Wasn’t your position earlier. Your position was, and I quote, “fuck 'em”, along with diatribes about it bring unreasonable to use your own slang in a twitter conversation a couple of months prior to your visit, and how you desired false positives.
Has your position changed, in light of the fact that your own casual verbiage on this messageboard would constitute similar grounds for sending you back across the Atlantic ocean were you in that position?
My position is that I don’t expect DHS to be fluent in every slang expression in the world, and those defending these guys because “it’s just slang” aren’t convincing.
No, the post I made is not analogous to “destroy America”. It’s not of the same magnitude, nor is it part of some obscure slang culture.
Of course, if you do have an example of someone being denied access to a country for saying “fuck 'em”, then you might have a point. Do you?
They don’t have to “be fluent in every slang expression in the world.” They just have to diligently determine whether X statement represented a credible threat.
Why? Because you don’t believe that this is a genuine colloquialism? You think that the kid genuinely expressed an intent to literally “destroy America”?
Of course it’s analogous. Its difference in magnitude only means that it’s far more likely for someone to sincerely express a wish to rape someone than it is to sincerely express a wish to destroy a whole country, not least because actual rape is much more common than actual destroying of entire countries, and is a lot more easily accomplished. Or are you saying that it would be okay for customs to let someone into the country if they genuinely believed that the person intended to attempt rape?
The point is that it would be considered ridiculous to bar someone entry for saying “fuck 'em.” That’s what makes it analogous.
John Mace may be correct that unreleased evidence may exist that shows that they are guilty as hell of being dangerous terrorists…which would mean that Homeland Security is also guilty as hell of releasing dangerous terrorists back to their own country.
Got it. Rules apply to their slang, not yours.
I knew that anyway. Just wanted you to say it. Double standards FTW!
I do. I have the above example of an exactly analogous slang term. In fact, yours is worse; theirs merely meant “to party”; yours, “fuck 'em”, expresses actual ill-will. The only difference is that one is your slang, and the other is theirs.
Your position is abundantly clear.
I just can’t wait for you to go to, say, China, and get locked up for your SDMB post. But of course THAT would be ridiculous, right?
Yes, it would be. And so is this. Can’t you just admit that this is an example of getting it wrong? I promise it won’t hurt.
As a reminder, the quote you’re referring to is my support of the practice of denying entry to travellers, practiced by every country all day, every day. I support this because I know how much bad shit tries to get across our borders. You guys might be thinking just in terms of terrorists, but I’m thinking of all the illegal immigrants, drugs, weapons, sex slaves, dirty money, and everything else that tries to find a home here. I want my government erring on the side of caution and I expect other governments to do the same.
All of DHS is only $43 billion-ish, and that includes everything, not just border patrol.
Now I’m just guessing here, but I betcha the information they uncovered was that the pair were likely to overstay.
How do you know what they are and are not prepared for? Hell, how do you even know they aren’t stopping threats right this very minute? Or last year? Your assertion, while widely expressed on the Dope, comes from a position of ignorance. “I can’t think of any times the TSA has stopped anybody bad, so it must not have happened.”
Maybe it’s because ignorant Americans think that everything involving immigration, customs, airports, and travel involves the TSA. Maybe it’s because uninformed citizens read “stories like these” and confuse CBP with the TSA, or simply can’t tell the difference, and then make the laughable claim that “remarkably we don’t hear this that often about other federal agencies”. Seriously, if you don’t know the difference between ICE, CBP, TSA, and USCG, you should probably just not offer an opinion about them.
And there it is. I’m saddened that I didn’t say it aloud on page 2, but I was thinking “How much you wanna bet they voluntarily withdrew?” So for those crying “where’s the judicial oversight?!”, there’s your answer. Leigh&Co. had the right to trial before an immigration judge, but opted not to.
It’s an erroneous assumption these days that people are denied admission because of some terrorism link. Usually, it’s got nothing to do with that. It’s almost always something drug related or something regarding an attempt to skirt the immigration system. A lot of asian women, for example, come on visas and try to find an American husband so they can adjust status to an IR-1.
In your particular case, I’ll bet $10 your Brit friends were denied because they tried to come from Canada instead of the UK, especially when they (I’m presuming) just got to Canada. CBP doesn’t like it when someone tries to enter the US via another country. Had they been living in Canada, it’d be different, but it looks to the immigration officials like the pair were trying to avoid making a UK-America trip by going through Canada.
Not entirely true. With a voluntary withdrawal, it’s like the person was never here. They face no penalties and, as far as I know, suffer no ill effects from it in future immigration attempts. Had they been removed, they would automatically not be allowed back from some time (5 years, I think).
Well, sorta. Like I’ve said multiple times, I don’t expect our DHS personnel to be fluent in every bit of slang that exists around the world. However, I don’t believe there is any native speaker of English, anywhere in the world who would not understand “fuck 'em”. If you think that’s a “double standard”, so be it. Most people would call it the natural limitations of the human brain.
It’s analogous alright. Of the “bad analogy” variety.
But keep trying!
I think you’re reading the form wrong. The reason for the withdrawal is in the checked box “VWPP Refusal”. They were refused entry without a Visa, even though they are from participating countries. Correct me where I’m wrong, but I don’t see how that is voluntary.
As I noted earlier, it’s pretty easy for DHS to refuse entry on the grounds that someone doesn’t have enough funds for their stay, especially in these days when people rarely carry traveler checks, relying on credit and debit cards for purchases.
When you’re refused entry, you have a choice. You can either go the legal route and say “I demand to have my case heard! I want a court date!” If you lose, you’ll be cuffed and escorted to a port of entry, put on a plane/bus/whatever, and sent back at the expense of the U.S. Government. That’s called a removal.
There’s another route, however. When the applicant has been refused and wishes to forgo trial, they can opt for a voluntary withdrawal. Now, the officer doesn’t have to allow this- if you brought in a couple kilos of cocaine, they’re not just going to let you go. But if you were just suspected of maybe trying to get a job here or find a spouse or overstay your visa, the officer will probably permit the VR. The applicant buys his own ticket home (or walks back to Mexico or wherever) and it’s like he was never there.
Think of it like raising hell in a bar. The bouncer can come over to you and say “Sir, you can either leave under your own power or you’ll be forcibly removed.” It’s only voluntary in the technical sense, but at least if you toss yourself out, you’ll probably be allowed back in when you’re sober. On the other hand, if you punched the bartender in the face, you won’t be given the option and the cops will be called to do their thing.
I bring this up only to demonstrate to the one poster (or more) claiming otherwise that there is judicial oversight on the process. Leigh&co. opted not to use it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it still comes down to; border guard over reacts, refuses admission without valid reason. No one arrested, deported or jailed. How is this news? Power corrupts, border guards can be jerks, news at 11!
If these young men weren’t aware that any border guard, anywhere, anytime can refuse them admission without cause if they take a mind to, without regard to cost of ticket etc, then they should stay home until they are more worldly.
Sorry, I just can’t resist. You got a cite for this? Or is it just some crap you think?
(The Asian woman in question was in Canada on a student visa, didn’t do drugs, had money in the bank, a ticket home, a letter from the uni confirming her student status in good standing, an address in Canada, and wanted to visit Philadelphia for 5 days. There was no valid basis to reject her.)
My point, as you well understand, is that China or somewhere might not. THAT is why it’s analogous.
You’re using ignorance as a weapon now. I know you understand the point.
The only reason you don’t think so is because a) you probably don’t plan to go to China and b) even the Chinese aren’t that dickish.
If the same thing happened to you trying to enter some country that doesn’t share your slang, you’d be crying a different tune. I don’t believe for a second you’d be thinking “fair play, that’s reasonable.”
And US tourists to China? Shit loads of them. We’re not talking a rare occurrence there.
I made a specific point of cutting out the Asian woman story from your quote because I didn’t want it to be misconstrued as an assertion about that particular woman. But it’s a general theme in Asia-America immigration relations. I’m not even saying that that’s the case for most Asian women. I’m just saying that if you’re working the consulate in China, it’s one of the things you look out for. “Unwed female. Young. Barely speaks English. Can’t name any American cities. No relatives in U.S. From a poor, rural town. Yeaaaaah, visa denied. If you want an American husband, you’ll have to find one in Beijing. And tell your father not to bother sending your sisters to apply, either.”
Doesn’t China have an entry/exit fee, essentially an official bribery system for tourists? Or is that Japan?
Out of all the countries I’ve been to, I’d have to say that Italy is the easiest to get into, if you don’t count Iraq. The latter wasn’t given much choice.
So no cite then? Just something you think?
Righty then.
[QUOTE=Chessic Sense]
Out of all the countries I’ve been to, I’d have to say that Italy is the easiest to get into, if you don’t count Iraq. The latter wasn’t given much choice.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve had trouble getting into countries? That would be some excellent anecdotal data to compare here! Have you ever been refused admission? Or what difficulties have you experienced?
In answer to your other question - I’ve not found bribery a requirement for Japan or China. Both were very similar to Heathrow or JFK, just with some language differences.
It boggles my mind that even if DHS didn’t understand the slang, they wouldn’t pause to consider whether the person even had the *means *to carry out the alleged threat. What’s he going to “destroy America” with, his emo haircut? How the fuck could anyone “destroy America” to begin with? If I tweet that I’m “on my way to eat the Washington Monument,” or “ready to blow up the planet,” am I now a potential terrorist making a credible threat?
I hope there is more to the story, because otherwise I can’t— and don’t want to— wrap my mind around the institutionalized idiocy on display here.
Then I’m probably in the minority who think that what they did was proper. These people appeared to threaten America, so why let them in?
Appeared to threaten America with what?
If these people appeared to threaten America, why let them go?
Because, from the evidence before this forum, they didn’t “appear to threaten America.”
Not to sound redundant, but tweeting that you intend to party in America does NOT “appear to threaten America”.
Sure, you can adopt that policy. I bet you’ll be complaining when Americans start getting detained and deported for casual tweets and messageboard posts. I bet if it happened to YOU (and we’ve shown how John Mace committed the same offence above even while discussing said “offence”) you’d be complaining.
The point is that it’s a stupid policy. And if it happens a lot, the US economy suffers - and that’s not in your interests. And then other countries reciprocate. And THAT’S not in your interests, either.
Forget the morality of it. It’s just not sensible towards your own interests.
It was a mistake. Organisations make them. That’s kind of OK - it happens. People could accept that.
It’s the attempts to defend it as correct that makes it look ridiculous. It was dumb as hell, and people are making it worse by advocating draconian policies so severe that few people would ever be able to travel abroad.