-tip and used it to
make some notes.
Just before midnight another officer arrived to take me to the
detention centre. He said he was not going to cuff me and I thanked
him. He asked me if I wanted to bring anything. I said I didn't know
what was there, so couldn't say what I might need. There was not much
there, he said. Blankets? No. Could I take one? No, because then he'd
have 200 other inmates all rioting for a blanket.
I was locked into a cage in the back of a van — a stray dog on his way
to the pound. The detention centre was in the bowels of the regional
field office of the Department of Homeland Security. I passed through
the entrance into the secure area. It was a large open room with
chairs and desks, surrounded by a series of locked rooms with
reinforced glass windows. Each of the rooms had an incongruously large
numeral painted on its facing wall. "I'll put him in tank two, shall
I?" asked the guard who took me in. No, he was told, use tank one.
I was kept in the room for the whole night. It was a square room of 15
paces width. Bright fluorescent lights remained on the whole time. I
was told they could not be dimmed or turned off. Cold air blew
constantly from vents in the high ceiling that were spattered with
dried pieces of sodden toilet tissue that other inmates had obviously
used to try to block the vents.
There was no bedding and no bed, just a bench fixed to the wall with a
cold metallic surface; there was a stainless steel toilet and a
drinking tap moulded from the same unit immediately above the toilet.
There was no door on the filthy toilet, only a partial sidescreen.
There was a television, which was off when I arrived and was switched
on shortly after 6am.
There was a bank of telephones on the wall and several notices by the
door, listing the phone numbers of consulates and immigration lawyers.
The phones could be used only with special detention centre phone
cards, purchased from a machine just outside my door. There was a list
of rules about inmate behaviour which, in the absence of a pen, I
tried and failed to memorise. I recall that horseplay was banned, as
was knocking on the glass window. There was, however, no bell or any
other means of calling for help or assistance.
After about an hour I began to feel a little panicky. Would I cope? I
caught the eye of a passing guard and he unlocked my door. He let me
buy a phone card. I told him I wasn't sure that I could handle being
locked up all night and he said you just have to try to get through it
as best you can. I lay on the cold bench and read a book, using the
plastic liner from the dirty dustbin for insulation and my unlaced
shoes as a pillow.
I tried to call colleagues in London but it was out of hours by now
and I couldn't raise anybody. Reluctantly, but needing to speak to
someone who cared about me, I called home and told my girlfriend,
Petal, where I was and what had happened. I did my best to reassure
her that I was okay but she was worried. I felt calmer after speaking
to her and knew then that I would survive the experience. Still, it
remained close to unbearable and I was unable to sleep.
At about 8am I was placed in another "tank" with 20 others. A man came
and asked what a white boy like me was doing there. So I told him. He
was Jordanian and had just finished a prison sentence for a firearms
offence and faced deportation. I spoke to a Jamaican and a man from
Belize who had both been caught trying to enter the United States on
false passports. They had spent a month in prison and were about to be
deported.
The door opened and the breakfast trolley pulled up. We were told to
form a single file from the door and took it in turns to collect our
breakfast. No coffee, of course. After breakfast I was called from the
room and taken to wait in the lobby with a group of Chinese. As we sat
there a party of young Mexican men arrived, all handcuffed together
like a chain gang.
I wondered if I would be handcuffed for the return journey but I was
locked in the van again, with the Chinese this time, and we drove back
to the airport. One of the Chinese spoke English and said they had
flown to Mexico from Europe and entered the US in a lorry. Now they
were being flown to Beijing.
At the airport we drove across the runway and stopped at the foot of
the Chinese group's 747 and they were escorted onto the plane. I was
taken back to the secure room inside the airport where I wrapped
myself in blankets and fell asleep.
It was 26 hours after my arrival when two guards finally escorted me
onto the plane home. They took me into the plane and gave the purser
an envelope containing my passport, which was returned to me just
before we landed at Heathrow. Inside it, someone had written in big
letters in black biro: "Refused under sec 217.4 (a)b) of the INA
(Immigration and Nationality Act). To depart foreign on VSOO8."
mtravelkay
S.Byers wrote:
> In a cynical move that will have BIG repercussions on US Tourism, VISA
> cops are imprisoning innocent British tourists if they have a wrong
> visa. Read on:
Wasn't a similar thing posted a few weeks ago?
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.
Jim Ley
> The solution is quite simple. When
>traveling to a foreign country, make sure you know what kind of visa is
>required.
but it's also, don't post any trip reports about the US to the
internet after visiting unless you travelled there on an appropriate
visa.
Jim.
Max Mustermann
So what the fuck do you care? You post nothing but shit tons of times a day.
Stop harassing the posters, asshole!
About Rogue Cisco Employee Michael "mrtravelkay" Voight,
a.k.a. the "mrtravel" Netkook Troll/Usenet Flooder
***WARNING: THIS IDIOT HAS BEEN CAUGHT FORGING PEOPLE'S IDENTITIES ON USENET
AND CANCELLING THEIR POSTS.***
"mrtavelkay" is the latest usenet handle of a brainless troll whose real name is
Michael Voight, email <mvo...@cisco.com>.
He is better known by his previous stupid handle, "mrtravel".
The idiot works for Cisco in San Jose and apparently they don't
keep him busy enough so he has to troll usenet when he isn't
looking for foreign brides to marry in exchange for money
in alt.visa.us.marriage-based and alt.personals.big-folks, or trying
to pick up minors in alt.personals.teens or any of the number of creepy
newsgroups he frequents. Some of his other trolling aliases are Network
Guy, starryst...@sbcglobal.net, sleepydoc <slee...@verizon.net>, jlhunt
<jlh...@huntbros.com>, and Lost 5 of 8 <se...@loveme.fun>, mrt <m...@mrt.com>,
news.sf.sbcglobal.net <no...@none.none>, not-nomen
<no...@none.none>,<uclais...@ucla.edd>, David Tanner
<dtann...@dtanner.org>, Jeff Davies <te...@test.test>, BobTheBuilder
<no...@build.me.an.ark>.
All intelligent members of the usenet community have killfiled him, so he takes
great pains to get past their killfiles by rubbing his only two cerebral neurons
together and coming up with gems like: mrtrav <mrt...@mtr.mrt.trm>, mrtrav3
<mr...@aa.aa>, mrraveltay <mrrav...@me.igpay.atinlay>, and mrtravelkay
<mrtra...@a.aa>, and mtravelkay <a....@aaa.aaa> and <""a.a\"@a,a,a>.
The lastest product of his brain diarrhea is Bill Clarkj
<bi...@billclarkpresents.com>.
He seems to like to hang out in alt.sex.preteen. Hmmm....
His phone numbers are 831-295-3628 and 831-252-2606.
He's got a daughter in Orange County that one of his ex-wives had the
intelligence to take away from him. Lord only knows what could have
happened to her if she had continued to live with the kook. The other kids
he has belong to his previous Russian sleazy brides, and since they come
and go so do the kids. It wouldn't hurt to let Cisco know what kind of
deviant sexual pervert maniac they have working for them, so....
For starters, forward his idiotic posts to ab...@cisco.com .
He works in technical support, so forward them to t...@cisco.com .
He often posts through sbcglobal and prodigy, so forward them to
ab...@prodigy.net and ab...@sbcglobal.net as well.
You can also call them at 1 800 553 2447 and ask to speak with a supervisor
and explain that you are EXTREMELY unhappy that this idiot spends his whole
day at work playing on the internet on company time. THEY WILL NOT LIKE
THAT.
Then write to corporate headquarters explaining what this idiot is doing
and telling them HOW BAD IT IS FOR THEIR COMPANY IMAGE. They will LOVE
that you brought this to their attention:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Then also call them. You should always follow up email or letters with
phone calls. Always ask for supervisors or managers. Try to get as far up
as possible.
(408)526-4000
(800)553-NETS or
(800)553-6387
Contact Investor Relations and tell them you are interested in investing in
their company but won't do so until they get rid of this asshole who is
wasting company resources:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Investor Relations Department
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: (408) 526-8890
Fax: (408) 526-4545
Email: investor-...@cisco.com
Might as well contact customer service too, they LOVE to hear about this
type of stuff:
USA 1 800 553 6387
ic-sup...@cisco.com
cs-sup...@cisco.com
Then finally, send letters with copies of his nasty posts addressed
personally to each one of the OFFICERS of the company using the
headquarters address. Believe me, they READ your complaints and are VERY
INTERESTED in them, especially if it's about one of their employees. They
will take a PERSONAL interest in rooting this ASSHOLE out of their company:
John Morgridge, Chairman
John Chambers, President, CEO
Donald Valentine, Vice Chairman
Larry Carter, CFO, Sr. VP-Fin. and Admin., Sec., Director
Richard Justice, Sr. VP, Worldwide Field Operations
Have fun!
devil
Why?
Surely the story was interesting, and of educational value for travelers.
Max Mustermann
>S.Byers wrote:
So what the fuck do you care? You post nothing but shit tons of times a day.
mtravelkay
Max Mustermann wrote:
>
> So what the fuck do you care? You post nothing but shit tons of times a day.
> Stop harassing the posters, asshole!
I see, Mr Nomen, when I followup to a post, it is harassment, but the
garbage you post isn't. What the hell is wrong with you? What is your
problem with one person posting an opposing view? Why is posting an
opposing view considered to be harassment? Do you think that my
employer is going to care that I believe someone should have the proper
visa to come to the US. You even post such trash when I am posting from
my own ISP, from my own home, on my own computer, on a Sunday.
Why can't you just deal with people in a rational matter, when they
disagree with your views? Maybe you should give up the drugs... Come
clean... I understand that your wife and your dog left you, but you can
build a better life for yourself in just 12 steps.
Jim Ley
Since the person does not have an appropriate visa for journalists,
publishing their report is in violation of the visa they had, whilst
they've now escaped the country, it will presumably harm any future
entries - as much as any other breach of visa conditions.
Jim.
Howard Long
news:Jhzgc.23927$Qk2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> 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.
I have opposing thoughts on this. Firstly the journalist says he's
successfully travelled as a journalist to the US (including since 9/11) and
has had no problem, having nothing to hide, and it is suggested (although
not stated) that on each occasion at entry he has stated he is on a
journalistic assignment. It would be somewhat strange that the immigration
service would not know this from his previous entries: I know for a fact
that they know exactly when pax have entered the US previously at the
immigration booths. They have used this history once on me about ten years
ago in an attempt to falsely accuse me of being a drug courier. When they
found nothing on me they then proceeded unsuccessfully to try to falsely
nail me for laundering money. Rubber gloves, full cavity etc. Since that
time I have never once stopped me despite my half dozen or so trips to the
US each year since.
On the other side of the coin, what does worry me is that journalists have a
nasty habit of making a story larger than it really is in order to make up
column inches. There are parts of this story that don't add up to me. I
agree that it would be a stupid thing to attempt to enter a country without
having a correct visa, but in the old days you could usually simply purchase
the correct visa as necessary at the entry point. So the treatment does seem
rather harsh, although at least it wasn't Guantanamo Bay. I don't see why it
should affect tourism as the OP suggests on the basis that this guy was
entering on a work assignment, not as a tourist.
I would add that the role of the immigration officer (in the US, UK and
elsewhere) is often one of extreme subjectivity in applying rules, in
particular to those who don't have a vote in the country they're attempting
to enter. Sadly this means that often many of us have to suffer the wrath of
someone who got out of bed the wrong side that day in lieu of common sense -
and I'm being very diplomatic in my phraseology here.
Kind Regards, Howard
Bert Hyman
<how...@howardlongxxx.com> wrote:
> I would add that the role of the immigration officer (in the US, UK and
> elsewhere) is often one of extreme subjectivity in applying rules, in
> particular to those who don't have a vote in the country they're
> attempting to enter.
Remember too that police the world over will always tell you that just
because they didn't arrest you for violating some particular law at some
time in the past doesn't mean that they won't decide to nab you for it
tomorrow.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Pan
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:51:54 GMT, devil <de...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:31:39 +0000, Jim Ley wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:54:49 GMT, mtravelkay <a....@aaa.aaa> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The solution is quite simple. When
>>>>traveling to a foreign country, make sure you know what kind of visa is
>>>>required.
>>>
>>> but it's also, don't post any trip reports about the US to the
>>> internet after visiting unless you travelled there on an appropriate
>>> visa.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>Surely the story was interesting, and of educational value for travelers.
>
>Since the person does not have an appropriate visa for journalists,
>publishing their report is in violation of the visa they had, whilst
>they've now escaped the country,
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?
> 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.
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.
mtravelkay
Bert Hyman wrote:
You would have to think that some time in that 10 year period he would
have learned that he was technically supposed to have a visa. It's like
speeding. I know speeding is illegal, but I know there is a small chance
that I will get caught each time I do it.
mtravelkay
>
> 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.
>
>>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.
James Robinson
>
> You would have to think that some time in that 10 year period he would
> have learned that he was technically supposed to have a visa. It's like
> speeding. I know speeding is illegal, but I know there is a small chance
> that I will get caught each time I do it.
Sometimes countries don't enforce their visa rules too tightly. Take
Mexico as an example. They have two separate forms that you can fill
in. One is for tourists, and the other for business travelers. The
airlines often don't have the business form, so I will fill in the
tourist one. I've never had a problem, even after U tell them I'm
entering for business purposes.
You get into the habit of assuming there won't be a problem, but I
suppose that one day they might get into a snit and refuse me entry. I
doubt it.
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.
Bert Hyman
> 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?
Pan
>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.
Miguel Cruz
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:20:12 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (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.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
semir...@my-deja.com
>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!
Miguel Cruz
> 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.
Keith Willshaw
<semir...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:4bcc06c7.04041...@posting.google.com...
> 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
James Robinson
>
> > 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.
Bert Hyman
> 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.
devil
> 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.
devil
> Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:20:12 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (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.
Miguel Cruz
> 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.
devil
> 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.
Sure. But that's not a reason to keep him in the conditions he was kept.
BTW, this sort of situation is not really new, and it does not affect the
US only. I have seen cases of Americans traveling to Canada to do some
short time work, such as maintenance at a customer site, who would not
bother getting the proper visa, and would be sent back.
Which would drive them real mad.
Or people driving say from the continental US to Alaska, and who would be
raving mad because they were required to leave their gun for safekeeping
before entering Canada.
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...
mtravelkay
semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
It wasn't clever, but fair to treat him as other people that violate
immigration laws. As the journalist himself indicated, there were people
of other natioanlitiies present that had also violated immigration laws
and it appears they were treated as he was. It sounds like he thought he
should get special treatment for his violation.
mtravelkay
> 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.
Being on holiday didn't require a visa, working as a journalist (or many
other things) requires a visa. I would think a journalist should have
the ability to research this.
mtravelkay
>
> 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?
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Being on holiday didn't require a visa, working as a journalist (or many
> other things) requires a visa. I would think a journalist should have
> the ability to research this.
Fine, so issue him a proper visa, and tell him not to do it again.
Don't arrest him, embarrass him, and deport him. It's not like he's a
national threat.
James Robinson
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"?
mtravelkay
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?
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > 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?
Probably not, since you are taking work from a national. In the case of
journalists, the same rules don't apply, since you aren't getting paid
by a local company, and aren't taking a job from a local. No reason not
to issue a visa on the spot.
In the case of Canada, for many types of jobs you can get a work visa at
the border. No need to arrange it ahead of time.
mtravelkay
James Robinson wrote:
> mtravelkay wrote:
>
>>James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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?
>
>
> Probably not, since you are taking work from a national. In the case of
> journalists, the same rules don't apply, since you aren't getting paid
> by a local company, and aren't taking a job from a local. No reason not
> to issue a visa on the spot.
What prevented him, at some point in the past 10 years, from applying
for one ahead of time? The visa isn't issued at the border and he knew
this in advance. He just didn't bother to get one, because he didn't get
one before, even though he knew he "technically" needed one. As you have
stated, if I go to the UK and try to enter without the proper visa for
working, I would have a problem. I realize they might not have this
issue with journalist, but just want to show that not having the proper
visa can get detained in a jail.
>
> In the case of Canada, for many types of jobs you can get a work visa at
> the border. No need to arrange it ahead of time.
For all jobs, and for people from any country? Or are you talking about
a US citizen getting a qualified job under NAFTA?
Miguel Cruz
The next flight couldn't have been more than 12 hours away. They could have
left him in the terminal.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > Probably not, since you are taking work from a national. In the case of
> > journalists, the same rules don't apply, since you aren't getting paid
> > by a local company, and aren't taking a job from a local. No reason not
> > to issue a visa on the spot.
>
> What prevented him, at some point in the past 10 years, from applying
> for one ahead of time? The visa isn't issued at the border and he knew
> this in advance. He just didn't bother to get one, because he didn't get
> one before, even though he knew he "technically" needed one.
And he also knew that in the past it wasn't a big deal. He was allowed
into the country without the visa. The overreaction on the part of US
authorities is the inconsistency. One minute the rule is ignored, the
next the person is arrested and deported.
Why not simply issue him a visa and tell him not to do it again? He
wasn't trying to take a job from a US national, there is no indication
that he is trying to enter the US as a refugee, nor that he even wants
to stay, there is no physical crime, like drug smuggling or murder
involved, simply a bureaucracy trying to humiliate someone for no
particular end purpose. And sorry, I don't accept the "because it's the
law" rationale. The law is simply an ass in this case.
devil
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?
mtravelkay
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.
devil
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.
Miguel Cruz
> devil wrote:
>> 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.
Charles Newman
"Miguel Cruz" <sp...@un.u.nu> wrote in message
news:u8Dgc.4163$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
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.
Keith Willshaw
"James Robinson" <was...@212.com> wrote in message
news:40830A61...@212.com...
> 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
Keith Willshaw
> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> 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.
>
But execute you if they find more than 25 grams of hard drugs on your
person.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"mtravelkay" <a....@aaa.aaa> wrote in message
news:TNFgc.38376$%F5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
No you'd be detained overnight at Heathrow Central then deported
Keith
mtravelkay
Keith Willshaw wrote:
Is that just for immigration violators or do they also put other
criminals there?
Miguel Cruz
> "Miguel Cruz" <sp...@un.u.nu> wrote:
>> 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
Keep in mind that there are hardware keystroke loggers as well. Little
things that go between the plug and the machine, or inside the machine. No
software will detect those.
michael thomas
not have the appropriate visa for they type of entry. He never lied to
anyone (no consul did an interview).
He was denied entry. He was detained pending voluntary departure (he
was not deported).
The inspecting officer has full authority to admit in the proper status
without a visa. He is a low level bureaucrat. If he admits without
proper visa he will likely get a bad job evaluation and reduced
promotion prospects.
Simon Elliott
>> 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.
Not all the time. I've sometimes found immigration officers at LHR to be
extremely reasonable.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
Miss L. Toe
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5vt9d$bp3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
detention centre at Gatwick, and you could get the taxi to stop down the
road and just walk away :-)
Miss L. Toe
> > In the case of Canada, for many types of jobs you can get a work visa at
> > the border. No need to arrange it ahead of time.
>
> For all jobs, and for people from any country? Or are you talking about
> a US citizen getting a qualified job under NAFTA?
>
business trip that they decided to classify as work, they sold me a 1 year
work permit for 100 dollars.
(there were qualifications required, like a degree or 10 (i think) years
experiance).
Marie Lewis
Marie Lewis
>
> <semir...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:4bcc06c7.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > 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?
> >
>
> 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
>
>
The treatment he received, however, was unneccessarily brutal.
Marie Lewis
Simply, many Americans cannot deal with criticism.
gman99
Doesn't seem to be any evidence that he 'tried' to enter illegally. Sounds
like he had erroneous paperwork, sounds like he tried to enter legally but
something wasn't quite right.
mtravelkay
This event doesn't happen "all of the time" in the US either. The
journalist had been permitted in for 10 years.
mtravelkay
gman99 wrote:
No, he had no "paperwork" other than his passport. He was trying to
enter under the Visa Waiver Program to do something that required a visa.
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
>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.xxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/
>> http;//www.xxxxxx.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
>> xxxxxx, or xxxxxx.
>>
>
>Why should I care about a keystroke logger?
Pride goes before a fall.....
>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.
Indeed...
Dear _____,
Thank you for your letter concerning our employee Michael Voight.
We are aware of the situation and have received numerous complaints about his
usenet posts from work.
We take abuse by our employees very seriously. While we do provide Internet
access to our employees, we expect them to behave professionally and not abuse
the privilege.
We have initiated an investigation into Mr. Voight's Internet activities. His
department manager and others concerned have been alerted about the situation,
and his Internet use is being monitored.
We appreciate the time you have taken to bring this to our attention and we
apologize for our employee's behavior. Rest assured we will do everything
possible to correct the situation.
--------------------------------------
Keep those complaints to Cisco coming, folks! It's working!
About Rogue Cisco Employee Michael "mrtravelkay" Voight,
a.k.a. the "mrtravel" Netkook Troll/Usenet Flooder
***WARNING: THIS IDIOT HAS BEEN CAUGHT FORGING PEOPLE'S IDENTITIES ON USENET
AND CANCELLING THEIR POSTS.***
"mrtavelkay" is the latest usenet handle of a brainless troll whose real name is
Michael Voight, email <mvo...@cisco.com>.
He is better known by his previous stupid handle, "mrtravel".
The idiot works for Cisco in San Jose and apparently they don't
keep him busy enough so he has to troll usenet when he isn't
looking for foreign brides to marry in exchange for money
in alt.visa.us.marriage-based and alt.personals.big-folks, or trying
to pick up minors in alt.personals.teens or any of the number of creepy
newsgroups he frequents. Some of his other trolling aliases are Network
Guy, starryst...@sbcglobal.net, sleepydoc <slee...@verizon.net>, jlhunt
<jlh...@huntbros.com>, and Lost 5 of 8 <se...@loveme.fun>, mrt <m...@mrt.com>,
news.sf.sbcglobal.net <no...@none.none>, not-nomen
<no...@none.none>,<uclais...@ucla.edd>, David Tanner
<dtann...@dtanner.org>, Jeff Davies <te...@test.test>, BobTheBuilder
<no...@build.me.an.ark>.
All intelligent members of the usenet community have killfiled him, so he takes
great pains to get past their killfiles by rubbing his only two cerebral neurons
together and coming up with gems like: mrtrav <mrt...@mtr.mrt.trm>, mrtrav3
<mr...@aa.aa>, mrraveltay <mrrav...@me.igpay.atinlay>, and mrtravelkay
<mrtra...@a.aa>, and mtravelkay <a....@aaa.aaa> and <""a.a\"@a,a,a>.
The lastest product of his brain diarrhea is Bill Clarkj
<bi...@billclarkpresents.com>.
He seems to like to hang out in alt.sex.preteen. Hmmm....
His phone numbers are 831-295-3628 and 831-252-2606.
He's got a daughter in Orange County that one of his ex-wives had the
intelligence to take away from him. Lord only knows what could have
happened to her if she had continued to live with the kook. The other kids
he has belong to his previous Russian sleazy brides, and since they come
and go so do the kids. It wouldn't hurt to let Cisco know what kind of
deviant sexual pervert maniac they have working for them, so....
For starters, forward his idiotic posts to ab...@cisco.com .
He works in technical support, so forward them to t...@cisco.com .
He often posts through sbcglobal and prodigy, so forward them to
ab...@prodigy.net and ab...@sbcglobal.net as well.
You can also call them at 1 800 553 2447 and ask to speak with a supervisor
and explain that you are EXTREMELY unhappy that this idiot spends his whole
day at work playing on the internet on company time. THEY WILL NOT LIKE
THAT.
Then write to corporate headquarters explaining what this idiot is doing
and telling them HOW BAD IT IS FOR THEIR COMPANY IMAGE. They will LOVE
that you brought this to their attention:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Then also call them. You should always follow up email or letters with
phone calls. Always ask for supervisors or managers. Try to get as far up
as possible.
(408)526-4000
(800)553-NETS or
(800)553-6387
Contact Investor Relations and tell them you are interested in investing in
their company but won't do so until they get rid of this asshole who is
wasting company resources:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Investor Relations Department
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: (408) 526-8890
Fax: (408) 526-4545
Email: investor-...@cisco.com
Might as well contact customer service too, they LOVE to hear about this
type of stuff:
USA 1 800 553 6387
ic-sup...@cisco.com
cs-sup...@cisco.com
Then finally, send letters with copies of his nasty posts addressed
personally to each one of the OFFICERS of the company using the
headquarters address. Believe me, they READ your complaints and are VERY
INTERESTED in them, especially if it's about one of their employees. They
will take a PERSONAL interest in rooting this ASSHOLE out of their company:
John Morgridge, Chairman
John Chambers, President, CEO
Donald Valentine, Vice Chairman
Larry Carter, CFO, Sr. VP-Fin. and Admin., Sec., Director
Richard Justice, Sr. VP, Worldwide Field Operations
Have fun!
Mike O'sullivan
"Pan" <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:qpu5801a48ldqt1fj...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:05:49 GMT, mtravelkay <a....@aaa.aaa> wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes, it might be a police state now, but it's not that bad. :-)
Nomen Nescio
>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.xxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/
>> http;//www.xxxxxx.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
Anonymous Sender
>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.xxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/
>> http;//www.xxxxxx.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
Sjoerd
"mtravelkay" <a....@aaa.aaa> schreef in bericht
news:Jhzgc.23927$Qk2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>The solution is quite simple. When
> traveling to a foreign country, make sure you know what kind of visa is
> required.
The solution is even simpler: don't travel to the USA until the Bush mafia
is out of office and things are back to normal again.
By the way, have you ever heard about an American who was put in prison in a
Western, allied country for minor immigration issues such as arriving
without the appropriate visa?
The OP is a British guy, so he is from a country that Bush himself calls
"America's best friend". And he is treated like a criminal? Shame on the US
government.
Sjoerd
Max Mustermann
>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.xxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/
>> http;//www.xxxxxx.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
Simon Elliott
>>>Try that approach at Heathrow and you'l get the same response.
>>
>>
>> Not all the time. I've sometimes found immigration officers at LHR to be
>> extremely reasonable.
>
>This event doesn't happen "all of the time" in the US either. The
>journalist had been permitted in for 10 years.
This kind of inconsistency can be something of a problem. At LHR I've
known people to be allowed entry who probably didn't deserve it. Equally
people with all the correct documents are sometimes denied entry.
Since the journalist didn't have the correct visa, I wonder why the
airline agreed to carry him?
If someone is denied entry at LHR, where would they normally be held
pending their return flight?
semir...@my-deja.com
>semiretired 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
After his gratuitous and totally unnecessary ritual public humiliation
is this Sunday Times journalist still going to love the USA - or will
personal experience make him hate America?
semir...@my-deja.com
>semiretired wrote:
>>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
>>>required.
>>from the most important Sunday newspaper of the USA's principal ally
>It wasn't clever, but fair to treat him as other people that violate
>immigration laws. As the journalist himself indicated, there were people
>of other natioanlitiies present that had also violated immigration laws
>and it appears they were treated as he was. It sounds like he thought he
>should get special treatment for his violation.
The people he was locked up with were "illegals" IIRC - trying to stay
in the US.
The purpose of his own visit was to speak to somebody, write about it
and then go home.
His ritual public humiliation was grotesque, unnecessary and stupid.
alohacyberian
news:40841a17$0$15375$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> The OP is a British guy, so he is from a country that Bush himself calls
> "America's best friend". And he is treated like a criminal? Shame on the US
> government.
> Sjoerd
>
That could well be the case because he IS a criminal. ;-) Ain't justice a
bitch? Or are you under the impression that there are no criminals in the
U.K.? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Keith Willshaw
>
> After his gratuitous and totally unnecessary ritual public humiliation
> is this Sunday Times journalist still going to love the USA - or will
> personal experience make him hate America?
He ought to learn the lesson that laws apply to journalists
too. A great many of that breed seem to consider themselves
above such matters as legality.
Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
special treatment.
Keith
mtravelkay
Keith Willshaw wrote:
And, I am a bit confused about why the subject line indicates "tourists"
were "imprisoned". He was not a "tourist", much less "tourists". He was
in the US doing a job for which a visa is required. He didn't have the
visa and was detained until he could be returned to the UK. At no point
did he ever say he was held past the time he could get a flight back.
Miguel Cruz
> <semir...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> After his gratuitous and totally unnecessary ritual public humiliation
>> is this Sunday Times journalist still going to love the USA - or will
>> personal experience make him hate America?
>
> He ought to learn the lesson that laws apply to journalists
> too. A great many of that breed seem to consider themselves
> above such matters as legality.
>
> Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
> special treatment.
Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
Lansbury
<si...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If someone is denied entry at LHR, where would they normally be held
>pending their return flight?
If one is available, ie they're are not all full, an immigration
detention cell at the airport.
Failing that an immigration detention centre nearby and if no space
there, their passport and other travel documents are taken and they are
told to report back to immigration at a set time the next day.
--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup
Simon Elliott
>> The OP is a British guy, so he is from a country that Bush himself calls
>> "America's best friend". And he is treated like a criminal? Shame on the US
>> government.
>> Sjoerd
>>
>
>That could well be the case because he IS a criminal. ;-)
No, he isn't a criminal. He's someone who didn't do his homework and
turned up at a port of entry with the wrong visa. As such, the
immigration authorities have every right to refuse entry. But there's no
excuse for the heavy handed treatment.
Lansbury
wrote:
>By the way, have you ever heard about an American who was put in prison in a
>Western, allied country for minor immigration issues such as arriving
>without the appropriate visa?
Yes and I know some who were deported straight back to the US.
mrtravelkay
Miguel Cruz wrote:
> Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>><semir...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>After his gratuitous and totally unnecessary ritual public humiliation
>>>is this Sunday Times journalist still going to love the USA - or will
>>>personal experience make him hate America?
>>
>>He ought to learn the lesson that laws apply to journalists
>>too. A great many of that breed seem to consider themselves
>>above such matters as legality.
>>
>>Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
>>special treatment.
>
>
> Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
>
Other journalist have gotten US journalist (I) visas.
No one else but a journalist would need a journalist visa.
If he wanted to come here as an artist, he would need a different visa.
If he wanted to come here as a student, he would need a different visa.
If he wanted to stay over 90 day as a tourist, he would need a visa.
If he was coming from outside of a VWP country, he would need a visa a
tourist for a stay of any length.
If he wanted to visit as a tourist or have attend a business conference,
he could do that without a visa.
Here is a link to the State Dept issuing a cable to offices telling them
to remind journalists that VWP or a B visa was not enough and they need
I Visas. http://www.murthy.com/news/ukdosrem.html
Here it is directly from the US Embassy in London's website
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukpa18dec03.html
We can argue all day about whether or not people "should" need a visa of
whatever type to do whatever it is they want to do, but the law is quite
clear and it wasn't a deeply hidden secret, Journalists need I visas to
enter the US. As of August 1, 2003, this requires going to the Embassy
in London to obtain. The UK, homeland of the author in the story, also
has visas for visiting journalists.
Here is an interesting article about the British goverment denying visa
to 3 African journalists invited by British Airways.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200403290346.html
From the official British Government in the US website we have the
requirements for journalist to obtain a visa.
http://www.britainusa.com/visas/other_show.asp?SarticleType=25&Other_ID=329
And the fee links shows the fee as $143... So, it seems that even the UK
officially requires a formal application by journalists. I have found no
information indicating this requirement does not apply to American
journalists.
Permit Free Employment:
Including: Business & Self-Employed, Investors, Innovator, Overseas
Domestic Workers, Religious Purposes, Representatives of Overseas
Newspapers, News Agencies & Broadcasting Organisations, Sole
Representatives, United Kingdom Ancestry-Employment, Writers, Composers
& Artists. $143.00
mrtravelkay
Lansbury wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:28:32 +0200, "Sjoerd" <sjoerdh...@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
>>By the way, have you ever heard about an American who was put in prison in a
>>Western, allied country for minor immigration issues such as arriving
>>without the appropriate visa?
>
>
> Yes and I know some who were deported straight back to the US.
And I know of cases where the same was true in the US, but that doesn't
excuse the journalist from having one or being detained for not having
one. Being detained doesn't always mean you are treated to the best jail
cell in the world, nor does it always mean you are free to roam on your
own because they trust you. It was one night of detention and he
complained about everything, even the not being able to have coffee.
Surely, one morning without coffee doesn't rank the US jail up there
with Auschwitz.
Keith Willshaw
> >
> > Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
> > special treatment.
>
> Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
>
If I go to the USA to work I need a visa, so does a journalist.
If I go there on holiday I dont need one, neither does a journalist.
The relevant text on the US Embassy site reads
"Visitors to the United States who report on news events and who are
engaged in activities to gather information for the media should obtain an
I-visa."
Keith
James Robinson
>
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
> > > special treatment.
> >
> > Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
> >
>
> If I go to the USA to work I need a visa, so does a journalist.
You don't need a visa if you qualify under the visa waiver program, and
are not being paid by someone in the US. As an example, if you are
being paid by a foreign company to travel to the US to negotiate a deal,
and qualify under the visa waiver program, you don't need a visa. The
only exception is journalists, and they were previously allowed in the
country under the visa waiver program.
James Robinson
>
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
> >
> > Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
>
> Other journalist have gotten US journalist (I) visas.
> No one else but a journalist would need a journalist visa.
And up to recently, journalists were often allowed into the country
under the visa waiver program, without the need for the I Visa.
> If he wanted to come here as an artist, he would need a different visa.
If he wasn't being paid by someone in the US, and qualified under the
visa waiver program, he wouldn't require any visa. The only
foreign-paid person from a visa waiver country requiring a visa is a
journalist. That is the special treatment. If he had said he was coming
to the US to interview people as part of a business deal, he wouldn't
have needed any visa.
> We can argue all day about whether or not people "should" need a visa of
> whatever type to do whatever it is they want to do, but the law is quite
> clear and it wasn't a deeply hidden secret, Journalists need I visas to
> enter the US. As of August 1, 2003, this requires going to the Embassy
> in London to obtain. The UK, homeland of the author in the story, also
> has visas for visiting journalists.
Yes, but did he deserve the treatment he received, considering that he
had previously been granted entry under visa waiver, even when it was
known he was a journalist? The law was just as clear for the last ten
years, it's nothing new. What's new is the draconian enforcement of the
law, which was simply glossed over before.
> Here is an interesting article about the British goverment denying visa
> to 3 African journalists invited by British Airways.
> http://allafrica.com/stories/200403290346.html
That article isn't at all germane to the discussion, since they would
have required a visa for any type of visit, and it was determined that
they might not leave again, hence the visa was denied. It didn't matter
that they were journalists or not. Further, they are from Zimbabwe,
which does not have the best of relations with the UK at the moment.
> From the official British Government in the US website we have the
> requirements for journalist to obtain a visa.
> http://www.britainusa.com/visas/other_show.asp?SarticleType=25&Other_ID=329
Yes, probably tit-for-tat, like the fingerprinting of US visitors to
Brazil.
Lansbury
What has your rant got to do with my response saying I have know of US
citizens treated in actually the same way when in breach of visa
conditions. The implication from the original question was that other
countries, or mainly the UK, would not do such a thing. I was pointing
out they do, quite correctly when someone pitches up trying to gin entry
and not complying with the entry requirements.
Marie Lewis
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c62h5v$bml$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
was.
Marie Lewis
"mrtravelkay" <a...@a.aa.a> wrote in message
news:PN5hc.24528$Qo3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
The point here is not the possession or non possession of the requisite
visa. It is the dreadful treatment meted out to him.
Keith Willshaw
"James Robinson" <was...@212.com> wrote in message
news:40851EA5...@212.com...
They arent the only exceptions
I work work for the UK branch of a US company.
If I travel to head office for a meeting then the
VWP program is fine.
If I'm travelling to the US to give a training course or for
a short assigment then I need either a B1 or H2B visa.
The rules for the VWP are quite clear
"Participating in commercial business transactions WHICH DO NOT
INVOLVE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT in the U.S"
It used to be that the INS were happy to let you in under the
VWP for this, not any more.
The rules for journalists are clearly stated on
http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html
Keith
Simon Elliott
>>If someone is denied entry at LHR, where would they normally be held
>>pending their return flight?
>
>If one is available, ie they're are not all full, an immigration
>detention cell at the airport.
>
>Failing that an immigration detention centre nearby and if no space
>there, their passport and other travel documents are taken and they are
>told to report back to immigration at a set time the next day.
Would you say that these facilities offer reasonably civilised
accommodation?
Miguel Cruz
> "Miguel Cruz" <sp...@un.u.nu> wrote:
>>> Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
>>> special treatment.
>>
>> Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
>
> If I go to the USA to work I need a visa, so does a journalist.
A journalist who goes to the USA to look at things and talk to people and
send a report back to his boss in the UK needs a visa but a non-journalist
can enter under the Visa Waiver Program.
Olivers
>
> 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?
>
A. They didn't lock him up with common criminals, but detained him at the
airport until he could be sent home, "denies entry".
B. Like a journalist's, the products of my consulting for owners of
apartment houses are written reports. If I travel to the UK, visit and
inspect apartments, return to the US and write a report, I will have
violated UK laws by "false entry", the same as working without a visa for
same, and could well be barred at my next attempted entry.
Why are journalists any different from other occupations? Why are
authors, artists and composers, composing/painting/sculpting/writing any
different than someone who works shoveling coal? If one plans to be
productively "laboring", pen, paintbrush or grub hoe, anywhere, one is
obligated to obey national laws and immigration rules.
Hell of a lot of "egalitarians" out there who turn out to be worse than
closet elitists.
Frank F. Matthews
> Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>><semir...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>After his gratuitous and totally unnecessary ritual public humiliation
>>>is this Sunday Times journalist still going to love the USA - or will
>>>personal experience make him hate America?
>>
>>He ought to learn the lesson that laws apply to journalists
>>too. A great many of that breed seem to consider themselves
>>above such matters as legality.
>>
>>Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
>>special treatment.
>
>
> Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
>
> miguel
Special treatment like being able to work in the US without having a
visa. FFM
Frank F. Matthews
The US Department of State appears to disagree with you. I have always
understood differently. It is where you do the work not where you are
paid that counts. FFM
mrtravelkay
James Robinson wrote:
If you go to do journalist work, you need an I visa as this is
ineligible for VWP. The I visa has been around for awhile.
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Miguel Cruz" <sp...@un.u.nu> wrote:
> >>> Personally I dont believe journalists should receive
> >>> special treatment.
> >>
> >> Special treatment like requiring a visa nobody else needs?
> >
> > If I go to the USA to work I need a visa, so does a journalist.
>
> A journalist who goes to the USA to look at things and talk to people and
> send a report back to his boss in the UK needs a visa but a non-journalist
> can enter under the Visa Waiver Program.
>
Unless as the state department puts it 'he is engaged in gainful employment'
in which case he needs a visa. Up until a year or so ago the US
immigration service chose not to to enforce these regulations.
I personally have entered the US in the past on short term assigmnments
during which I was paid in the UK as usual. We were made aware last
year that this would no longer be acceptable and that we should apply
for the appropriate visa's in future.
The same has happened to journalists.
Keith
Miguel Cruz
> "Miguel Cruz" <sp...@un.u.nu> wrote:
>> A journalist who goes to the USA to look at things and talk to people and
>> send a report back to his boss in the UK needs a visa but a non-journalist
>> can enter under the Visa Waiver Program.
>
> Unless as the state department puts it 'he is engaged in gainful employment'
> in which case he needs a visa. Up until a year or so ago the US
> immigration service chose not to to enforce these regulations.
> I personally have entered the US in the past on short term assigmnments
> during which I was paid in the UK as usual. We were made aware last
> year that this would no longer be acceptable and that we should apply
> for the appropriate visa's in future.
http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html
Visitors for Business - Here are types of activities permitted as a
business visitor:
- Participating in commercial business transactions which do not involve
gainful employment in the U.S, for example, negotiating contracts or
consulting with business associates You cannot receive a salary or wages
from a U.S. source.
- Participating in scientific, educational, professional or business
conventions, conferences or seminars;
- Conducting independent research;
- Appearing as a witness in a court trial.
How about "conducting independent research"? It's pretty hard to tell what
they really mean here, I gotta say.
mrtravelkay
> How about "conducting independent research"? It's pretty hard to tell what
> they really mean here, I gotta say.
In all of the time he has spent in traveling as a journalist, do you
really think he has never heard of an "I" visa?
From
http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html
Higlighted in RED on the website you mentioned:
NOTE: Representatives of the foreign press, radio, film, journalists or
other information media, engaging in that vocation while in the U.S.,
require a nonimmigrant Media (I) visa cannot travel to the U.S. on the
visa waiver program and cannot travel using a visitor visa, seeking
admission by the DHS immigration inspector, at the U.S. at the port of
entry.
James Robinson
The feds evaluate employment generally using two measures: One is who is
paying the bill, and the second is if the work will displace a US
worker. Here's a discussion of the subject that I found on the web:
"There are frequent misunderstandings about the nature of authorized
business activities for the business visitor, and foreign nationals must
carefully observe the important but elusive distinction between
employment - which is not allowed - and doing business on behalf of a
foreign employer - which is allowed. The distinction begins but does not
end with the requirement that the alien's salary must be paid by a
foreign employer (unless the alien is self-employed, in which case he
may not perform the activities of his trade or profession while in the
U.S.). Although a U.S. company may pay his living and travel expenses
while in the U.S., his wages must be paid by a foreign employer.
Moreover, the alien's activities must be primarily for the benefit of
the foreign employer. The attributes of a employer-employee relationship
must be found to exist between the alien and the foreign entity rather
than between the alien and a U.S. entity. Thus, it is not sufficient to
disguise actual employment of the business visitor by or for the benefit
of a U.S. employer merely by his or her remaining on a foreign company's
payroll."
That's clearer, right?
James Robinson
Lots of people work in the US without needing a visa. They don't
normally get compensated by US companies while they do it.
James Robinson
As we've discussed before, the requirement was ignored in the past, and
they were often allowed in under the visa waiver program. That is the
point of the discussion.
James Robinson
As we've discussed ad nauseum, that requirement was historically
overlooked, which is the point of the discussion. Now the US decides to
rigidly enforce the rule, and those who arrived expecting the old
treatment got a very rude awakening. Was it really necessary?
You probably agreed with the county sheriff who handcuffed the eight
year old a few days ago, before transporting him to jail, because that
was departmental rules for all prisoners for their own safety. He broke
the law, after all. Some people have no judgment.
James Robinson
>
> semir...@my-deja.com muttered....
>
> > 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?
> >
> A. They didn't lock him up with common criminals, but detained him at the
> airport until he could be sent home, "denies entry".
You'd better read the article again. He was transported to the regional
detention center of Homeland Security in downtown LA.
> B. Like a journalist's, the products of my consulting for owners of
> apartment houses are written reports. If I travel to the UK, visit and
> inspect apartments, return to the US and write a report, I will have
> violated UK laws by "false entry", the same as working without a visa for
> same, and could well be barred at my next attempted entry.
That's interesting. I've done inspection work for acceptance of heavy
equipment in six countries around the world, and never had to get a
"work" visa. I normally only need a business visa, which is the
equivalent of the US B-1 visitor's visa, or visa waiver, if qualified.
In all cases, I was being paid by a foreign company, not a company that
was resident in the country.
> Why are journalists any different from other occupations? Why are
> authors, artists and composers, composing/painting/sculpting/writing any
> different than someone who works shoveling coal? If one plans to be
> productively "laboring", pen, paintbrush or grub hoe, anywhere, one is
> obligated to obey national laws and immigration rules.
If someone wants to come to the US to paint pictures, they don't need a
work visa, as long as they don't intend to sell any of their products
while in the US, and aren't being paid by someone in the US to do the
pictures.
> Hell of a lot of "egalitarians" out there who turn out to be worse than
> closet elitists.
There is also a lot of misunderstanding about visa rules and
application, it seems.
mrtravelkay
>
> As we've discussed before, the requirement was ignored in the past, and
> they were often allowed in under the visa waiver program. That is the
> point of the discussion.
The requirement is explicity noted in RED on the VWP website of the
Stete Department, and is noted clearly on the website of the Embassy in
London. He should have known....
mrtravelkay
> If someone wants to come to the US to paint pictures, they don't need a
> work visa, as long as they don't intend to sell any of their products
> while in the US, and aren't being paid by someone in the US to do the
> pictures.
Are you sure about this? Did you check, or are you guessing?
Miguel Cruz
> The requirement is explicity noted in RED on the VWP website of the
> Stete Department
This was changed at some point between June 5 2003 and today. Prior to then
there was no mention of journalists on that page. I wouldn't be surprised if
it was changed in response to this or a similar recent incident.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html
Miguel Cruz
Well, they're not going to get an artist visa because for that they'd need
to be performing or exhibiting in the US.
Either no foreigners paint pictures here, or it's cool with CBP.
mrtravelkay
Miguel Cruz wrote:
> mrtravelkay <a...@a.aa.a> wrote:
>
>>The requirement is explicity noted in RED on the VWP website of the
>>Stete Department
>
>
> This was changed at some point between June 5 2003 and today. Prior to then
> there was no mention of journalists on that page. I wouldn't be surprised if
> it was changed in response to this or a similar recent incident.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html
>
> miguel
From your source, a web page of the Embassy in London from Nov 2000,
the earliest date I could find.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817023940/http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/media.htm
What about the other link on the Embassy website?
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukpa18dec03.html
Did this exist before his trip?
From that site:
# The I-visa requirement is not a new one; for at least the last 50
years, journalists have been required to get an I-visa to conduct their
work in the United States. We are aware that some journalists have
traveled in the past under the Visa Waiver Program or a tourist (B) visa
to practice journalism. However, as a matter of law journalists cannot
use the Visa Waiver Program or a B-visa for the purpose of pursuing
their profession and those who attempt to do so will be subject to removal.