Something similar happened to me recently. I voluntarily left my job at a US employer, planning to move back home (to Sweden). But first I wanted to spend some time preparing for the move and waiting for my wife to wrap things up. The rules say you have to leave the country the last day of work, so I left for Canada to stay with a friend, and planned to come back on the visa waiver program. I consulted with the company's immigration lawyers and they said this shouldn't be a problem. The US border agents thought differently. After being held and interrogated for 4 hours like a criminal, they concluded that I was lying and they thought I would try to illegally immigrate to the US, because I didn't have enough financial ties to my home country. I had a green card on the way when I quit my job so why wouldn't I just stay if I wanted to immigrate so badly? They didn't care about that or anything else I said. I was sent back into Canada with most of my belongings still being in the US. "Entering the US is a privilege, not a right" I was told. Once you get denied entry it is very difficult to get in again, and you need a visa etc. I decided it was just easier to fly home at that point.
I realize now that I was naive, and many of you would probably say it was my own fault. I thought that if I did something that is not against the rules, things would be fine. Afterwards I found out though that entry into the US is completely the discretion of the border guards. Even if you are legally following the rules, they can deny you on a whim. In this case, I believe they thought I was taking advantage by just leaving the US for a few days and coming back. Which is a valid concern I guess, but if that's so, why wouldn't they put a time limit on how long you have to be away? I think part of my naivety comes from my trusting upbringing in a rural part of a small country.
Either way, it was not the best end to my 5 years in the US, and I doubt I'll be going back anytime soon. This experience just cemented once more that the US is not a country I wish to live in permanently, and have my kids grow up in.
There are all sorts of things about immigration laws & policies that violate our sense of correctness or justice. All sorts of basic principles don't apply.
There is no strict rule of law. The border guards' discretionary (arbitrary) power is an example of that. That applies on several levels. Policies & laws are not governed by higher laws/constitutions so the laws & policies themselves are discretionary & arbitrary. Basic principles like habeas corpus (right to be judged by a judge) and presumption of innocence don't apply. This is why 'privilege, not a right' is the approach.
I think most of the rest is what we get when the basics aren't there. Equality before the law doesn't really apply when there is no rule of law so blatant discrimination is the norm with policies for different nationalities & cultural/ethnic/racial groups. Freedoms are profoundly violated by visa restrictions everywhere, almost by definition. If your visa is tied to your job or your profession, you are a lot less free. That kind of limit on freedom would be considered draconian if applied in other cases.
When a country restricts immigrants' permission to work in certain professions or live in certain areas, we don't think twice about it. Up until the modern era Jews in Europe were restricted in such a way. Those were controversially oppressive laws even in the context of 17th center Czarist Russia/Eastern Europe.
Anyway, to make lemonade from these experiences I think this should remind us how important basic principles of justice are. We need to protect them and make sure they don't lose ground. It's a horrible, naked feeling when you realize that they don't apply and the guy in the stupid hat has arbitrary power over you.
>>I had a green card on the way when I quit my job so why wouldn't I just stay if I wanted to immigrate so badly?
This phrase caught my eye. Based on this, you probably thought that you could leave and enter the US at will. Ironically, during this phase of the green card process (i.e. right after the I-485 is filed and awaiting final processing for denial or a GC in the mail), my understanding is that you'll have more difficulty entering and leaving the country without special dispensation (called Advance Parole).
Assuming that your company lawyers handled your green card application, I'm surprised they didn't apply for Advance Parole for you at the same time as filing the I-485. That would have saved you a bunch of hassle, regardless of whether you quit the company or not.
IANAL and all that, but I think this explains why they were so hostile. You didn't follow their strict procedures for these types of things. Of course, they're not going to tell you this during an interrogation, but this may have helped.
I hadn't considered that possibility. I gave over a month notice before I left to my company as well as the immigration lawyers, but it's possible that my application was still in the system somehow.
Eep! I might be in a similar situation shortly. A couple of quick questions, if you don't mind?
1) Did you abandon your green card app?
2) How did you move your stuff out if you couldn't get back into the US again? Were the Canadians mean to you or were they understanding?
3) If you don't mind giving some info, I'm curious what motivated your family to leave?
For us, the big reasons are we want to be close to family. Neither of us (myself or my wife) have found a job in our home country yet (have good jobs in the US) .. and I'm not doing any trips back to do job hunting because I fear I will get into the same situation as you :( So we are planning to go back home without jobs and live off of savings for the next few months. Tough beans but minimizes the chances of immigration screw ups.
Sure, no problem
1) Yes, I was on track for a green card within a year or two, but when I resigned I it was abandoned
2) I had some very nice friends who brought me some bags before I left Canada
3) The Canadian side of the border was immensely nicer. They tried to give advice, and let me back in after I explained what happened. The biggest difference is their demeanor. While the US people were extremely hostile from the start, the Canadian counterparts were nice and courteous. Talking to US officials was like being in a real interrogation, after this I'm much more sympathetic and get very uncomfortable watching people get interrogated on TV cop dramas etc...
3) Many reasons. Let me just also mention that we don't have children yet. Firstly, we felt our life would be better in Sweden in terms of work-life balance and family life. Especially having a family is much easier with longer vacations, maternity/paternity leave, heavily subsidized child care, socialized healthcare and a general safety net if anything goes wrong. Secondly, we're both immigrants, her being Chinese, so immigration would keep being a problem for many years, more so for her I think. Third, just like you, I have family and friends back home, which also adds a safety net, and of course I've missed them a great deal. Fourth, we're looking forward to doing traveling in Europe, there's just more to see in a smaller area, but that's not a major reason :).
All that said, we both had great jobs, earning probably 50% more than for the same job back home, while cost of living is lower in the US, and we don't have jobs lined up. The US is just great for having a career, and there are more numerous and interesting jobs in our fields, so it's not easy leaving that behind.
So the logic goes something like this: something bad happened to me once in country X. Therefore, I will not go back to country X. So, if something bad happens to you in Sweden, say a policeman is rude to you, or something like that, will you leave Sweden because of it ?
Where did I say this is the only reason? I had a great time in the US, and there are plenty of great things about it, but I've had enough bad experiences with various parts of society and government that the upsides of living in the US as opposed to my country is nil. Since I have no family in the US, the decision to move back, while not easy, was the right thing to do.
Edit: as for not returning to visit, I'm not exactly looking forward to being interrogated every time I try to enter, and possibly denied entry again, which I have read in many places will likely happen.
Simply the risk that the time and money you spent on the visit may be wasted, is likely to deter a lot of potential visitors that have other options open to them.
> So, if something bad happens to you in Sweden, say a policeman is rude to you, or something like that, will you leave Sweden because of it ?
No. But if police officers are routinely rude to me, and if I see many reports of officers killing people and beating people - even people who pose no risk to those officers - then I might start thinking about where I live.
No, the logic goes like this: in "country X", this type of arrogant behavior is supported by the political background, while in "Sweden", there's no polical support for policeman rudeness. This is therefore a perfectly valid reason not to visit "country X".
They where "massive" by Swedish standards, but tiny by any international standard you may care to use. Certainly much much smaller than riots that have happened recently in many other European countries
Every place has problems. E.g. Sweden is consensus oriented and has only one officially accepted opinion at a time, so much stuff just can't be discussed. This along with being a small duck pond (the elites, media etc generally know each others) means that problems might be a long time being corrected.
What makes you think these are isolated experiences? Yes, the article and the parent comment each highlight a specific case, but as someone who's had to re-enter the US multiple times in the past 2 years I can vouch that these are not isolated incidences.
62 million international tourists visited the United States last year and this number has grown over 2011. This makes me think that on average border policy is such that it is possible to navigate the system and not give up on entering the U.S. for good. Having said that, it's clearly regrettable when border agents behave inappropriately
But it's not only the border agents. The same can be said for example about consulate officers when deciding to give or decline a visa. It's the same attitude, you are considered a future felon unless proven otherwise, you are fingerprinted even if it is not known yet if you'll ever step on US soil or not, you are interviewed like a convict that is to be amnestied out of jail, and whatnot. I mean - hey, I'm just predisposed to visit your country as your Hollywood makes a pretty damn good job promoting it, and I have more than enough money to fund my visit there - that's all the info I consider reasonable to provide you with. And you know what? That's all it was necessary to visit other places like Australia, Iceland or China!
That is a bad logic. Being deported from entering a country because you have been visited any place arounf the world is not getting mobbed by a rude officer. It is mobning at the behest of the whole US citizens.
This is not a logical issue. It's an emotional one. So, it depends on the person. Wouldn't you held anything against a country if that's country's border control detained you, denied the services you paid for, denied the properties you have in the country, treated you like a sub-human? Would you try to enter that country again? Try, just try to be empathetic...
It's also a financial and practical issue. Being refused entry at the border can mean significant costs in non-refundable bookings and re-booking of flights. Not to mention the fact that you just wasted some very valuable vacation days (which to many people are worth more than the money they represent).
I know I don't want to waste my vacation days playing bureaucratic Russian roulette when I could spend them in any one of the dozens countries that will happily let me visit with a minimum of fuss.
There is no doubt that the U.S. immigration system is broken and needs fixing, this is a complicated political issue that is currently being debated in Congress. Conditional on this unfortunate reality, which we can't immediately change, my advice is not to over-react.
Don't deflect blame onto the system, either. I will accept many excuses for many job choices. I will not accept any excuses for being paid to do this kind of evil. If their behavior were mandated by immigration law (and it's not), they would still be 100% culpable.
True, but the onerous nature of the experience has impacted the popularity of the US as a tourist destination.
"The United States' share of the total travel market is down, to 11.2 percent in 2010 from 17.3 percent in 2000"
"There were also big declines in the same period in travel from France (down 23.2 percent), Brazil (down 20.3 percent), Germany (down 19.2 percent) and Japan (down 5.8 percent)."
Interestingly, in the developed world it seems to be the Anglophone countries that have the shittiest attitude towards border control these days. The US is notoriously user-hostile at the borders. The UK is doing its best to catch up in a Mini-Me way with the USA's Dr Evil, and is actually on course to become even more hostile than the USA -- the only mitigating factor is that the third degree is reserved for non-citizens, so far. Australia under Tony Abbot runs concentration camps for victims of famine, civil war on Nauru:
And in the UK, Home Secretary Theresa May considers immigration control to be more important than the lives of mentally ill people who have been tortured by Boko Haram:
> Australia under Tony Abbot runs concentration camps for victims of famine, civil war on Nauru
They are called "refugee camps". And Australia has a reasonably high refugee intake. Unlike most countries, though, Australia resettles most of their refugees, so they aren't classified as "refugees" anymore. It's a pain finding the numbers, since everyone wants to talk about "refugees per head of population". There's hundreds of thousands of former refugees with PR or citizenship who aren't counting in Australia's "refugee population", because they've actually been resettled.
Though you'd be perfectly justified in pointing out that Abbott cut the refugee intake, quite dramatically. Or that beating up on "boat people" was just making them a scapegoat, trying to placate the wider concern about overpopulation and immigration in general (which politicians won't touch, because the Treasury Intergenerational Report says Australia needs lots of young immigrants to keep the economy going as the baby boomers start going gaga).
That doesn't make any sense. Refugee applications/admittals are normally counted per year. A refugee who was awarded citizenship/residency would be counted in that year. But there are very few of them (certainly not hundreds of thousands) since Howard introduced the TPV in '99, and anyway who cares? Do you also need to know how many Australians are descended from 1 pound Poms to see how many refugees we should allow in this year? Does the refugee policy in the '80s being reasonable somehow excuse how awful it is today?
You should know that 'resettlement' actually means 'sending to a third country', and yes we do resettle more refugees than anyone but the USA and Canada. That doesn't get counted in our refugee population because we sent them to another country.
> Refugee applications/admittals are normally counted per year.
Yes, but whenever someone says "Australia has less refugees than Germany", they are talking about total displaced persons. Germany rarely grants PR or citizenship to refugees, because they are mostly on TPVs (thus still refugees).
> You should know that 'resettlement' actually means 'sending to a third country', and yes we do resettle more refugees than anyone but the USA and Canada. That doesn't get counted in our refugee population because we sent them to another country.
Bullshit. Australia is the third country which they are resettled to. Australia (and the US, and Canada, and a couple of EU countries) accept the vast bulk of resettlements.
Hm, perhaps. I'm not sure I agree that this changes the discussion much, because Germany does end up with many of them staying in the country for years on those temporary visas with government support, and also has a much much larger population of actually 'illegal' immigrants (people who were denied status or never applied) who remain there long term. It depends on the point being argued, I guess.
On the second point - you're right. I was thinking of the use of the term to cover the resettlement of refugees to Papua New Guinea under our new programs, but it goes both ways and the 'one of the top countries' is referring to the refugees we accept.
I would appreciate if you wouldn't cite the 'world socialist website - Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International' as a reputable source. Some of their articles are surprisingly good, but it's still the publication of an obscure trotzkyist sect.
I assume most folks here are smart enough to evaluate any given news site on the basis of its accuracy and to differentiate between editorial bias and factual incorrectness.
If you really can't bear to see news and opinions from sources you personally disagree with, how are you ever going to test your opinions?
That's not really how it works, you can't cite a source and then have people evaluate it on its accuracy. We don't know enough to know the accuracy, that's why you used a citation. A publication's reputation is what people use as a benchmark for its accuracy.
There are scientific studies saying smoking isn't harmful, and it's totally a coincidence they're funded by tobacco companies. That's why a source's reputation is important.
Well, one problem is that publications like the wsws are not news in the strict sense. They do not have the staff and the founding that's necessary to engage in traditional reporting. What those publications are doing is to interpret secondary sources. The article in question does little else than showing us the authors reactions after watching [0]. Some people might find this reaction of the "International Committee of the Fourth International" interesting, but I guess it's safe to say that most are not. About most people here being able to evaluate the accuracy of those sites: That's the problem with posting links like that. People read it, look at the header and dismiss the whole thing as completely blown out of proportions, which sadly isn't true this time.
That doesn't address the point - many mainstream 'news' outlets work by rewriting stories syndicated from Reuters and AP - not by having their own reporters.
The comment I was responding to was attacking the wsws for not being 'news' because it doesn't have it's own reporters.
It's perfectly reasonable to criticize it for having a political stance that you don't credit, but I don't see a case for somehow categorizing it as 'not news' when its practices are the same as many traditional news outlets, just with a less mainstream perspective.
Note: I'm not supporting whatever wsws's stance might be - I'm just pointing out that much of mainstream news is similar in how it operates.
I actually have no problem with people citing the World Socialist Website. That being said, the WSWS offers "Marxist analysis" of the news whereas Reuters and AP, although they may offer analysis, focus on objective reporting of the facts as opposed to analysis. Take a look at Reuters "trust principles" on their website. One principle is: "That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts." Now, consider the mission of the WSWS: "The standpoint of this web site is one of revolutionary opposition to the capitalist market system. Its aim is the establishment of world socialism."
I think it is clear why AP and Reuters citations will be more widely accepted than sources that are inclined to political bias and activism.
You're still missing the point. I'm not comparing wsws to Reuters or the AP. I'm comparing it to the news outlets that take reuters and AP reports as sources which they then use to write their own articles.
There is "news" and there is "analysis" -- if you want to cite facts don't cite analysis from a publication that has a clear and stated bias. Usually the way AP and Reuters works is clients run what they write or "analyze" what they write. Why cite analysis if you want facts? Not trying to be adversarial here, just trying to understand what you are saying
All publications have a strong bias. Isn't it better to cite from those that state their bias clearly so that the reader is better able to interpret what they are reading, than from those who mislead by pretending to be 'unbiased'?
Maybe publications with enough funding are not 'strict' either.
They are some always interest at play. Well funded publications are either government-backed (in some communist/socialist countries), which might mean unfair treatment of some news, or corporation (or corporation-backed), which means a stance on some subjects (let's say:liberalism) that isn't exactly fair either.
The best (or, some might say, only) way to get news is to get it from different sources, which preferably does not share the same point of view.
Anglophone countries that have the shittiest attitude towards border control these days
Meh, any Western hand-wringing about the evils of Anglophones has to be counter-balanced with the fact that net migration to those "evil" countries continues at a brisk pace, often illegally.
large difference between the immigration process, which usually begins months ahead of time in the foreign country first, and border security for a visitor.
the U.S. has more open immigration policy than many other countries but it also has a really shitty and thuggish border security policy that is a direct consequence of the ongoing security theatre that we play at because of terrorism.
Although, if you're an Australian like I am, you must know that this is all going to get worse.
I'm sick of our Government (no matter who seems to be in power at the time) taking every single page out of the American playbook. I like our country, why do we have to try and be them? :(
America didn't invent fascism. It's recycling a playbook that various parts of Europe mastered nearly a century ago. Interestingly, the most dangerous and powerful aspect of American fascism in fact was born from what it took to fight Europe's WW2 mess (and the NSA is a direct descendant of that as well). History is often rich with irony.
The playbook Australia is taking a page out of is a very old one indeed.
Fucking seriously? I know it's popular to hate "America" lately -- since it makes a nice big clean target and it gives you a nice fuzzy "edgy" feeling to do so -- but it seems more like Australia's leading the pack when it comes to overreaching soft-authoritarian policy.
British colonial hangover and the general Australian penchant for self-flaggelation has a lot more to do with authoritarianism in Australia than any philosophy the USA extrinsically promotes. Isn't the island borrowing its culture from Asia now, anyway?
You most probably hold a British passport which is a very valuable document. Let me tell you as a holder of a not as valuable passport, who needed a visa to get anywhere, how I have seen the world.
I now live in the US. Before coming to US I visited many European countries. At the border of all those European countries I was treated as a criminal. I waited very long hours while people in front of me holding same kind of passports as me and then myself were interrogated like in a police interrogation. I missed connections because of those interrogations. In one case when I did make the connection, I heard the pilot of the plane speaking to passengers about how the delay was caused because of waiting for people of my nationality. Even people associated with people of my nationality were considered suspicious. A friend of mine was married to a Canadian man who had the same name as a famous American actor. When they tried to go together to one European country, that man was also interrogated for 2 hours by the border police because they thought his passport was fake. I was once traveling via train from European country A to European country B. I happened to be in a cabin with a man from country B. The border police of country B (this was before Schengen) took him outside the train and interrogated him for 30 minutes because they thought his passport was fake. He had a pocketful of documents, bank cards, credit cards, phone numbers of his family members etc. and the border police still were suspicious. I was so used to the long lines and humiliation that I thought they were normal for any border crossing.
Then I traveled to US. Imagine my surprise when I got off the plane, walked a long corridor, passed by a drug detection dog, got into a huge room with many passport control booths, in 5 minutes found myself in one of them, the immigration officer asked me where I was going and what was the goal of my trip then stamped my passport and I-94 and I was done. Even if I didn't go anywhere from there, the trip was already a success. It made me feel like a human. In the time since then I have seen the checks in many European countries improve and in the meantime US has added the annoying process of fingerprinting, but in my view US border control still offers better human experience compared to European countries. I was once crossing the border from Canada to US and there was this old woman trying to get into US with an expired (like 30 years old) British passport. The border agents still found a way to let her in. Since Schengen she probably would be let into other European countries but I am sure before Schengen she wouldn't be able to go anywhere.
I know that there are people who have negative experiences while trying to get into US as there are negative experiences for people trying to go anywhere, but I think most of the noise associated with them is unjustified and if US border control need improvements other countries need them even more.
Belgian here, I've registered just to reply to your comment.
> Let me tell you as a holder of a not as valuable passport [...]
> Even people associated with people of my nationality [...]
What's so secret about your nationality ?
Your comment doesn't make any sens, you're are comparing a pre-Schengen era (which means prior 1985 - more than 25 years ago!) to a post-9/11 era.
As a Belgian, I've been traveling for 20 years around many countries in Europe and North Africa without ever being bothered by the customs.
On the other hand, while - as a kid - visiting the USA was a dream, it is now something that wouldn't even come to my mind when I see how much freedom and privacy (more broadly human rights) you've got to give up to come to the USA (the situation being even worst for foreigners [non-American]).
pre-Schengen really means prior to 1995 because that's when the border controls between Schengen members were relaxed. The train trip I mentioned above happened in May 1995 but even though country A and country B were Schengen members border controls still existed between them. I don't know why that was still the case.
I believe you 100% that as a Belgian you have never been bothered by border controls. I also know that to travel to most countries you don't even need a visa. I don't know if you know what a visa is, but believe me, if you need one, it is very hard to get.
I didn't even mention how many troubles I had to get the visas for my trips since the subject of the thread is border controls. I was giving my and my friends experience as non-Belgian, non-British, non-Schengen member while traveling through Europe and then US. All I said is true and I could add plenty more. I have traveled many times and almost every time I traveled to Europe or within European countries I had humiliating experiences. Things have improved a lot now, but still there can be issues. I was transiting through Rome 5 years ago and there were so many people in line that I had to wait 1 hour to reach the border controls. Half of that waiting was outside! Yes the line extended outside the building. It was 9AM but it was already very hot. If you were there you probably wouldn't have noticed since there was a separate entrance for EU-member citizens where there was no line at all.
You should follow your childhood dreams and visit US. Do not believe everything you read. The american people are usually very nice and that includes most of the border control agents. Yes, some border control agents can be very cranky but I would be too after a long day talking to a lot of people who already believe I am their adversary and give me wisecrack answers. I am willing to bet that you wouldn't have any problem with any of them though.
Thank you for sharing your story. It's easy to find negative stories of crossing the US border; it's generally easier to find negative stories about anything. Positive stories like yours can help give perspective that can otherwise be lacking.
I admit I don't like Abbott but using terms like concentration camps isn't fair to Australia. We have a very multicultural country with large migrant intake and we take in a reasonable number of asylum seekers.
We are a very desirable destination because of our standard of living and political and economic freedom. We can't just open our doors or we would be flooded and we barely have enough water for our current population in many of our southern cities.
Australian's as a whole do not want to reward people smugglers or see kids drowning when their parents try and queue jump their way into the country on overcrowded leaky boats. Detention centres aren't a very humane way to deal with the problem and criticism is warranted but perhaps we should direct a bit more attention to the countries these people are escaping and the countries they transit.
I hope I step on no ones toes here, but I am becoming more and more convinced that USA is simply a less developed country than Western Europe and Canada.
- At least until recently people would still go bankrupt because of medical emergencies.
- People have to save for lifetime to send their children to collage.
- Politics is populistic.
- The legal system is unjust in some areas (e.g. legal defense against bogus charges can drive you into bankruptcy).
- Immigration decisions are arbitrary and unpredictable.
- Business has a large(r) influence in the government.
I am currently staying in Thailand and since I do so I have developed a better understanding of what it means to be poor and what it means for country to be developed. If you are poor, most of the times you basic needs are still covered, but you are facing great unpredictability. A less developed country, is thus a country that can not provide certainty to it's citizens. For instance, I know of people here in Thailand who have gone from very rich (having a chauffeur on staff) to poor (sawing in a factory). I also just saw a documentary about a town in Mexico where many people life in constant fear to get kidnapped or killed and reporting to the police would actually make them a target. I could give endless examples. But I guess the point is, the US has some characteristics that normally a developed economy does not have, but which you would normally find in an emerging one.
EDIT: I am not saying that the US is an emerging economy. Most emerging economies have much graver problems than the ones I listed above.
In all of the below measures, the US is not at all comparable to Developed countries, and sits squarely within Developing countries.
infant mortality, child poverty, child health and safety, life expectancy at birth, healthy life expectancy, rate of obesity, disability-adjusted life years, doctors per 1000 people, deaths from treatable conditions, rate of mental health disorders, rate of drug abuse, rate of prescription drug use, incarceration rate, rate of assaults, rate of homicides, income inequality, wealth inequality, and economic
mobility.
> At least until recently people would still go bankrupt because of medical emergencies.
On the flip side, they get the long term care they need earlier and more reliably. They can also get this care based on medical advice as opposed to political opinions. There is a reason I moved from Canada to the US for health care, and I've paid less for that care here in the US.
> People have to save for lifetime to send their children to collage.
Depends on where you want to send them. Send your children to MIT and see what you have to pay.
> Politics is populistic.
It's that way in other countries as well. You just tend to hear more about it because it's the US.
> The legal system is unjust in some areas (e.g. legal defense against bogus charges can drive you into bankruptcy).
Again, this can happen anywhere, and it the exception rather than the rule.
> Immigration decisions are arbitrary and unpredictable.
Immigration? Sure. We still let in more than most countries (every other country?). Or are you talking about border entry?
> Business has a large(r) influence in the government.
Larger? Hardly. Just as large. Do not think for a moment that large companies aren't entrenched in other governments as well.
Really, what it comes down to is this:
> If you are poor, most of the times you basic needs are still covered
And that's true in the US as well. Yes, not all parts of the US are equal. We have 50 states, all with their own rules and regulations that are completely different from one another.
U.S. Immigration agents are trained to look for certain traits in visitors: nervousness, unusual or inconsistent answers to questions, history of visiting certain countries. Any of these characteristics trigger an automatic escalation in the interrogation process. This individual, albeit sounding perfectly innocent, unfortunately triggered several hot buttons and the hapless agents were too unimaginative, uninformed, and inflexible to give him benefit of the doubt and let him pass.
99.9% of visitors do pass, because they are consistent with certain profiles--business visitor, tourist visitor, never-been-anywhere-bad visitor. Even for them, it's a rather unpleasant and rude experience that leaves a bad taste.
There's no question that our border control and immigration system needs an overhaul. The stupidity and counter productivity of the agents who scrutinize every incoming person (except for a few thousand Mexicans every day, but that's another topic :) inspires little confidence that they would actually recognize a terrorist, who would undoubtedly be carrying a false or sanitized passport to avoid just such questions.
I'm sorry that happened to the submitter, and I hope he'll give us another try some day. If his story gets out to the right person or persons, it might even make a difference. I'm not convinced that Border control people will ever hear about it if posted here, but he can contact them directly:
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/175/~/complaint...
By the way, this kind of profiling or over-profiling is not confined to U.S. Border Control agents. I have seen identical behavior by Canadian agents, too. All I had to do was mention I was going to take a class, and the guy made us go into an interrogation room where he asked repeated, annoying questions to try to entrap me into admitting I was in Canada to work or some such thing. I was born in Canada as it clearly states on my US passport, and he asked me where I was born, then looked at my companion with a sneer on his face as though to show his disbelief. It was entirely unpleasant, but in the end we passed. I learned not to say I was there to take a class. Just visiting. Hope to spend lots of money. Ok, have a nice day!
> I'm sorry that happened to the submitter, and I hope he'll give us another try some day.
I hope he doesn't. People need to stop coming here, stop doing business here, otherwise there will be no perceived need to change. The Constitution and just plain decency have not proven enough to stop this shit.
Treat us like the backwater shithole that we, by our actions, are aspiring to be. Then maybe we'll change. Otherwise you may as well welcome your new overlords.
Countries that are cut off from the world (even with onerous trade sanctions) do not have a good record of changing their ways. Stories like this push for reform - which is both how we got our awful border controls and how we'll get rid of them.
If nothing else it means that people self-select out of a system that doesn't work for them, meaning the system will never work for them. Not a good way to run things.
Consider the incentives. What's the penalty for stamping the passport of a would-be terrorist? Fired, shamed, guilty conscience for life. What's the penalty for deporting a fun-loving Canadian? Angry blog post. Easy call for them.
I've done a fair amount of back-and-forth between the US and China. On my most recent entry (to the US), the phase 1 guy flagged me to have my carryon manually inspected because I took the trouble to answer his questions honestly (bizarrely, the search did not involve a search of my person, or my checked luggage, so I can't imagine what it was supposed to accomplish). That forced my mother to wait an extra hour to pick me up, so roughly midnight instead of 11:00. Lesson learned, I guess. Never be honest with customs.
For reference - white US-born citizen (well, from a california perspective); never been in trouble.
I've been to over 40 countries so far in my life. Be "honest", with Customs: tell them what they want to hear. Being logical, assuming they understand travel at all, is a recipe for disaster. I learnt that the hard way coming in to Heathrow!
Could you elaborate? What e.g. would be a common mistake? I have traveled a little bit in past (asia, europe, north america), but never had any trouble with customs / immigration.
Minimum information necessary, fit the stereotypical profile that you have the visa status for. For example: On vacation, on a long vacation, and I fund it with my job savings. Business visitor who already has a business visa, student who already has a student visa, etc.
To me as an European it already crazy enough, that the US even interviews it's own citizens. In the EU if you are an EU citizen you just get waived though at immigration. (At might still get checked later at customs but that is a 1 in 100 chance).
>3. This Is About Power, Not Security. The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power. Well, CBP has no power over me. I am a law-abiding citizen, and, as such, I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants. They would do well to remember that.
Why would they do well to remember that? Do you have some kind of power that you can press on them? The last I looked CBP/ICE/DHS can legally make your life hell while you are in their control, so I am wondering if there is anything realistically you can do.
Not really a lot of woe I see there. About half an hour of really minor beauocratic harassment. Absolutely nothing compared with what foreigners have gone through.
As a Canadian I've learned we seem to get practically waved through as well. The most pleasant immigration experiences I've ever had have been in Germany and France over the past few years. By far the least pleasant experiences have been travelling from Canada to the US.
I do however find it slightly irritating that no ID at all is needed to fly from Germany to Sweden. Repeatedly, the only thing needed at all was the number on the e-ticket. Not even a check of whether the ticket was in my name.
By commercial air, yes; in the US, you need ID and a matching boarding pass to enter the secured area of an airport, which is an essential prerequisite to boarding an airplane.
Then answer this bizarre question; Why would a person with the intention of doing some stunt use mismatching documents? If this person is a terrorist or some kind of outlaw, would not s/he use fake docs telling a story reputable to customs officers/TSA?
I believe this security theatre is nothing but a money sink hole. Use whatever means are necessary to make transportation unpleasant to honest travelers if it does not even mean to stop any outlaw.
There is no need for these scenarios. I would just print out some obscure countries ID and / or passport with basic printing utilities. And a boarding pass? Does not even require any special deal.
You haven't flown in a while. Boarding passes are tied to the flight and scanned on boarding. An invalid pass means no getting on the plane. Unless you can generate a valid pass without doing any special deal you've already been thwarted by the simplest part of the security mechanism.
They've done it the last few times I've been overseas. Just part of the normal "let's make sure people don't get confused and don't board the wrong plane" kind of thing.
I think this is right. There's a (let's say) 0.01% chance of false positives and being detained and hassled by FedGov border cops, and this guy was in that category.
It's not just American border cops. Like the parent poster, I had bad experience entering Canada. I truthfully told the border agents I was a journalist arriving to speak at an Internet law conference at the University of Ottawa's law school, but I didn't ask the conference organizers for a written invitation and therefore couldn't produce one.
The Canadian border guards took me to a side room and interrogated me what seemed like an hour. It was an unpleasant experience, especially given the uncertainty about whether I'd return home or be able to enter the country or be banned from entry for a period of time. My now-spouse was living in Canada at the time, so the last option would be the worst. They did make a pretense of looking on the school's web site for the conference, but (from what I could glimpse) were looking at the French version, not the English version where the conference was actually listed. Or maybe they found it and were intentionally playing dumb.
Eventually I was admitted. Ironically, the conference was sponsored by the Canadian government!
Was he rejected because of nervousness (his claim or maybe suggested by his article) or was he rejected for making some smart ass answers to their questions?
So when they reject him, there is really only a couple of acceptable explanations that they can give, regardless of the truth, they aren't going to say "we just don't like your attitude" they're going to say "it looks like you run with some countries that we don't like." Maybe I've been re-educated or programmed by Our System, but I simply cannot fathom uttering 'al qaeda' at a border crossing just like 99+% of us wouldn't consider talking about 'bombs' or 'explosives' while in the TSA lines at the airport. Think of it as a pass/fail IQ test and from the sound of it, he failed. Probably doesn't make nearly as interesting an article to read though.
The border patrol could care less whether you are a broke student or a rich tourist. They are not interested in how much you plan to spend.
So in that regard I would think you might as well tell them the truth simply because if you get caught in a lie then you would cause grief for yourself of no good reason. But if you are an excellent liar, then go for what're you want!
Basically the border patrol are looking for three things: terrorist, drugs and people who are coming to work illegally.
When they say "What's the purpose of your visit?", and you say "I'm just here to visit. Hope to spend lots of money." and they see your study books, you've basically left yourself open to hours of detention and questioning?
Well if your story doesn't seem to add up then you might find yourself explaining things.
My point is really that there is no advantage to lying about being a student vs a rich tourist because they don't favor one over the other. They're not going to think "oh boy this person is really going to help our economy!"
Now, if you are planning to work illegally or overstay your visa - then you might want to make up a story!
> The border patrol could care less whether you are a broke student or a rich tourist.
Not true at all. I'm Australian and I regularly cross from Canada into the US in my junker car full of snowboarding or camping gear. Every single time the border guards want to see bank statements, proof of employment, etc. etc.
They're convinced I want to stay in the US and leech off the system (which is nonsensical, when I could stay in Canada, which actually has a system)
Well, if you come through looking like a ski bum with all of your worldly possessions in your back seat then you shouldn't either try to tell the border patrol that you're a wealthy tourist getting ready to kick the US economy into high gear with your lavish spending!
That being said, I'm getting super psyched for ski season and have been wanting to head to Canada this year. Recommend any good places within or near Ontario?
You really need to come out West, and you can't go wrong. All the resorts in the West are getting dumped on right now, and everyone's loving it. BC is where it's at for Canadian skiiing.
Ah, well that is good to know - thank you! I have been thinking of heading to Whistler but it's just quite a trek for me to get there (from Chicago). It looks fantastic.
You fit the profile of a guy with not enough funds for his stay in the other country. Come over in a nice car, be clean and well dressed and leave the gear in clean non-descript bags and you wont get that much hassle.
But if you have a record of being hassled, the policy seems to keep on harassing you.
Then they'll ask you to expand on arbitrary details of your short boring story, and unless you're a very good liar you'll be in trouble.
People are always reporting odd conversations with border agents. When those conversations result in further scrutiny or being denied admittance, they can appear sinister or arbitrary in retrospect. But it's a basic behavioral profiling technique: Take a random walk down a conversation tree and look for the inconsistencies and delays that occur when the subject has to start making things up.
Don't ever lie. Lying to a cop is a crime. (and/or it could get you into worse trouble later on...) But, like the parent-poster said: tell a simple, boring story.
(You think that you're out to have fun on this exciting new adventure in life... your vacation!, your new business trip!, whatever. But they're looking for anything strange. They are bored, boring, unimaginative government bureaucrats. Give them the simple, bored, boring, short (but honest) summary of "the purpose of your visit". TFA said that getting searched is "just like in the movies!"... don't do that. Just... don't. Do not share any enthusiasm about anything with CBP.)
A TSA employee gave me a series of rapid fire questions about a pizza place in Boston after he physically removed me (via a firm grab on my arm) from a line of passengers about to board a plane (ie, well after the normal security checks).
Something along the lines of:
"Where have you been today?"
"Santarpios."
"Never heard of it. What's that?"
"Really? It's right next to the turn off to get to the airport."
"Never heard of it."
"It's a pizza place."
"What sort of pizza did you have?"
etc. A whole bunch of quite specific questions at a rapid pace about a famous restaurant right next to the airport that carried on until his colleague had finished rummaging through my laptop bag.
Your description sounds like a guy who wasn't particularly good at it. They're supposed to be direct, but not argumentative ("Never heard of it.") If they're too pushy or intimidating, it's hard to spot genuinely suspicious answers or behavior.
One of the main problems with this kind of screening is that it requires training, practice and skill. Ex-cops are pretty good at it, from what I understand, but that kind of experience is in short supply.
My Santarpios conversation happened about 7 years ago.
Santarpios is great and highly recommended. Galleria Umberto's is possibly better though (and far easier to get to).
I've just remembered that when I was waiting at a gate (before boarding had commenced) at LAX about 3 weeks ago, there were about half a dozen very young looking TSA agents receiving some training at the gate about how to approach people, being reminded to keep it friendly, etc. They then wandered off to another gate and I thought nothing more of it.
You said "identical behavior by Canadian agents" and then you said they let you pass. That is obviously not identical and is in fact contrary to a major point of OP's story.
Just asking you to consider your adjectives more thoroughly before writing them.
> All I had to do was mention I was going to take a class, and the guy made us go into an interrogation room where he asked repeated, annoying questions
When I got my Canadian work visa the one point that the immigration agent specifically highlighted on the visa paperwork was that I wasn't permitted to attend university while I was here.
Damn foreigners coming here to get subsidized education? Not sure why it was such a big deal for them.
Well, most people would be nervous and give inconsistent answers under pressure, EXCEPT trained spies and high ranking terrorists, so yeah, that's stupid as duck.
A Canadian passport (until very recently) lasts 5 years and costs $120. (a 10 year one is available for $160). Getting a Canadian passport outside of Canada is a nightmare (unless you happen to have a Canadian embassy nearby) and costs even more - $260 for a 10 year passport. Unless you really need 2 passports, there's not much reason to get one.
Hummm I'm not sure, but if you're a citizen of a country, you should enter with the documentation of that country, and entering with another passport is usually a BIG NO-NO
Yeah, lasts for a limited time and it costs money, so does the passport of most countries. But it gets you a hassle free entry to YOUR country.
I've traveled into Canada using both my Canadian and UK passports with no issue. Many, many dual citizens choose not to have a passport for both countries because getting one is often hard work. What basis do you say that it's "a BIG NO-NO" to travel into a country you're a citizen of using another country's passport?
The main issue is that, when entering, you are subject to visitor's rules, unless you can prove you're a citizen.
"When entering Australia, all Australians, including those who hold dual nationality, must be able to prove that they are an Australian citizen. An Australian passport is conclusive evidence of a person's identity and citizenship and provides the holder with right of entry to Australia."
"When leaving or returning to the United States always present yourself as a US citizen (show your US passport and declare yourself to be a US citizen). "
It being not a US passport would be reason enough for me. Travelling anywhere in the world (save US or maybe Liberia) I would much, much rather be showing a CA passport than a USA one.
I am a hard line atheist anti-idealist that don't make that much difference between islamists, socialists and astrology readers. Idealists lie to themselves and others, because they mix up their self image with their opinions -- or they are just propagandists (since they know they are correct, the target is "winning" as in convincing, not learning.)
Politically, I think the US left is as crazy as the US Fox right.
The point is, there are subjects where I'm less of a laid back "live and let live"-guy -- but it is hard to be more unlikely as a dangerous criminal or terrorist than me. Still, I would be nervous entering the US borders by now.
From what I've read, the Israelis make border checks less problematic. It is hard to scale their solutions to US?
Edit: ma2rten, I answered that first half to swombat 40+ minutes before you wrote. See "There is a serious position to have"
> From what I've read, the Israelis make border checks less problematic.
It's not surprising that, from what you've read, this system looks good on paper. But then again, so does stop-and-frisk in New York City, if you're white and live in the West Village or Upper East Side[0].
Unlike the US, Israel openly profiles based on race. Aside from the fact that this is illegal in the US[0], this has a serious practical problem: confirmation bias.
Because only a subset of people feel the cost of the profiling, the rest remain blissfully unaware of the problem. From their perspective, the system works fine - "I never have any trouble going through security!".
As for 'scaling' this, keep in mind that LAX alone services more than three times the number of passengers as Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv does.
> I am a hard line atheist [...]. Idealists lie to themselves and others, because they mix up their self image with their opinions -- or they are just propagandists (since they know they are correct, the target is "winning", not learning.)
Hey, you almost got the self irony... here is half a cookie. :-)
More seriously: There is a serious position to have -- identify with the process of getting your opinions _less_ wrong, not with a particular set of opinions. In fact, there is no contradiction.
Anyway, this is not the subject of the discussion.
> From what I've read, the Israelis make border checks less problematic. It is hard to scale their solutions to US?
The Israelis are clear that what they do is racial profiling. Kind of hard to pay lip service to equality and all that bull shit and still just harass only brown people, isn't it?
60% of Israeli Jews are from Arab countries, or their parents and grandparents were, and they are very similar in appearance to Arabs. There are also thousands of Ethiopian Jews with even darker skin. The European Jews with fair skin constitute only a part of the population, maybe half or less than half (there is a lot of intermarriage).
Israeli border agents can't do racial profiling; that would be pointless if not counter-productive.
What they do is to very carefully, intelligently interrogate each person entering the country, and they meticulously go through each person's luggage (particularly when boarding a plane). Often, one person will sit there, asking you the usual questions - where are you from, what do you plan to do here, etc., while another person sits off to the side, staring at you intensely and studying your every reaction. They are trained to spot telltale signs of lying, nervousness, inconsistency, and they're very good at it. They have to be. To them, it's a matter of life or death. The U.S. might get one or two terrorists in a million trying to enter the country; the Israelis are literally surrounded by a sea of people wishing them ill will.
The U.S. could learn something from Israeli security, naturally. I understand the Germans are also very good at it. The problems run pretty deep; U.S. agencies (or their overseers in the Cabinet or the Congress) are headed by political appointees who don't always have sufficient experience or aptitude to handle the job.
Our whole INS and border control systems need an overhaul, that's for sure. The world has shrunk and if someone considers it too difficult to visit here, they'll just teleconference, go tour a different country, start their business elsewhere. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.
> 60% of Israeli Jews are from Arab countries, or their parents and grandparents were, and they are very similar in appearance to Arabs
Sorry, but you are wrong regarding the impossibility of do a "race" profiling. I'm a Jew and lived for 6 year in Israel. You can spot in a fraction of a second an arab jew from an arab muslin, from an arab christian.
They can look alike phisicaly, but the behavior, cloths, accents, body expression, etc... Are completely diferent.
You are being pedantic here. Yes, I am aware of the fact that Jewish people vary and have a wide spectrum of physical appearances. Going by their definition that they are a race, the fact that people who either by virtue of having the wrong name, or wrong religion or potential links to the Arab world are flagged off and scrutinized more carefully is profiling.
You have seemingly replaced "Israelis" with "Jewish people" whereas about 20% of Israelis are not Jewish. I think if we discuss profiling it is important to see what kind of profiling, specifically, is applied, its reasons and consequences.
And you think those non jewish Israelis (mostly Arab) are treated as anything but second class citizens. Sorry, I am not the greatest critic of Israel and probably at some level think that they are pretty damn effective at what they do. However, go open up any report on how those people are discriminated against on a day to day basis.
Yes, they are (albeit less than many people think, and much less than in the past, but still there is a long road ahead for achieving equal treatment). This, however, is tangential. The point of discussion is profiling, which may or may not be discriminatory.
I don't think it's ever been easy to get into the US. A tour through Ellis Island will tell you as much. The difference is that, in the past, the US needed its immigrants. They built its cities and its railroads and much of the US's early industry. Later the US's immigrants were its main source of scientific advancements...but the US's relationship with its immigrants has, I think, always been strained.
The difference is that, today, there seems to have been a shift in attitude. The US no longer thinks that it needs its immigrants. On top of that, the world is a different place today. No longer is "the American dream" unique to America. I know many people who've started businesses and found great success elsewhere in the world.
It may be cliche to say, but only time will tell if the US's new attitude toward immigrants is justified or will prove its undoing. In the mean time, the world is a great big place with many wonderful things to see and people to meet. I don't think you'll miss much if you never go back...
The country is made almost entirely out of immigrants. It's bizarre that they're so closed off and scared of immigrants; they themselves are the children of immigrants.
It's bizarre if expecting the Golden Rule to be followed...
It appears to be a system made to disadvantage newcomers. This is visible in the Baby Boomer's treatment of the younger class, immigration and in frat houses.
"You ask me to enter, but then you make me crawl." -Bono Vox
In this sense, every country in the world is made entirely (not "almost entirely") from immigrants. Plenty of American families have been there as long as anyone alive can remember; the fact that the history beyond living memory is shorter than usual isn't particularly relevant.
US immigration is broken on so many levels. A lot of our immigration problems stem from a political desire to increase voter rolls for one particular party.
The Democrat party benefits greatly from illegal immigration from Mexico, so they refuse to do anything whatsoever to control that flow. That's great for Democrats to win elections and all, but it creates a backlash against immigration in general. Ironically, the most controllable area of immigration, that of those actually following the visa process suffer the most from that backlash.
The Democrat party benefits greatly from illegal immigration from Mexico
Could you back up that assertion with proof, or at least with some sound reasoning.
While I can accept that Latinos tend to vote democrat illegal immigrants can't vote to begin with. So it certainly doesn't follow that "The Democrat party benefits greatly from illegal immigration from Mexico"
To me that sounds a bit like partisan mud slinging, I'm sorry to say.
On a related note, this is why there's a rather huge debate over whether or not someone should be required to provide identification when they vote.
Without trying to spark a partisan discussion, those taking positions against voter ID requirements are the ones you'd expect to be opposed to illegal immigrants voting, and those in favor of voter ID requirements are the ones you'd expect to benefit the most from illegal immigrants voting.
Meanwhile, both sides have framed the argument in ways that bring up everything except immigration.
In short, while I won't comment on who's right and who's wrong, the immigration debate in our country has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with the political windfall of which party gets to inherit the new voting bloc.
> Without trying to spark a partisan discussion, those taking positions against voter ID requirements are the ones you'd expect to be opposed to illegal immigrants voting, and those in favor of voter ID requirements are the ones you'd expect to benefit the most from illegal immigrants voting.
I think you have this backwards, perhaps unintentionally. North Carolina, with its Republican controlled Senate, and House, and Governor has passed voter ID laws. They are being challenged by the Democrat-controlled US Department of Justice.
1. Don't you think that's kind of a myopic view of reality? The children of illegal immigrants are able to vote.
2. You don't see how extreme pandering to illegal immigrants might play into voting patterns of second and third(+) generation descendants?
Don't you think that's kind of a myopic view of reality to speak of the descendants of illegal immigrants as though they weren't natural full born legal American citizens who are completely entitled to make an educated vote against an ever-shrinking old white male established hegemony that childishly refuses to represent modern reality and values, be it George Bush, Romney or any other stereotypical republican who's destroying your country purely for political gain.
If my father robbed banks and amassed a great deal of money that he bequeathed to me... am I entitled to that money?
Are Bernie Madoff's family members entitled to what he acquired through his illegal schemes?
I find your definition of "entitled" to not be in line with my own. Further, my guess is that your "because they're already there" argument falls apart if you're talking about the land that the Israelis occupy.
ever-shrinking old white male established hegemony
For a side so vociferously opposed to racism, I find that dividing people based upon race is one of their most frequently-used arguments.
modern reality and values
If "modern reality and values" are equivalent to what causes Mexico to be such a crappy country, then I'll stick with the old white guys' reality and values.
So we have Mexico, a country whose culture is irretrievably steeped in corruption and ignoring the rule of law to its eternal detriment... and yet the people of that culture who created that culture are to be encouraged to come to the USA without restriction and without hope that those people will absorb the existing culture that led to the success that draws the Mexicans here.
Further, the very corruption and ignoring of the rule of law that led to the malaise in their society is the first thing that they use to get and stay here. Nice.
Both parties in the US benefit from illegal immigration from Mexico. Democrats have a huge Hispanic base which has interests in immigration reform. Republicans play both sides, one hand is bashing immigrants, while many of their supporters hire them for jobs to reduce costs.
I'd agree that the Republicans play both sides. As you mention, there's the job base group of Republicans, like those in line with the Chamber of Commerce. There's also the Republicans who think that somehow they're going to get in the good graces of illegal immigrants by maintaining a softer stance.
That said, the only opposition to illegal immigration comes from corners of the Republican party. The Democrats are all-in and willing to use the Justice Department to sue states even trying to protect their own borders.
This is pure groupthink with no evidence. The facts are quite the opposite.
The administration of Barack Obama has locked up and deported more undocumented immigrants than any President in American history. [1]
Now, I would agree that "the Democrat party" would benefit more if they did the opposite, but our President has not chosen that path. Militarization of the border is at an all-time high because of ignorant blather like the parent post that only harms our country and its workforce.
It's similar to the debt issue. Sure, Republicans are walking toward the cliff... but Democrats are running full speed with a pair of scissors in each hand.
I think its possible the immigration quotas are skewed by how many people are in the country that didn't come through the system today. Prior to the current wave of southern border immigration, almost everyone had to go through the system via a port of entry and they could keep the quotas in check. My family all came via boat, plane etc at a time when the immigration office probably wasn't accounting for undocumented entries.
So whats happened is that immigration now has to account for higher numbers they can't control. The people who actually come through the system are at a disadvantage because their numbers can actually be regulated whereas undocumented migrants can't.
There's really nothing new about hostility to immigrants in the United States. The last generation's wave of newcomers is the next generation's "old guard", saying that the new wave is "lazy", "unskilled", and a leech on society. What's going on today seems like a fairly straightforward continuation of how we've always been.
There've always been lots of people who would say that the next wave of immigrants is unneeded, and unwanted. No matter how successful they turned out to be.
> When I'm supposed to watch my words, I tend to say the wrong ones.
No kidding. Volunteering that he was in Al Qaeda territory... to take pictures of plants. Saying he's a nihilist. Suggesting that the levees in New Orleans might break again while he's visiting. Having Jewish ancestry, but denying being Jewish because not religious.
Also appears he was also traveling alone to many of these places, without any business reason. Entering the US through Canada without having business in Canada sounds like somebody trying to come in a back door, and being nervous to boot.
Even from this one side of the story I'd say the border patrol did their job just fine. I wouldn't have let him into the country in that story.
I think you're wrong, and I'm sorry that people like you are the ones working on the border. He was obviously travelling all around the world sight-seeing. He had tons of proof of that. The border patrol were paranoid and idiotic. Keeping random people out who "seem" like they might be dangerous is not going to prevent any problems. It's just going to make the rest of the world hate us more.
"He was obviously travelling all around the world sight-seeing"
This is not so obvious. This is one of the possible points of view, of course.
"He had tons of proof of that"
For example? I'm not sure other countries stamp a reason for entry like the US, it's usually an entry stamp for anything and that's it.
I'm also sympathetic to the author, but he was extremely naive. The border control doesn't want to hear about nice food or nice wildlife or other blah blah blah. Direct and cooled down answers will do. "On Vacation" is fine.
It's clear his answers (and passport stamps) rang a ton of bells.
> The border control doesn't want to hear about nice food or nice wildlife or other blah blah blah. Direct and cooled down answers will do. "On Vacation" is fine.
This is a horrible way to greet people to come visit and spend money in your country.
My experiences traveling abroad are that most of the other countries have agents that don't make you feel like you are a burden or threat. Imagine actually feeling welcomed when you visit a lush vacation spot.
Depending on the details, yes, it's better, like, "oh, I transited through Malaysia when leaving Singapore"
But remember "anything you say can and will be used against you", so don't go into details unless needed.
And to be honest, someone saying they traveled there because of the Botany, they're either a plant expert or this can be felt as they're hiding something.
So his crack about levees didn't in anyway color or piss off the border patrol? I mean when I'm entering a country, I too like to crack wise about their recent national tragedies to get into the border officer's good graces. He should have followed that up by saying he was taking the train because he heard planes tend to fly into buildings here.
Sorry, but it sounds like this guy is a bit of an idiot who didn't help his case, even if the border patrol was overly critical. Trust me, I'm no fan of the TSA or their "SPOT" nonsense, but if I said the things he said, I would expect to get denied just out of spite.
You don't talk to police like you talk to a friend -- you keep the scope of the conversation limited to the question asked. You don't introduce the topic of Al-Qaeda. You don't go into political/religous discussions. Once you do that, you're putting the border agent/cop in a position where he needs to apply subjective judgement. You avoid that by not inserting unrelated noise into the conversation.
This isn't a US issue -- it's a clueless person issue.
It's an issue everywhere there are cops and politics. Every country has some goofy immigration thing to deal with. If you travel the world and are ignorant of the countries you visit, you'll run into trouble.
For example: Canada is probably one of the most chilled-out countries in the world. Nice place, friendly people, no kafka-factor -- Unless you're travelling with a party of people, and somebody was convicted of DWI a decade ago. That individual cannot enter Canada without a visa. Kind of sucks when you're in a car trying to cross one of the smaller St. Lawrence river crossings -- you're stuck in the middle of nowhere.
Really? A satire or what? If it is not a satire then I believe people are afraid of their shadows over there in the US. Terrorism is winning a landslide. Hey guys please, don't br islamaphobic. Nobody is trying to bomb inside out US or Israel. People have their own problems and concerns over the world and most of the time it is not orbiting you.
The border patrol knew he was part Jewish, and that being the case, asked him why he went to country that was hostile to Jews, and he denied being Jewish. It's not about ethnicity, it's about telling the agents something they know is not accurate.
This part, like the whole story, was a miscommunication. A better answer would be something like "Well I only have Jewish ancestry from one grandparent so I didn't think that would be a problem".
Judaism has traditionally defined Jewishness as being matrilineal; i.e. you're Jewish if your mother is Jewish. Reform Judaism accepts bilineal ancestry, but on the condition that one has been raised as a Jew.
So, yes, he was completely right to deny being Jewish.
If the border patrol agents use a person's presumed Jewishness as part of their rationale to deny them entry, they should indeed know what they're talking about. It's not something that they were forced to deal with; it was a reason they manufactured themselves (out of whole cloth, as it so happens).
Not being familiar with religious customs is not a crime, but then you shouldn't use your ignorance to adjudicate a case.
His grandfather was, so he has Jewish ancestry, which is enough for people in some parts of the world to consider him Jewish. (Even though he may not be Jewish in the eyes of the actual religion, it's not relevant.)
Do you really understand how preposterous the whole construction is? He is a Dutch citizen, with a Dutch passport, and a Dutch name. So, because he has a grandfather who is a Jew, that's supposedly a reason to deny him entry (according to the comment above, anyway) because it's presumably suspicious that he was in an area of the world that's unfriendly to Jews, even though nobody there has reason to believe that he's one. So, from that they construe some sort of reasoning that he could be a crypto-fundamentalist Muslim, apparently.
In reality, he doesn't think of himself as a Jew nor does anybody else, except the jokers that the US federal government apparently hires for these kinds of jobs (and that only after him volunteering that information), so there's no reason for him to have any fears that he might be exposed to antisemitic reactions. How would a hypothetical al Qaeda agent even learn that he has a Jewish grandfather?
Somebody's trying really hard to find a justification for stupid behavior by US agents that doesn't meet any evidentiary standards other than cover-your-ass paranoia.
Having a Jewish father doesn't make you Jewish. Only people who have Jewish mothers or those who convert to Judaism are considered Jewish. If the agent thought he was being inaccurate then the agent was just being ignorant.
Given that Jewishness is 'inherited' maternally, he's actually not Jewish. He is not a follower of the Jewish religion and even Jews would not consider him a Jew. Why would he say otherwise?
Regardless, if you'd asked him to send the suspect to Guantanamo Bay he would probably agree (and thank you as he should have thought about that first).
I went for a interview with Facebook recently from India and had a really different experience. The CBP guy was really gentle and just reminded me to not work for Facebook in my days there and that's it, I was in USA. I just had a small carry bag and no luggage so another one of them asked me why I have no luggage and I told them that I am only there for 3 days. I agree US can be a bit paranoid of these things but compared to people trying to enter USA I think very few face the kind of hostility the author faced.
Agents use their read on a person to determine entry/denial. The OP mentioned all the things he was asked and how he answered. He didn't/couldn't explain his attitude, eye contact, how quickly he answered the questions, facial expressions.
You've met people you took an instant dislike to - maybe its their hyper-vigilant appearanch; maybe they involuntarily smile at everything you say making you think they know something you don't know. Things like that can get you turned away at the border.
Problem there is that the US loudly and fundamentally claims to be a democracy. If we are to accept that, then we have to accept that the government embodies the will of its people. Or, seriously consider that the US is genuinely no longer a real democracy.
It is a real shame, as you imply. American people have done incredible things which contribute to the world in general in a positive way, and the country its self is undoubtedly spectacular and beautiful. But the political atmosphere, the general fear, and the resulting attitudes are a total bar to me. These days I even worry about using US internet services since merely doing so can put me in the sights of US authorities and their insane legal system and laws. Worse still, my own government literally bend over for the US government.
In short, a great people are strangling them selves.
I don't think it's fair to paint all of this as somehow originating with the US. This country doesn't exist in a vacuum and it is shaped by the political and economic forces that surround it. I think people forget that this nation is constantly under some form of "attack" by groups (nation-state and otherwise) who hope to destabilize it or mitigate the power it can wield.
I'm an American and I'm fiercely proud of this country. We screw up all the time, but we've been able to manage a peaceful transition of power and somehow manage to find our way in a difficult and challenging world.
I think it's lost on MANY people who are not citizens or residents that the USA is HUGE, politically diverse, and nearly as varied in customs, socioeconomics, and population as Europe. You can even stretch that to language in some parts of the USA. Try and get around South Miami without at least a smattering of Spanish language ability.
Our legal system has it's flaws. You can definitely find examples of miscarriages of justice without too much trouble. Our bureaucracy is sometimes incomprehensible. Our tax systems are strange and often counterproductive.
What is often missing is that all of these things are the result of a vigorous political experiment in self-government. Below the federal government, there are a whole slew of state, regional, city, town, village, and county governments that have wide latitude to set their own laws and practices. In certain counties in the USA, it's still illegal to buy alcohol. In other counties, you can buy alcohol at a DRIVE THRU.
All of these variations are a result of people determining for themselves which laws they'll live under. It's closer to say that the USA is filled with many many cooperating democracies.
Just remember that in this country, you can still go from dirt-floor poor (not an exaggeration) to billionaire in the span of a single lifetime.
We're far from perfect, but it's the recognition that we're trying to perfect this country that makes us unique and special.
> and nearly as varied in customs, socioeconomics, and population as Europe. You can even stretch that to language in some parts of the USA. Try and get around South Miami without at least a smattering of Spanish language ability.
In my rural county in England we have something like 120 different languages spoken by people as their first language.
Some of those are from historic ties to England - such as some of the Indian languages, with languages merging into English. (Pyjama, Bungalow, Juggernaut etc etc).
> I think people forget that this nation is constantly under some form of "attack" by groups (nation-state and otherwise)
Really? How many mainland terrorist attacks have you had? Because Europe has had a wide range of different separatist, leftist, anarchist, right-wing, etc groups setting off bombs and killing people.
EDIT: you can still go from dirt-floor poor (not an exaggeration) to billionaire in the span of a single lifetime.
Yes, I can go and buy a lottery ticket and win millions with a 1 in 14 million chance. The truth is that we could walk into a maternity ward in the US and predict with reasonable accuracy the children who will be poor and on drugs or in prison, and the children who will not be poor.
I think you're deliberately misunderstanding me. And that's fine. I'm definitely detecting a bunch of do-as-I-say type of sentiment.
But my mother fled a country (her European home country and the country of her birth) that tried to kill her and every one like her. SO...please pardon me if I don't agree to entertain your Europe is oh-so-much-better than the US diatribe. If one persons difficult experience can indict a whole country of 300m people, well...what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"pardon me if I don't agree to entertain your Europe is oh-so-much-better than the US diatribe"
Read the words again. None of DanBC's comments can be construed as a belief that Europe (or anywhere else) is better than the USA. If Europe has more languages than the US, for example, then that doesn't make Europe better in any meaningful sense. What (it seems to me) he's saying is that the US is less special and unique than you might think. Not less special to you, but less special on an objective, global scale.
From my point of view (British, European), belief in American Exceptionalism has always seemed a little deluded. Many countries around the world have democracy, wealth creation, etc. Many of them are trying to improve (though maybe not "perfect") their society. On the whole, though, they just don't make so much noise about it.
Uh huh. I love the British people. Really. Lived half a year in London and worked down in Mayfair back in the 90's.
But I'll admit that I found the fact that the UK has no Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech a shock. And I'd wager that any American would find your system of ASBOs to be downright Orwellian.
Speaking of Orwell, you folks have had government surveillance on a scale unheard of in the USA for decades now. How's that working out? Wasn't there a near-simultaneous bus bombing in a heavily patrolled and videoed area?
My point is this: I find the constant US bashing that occurs on HN to be nasty and misplaced. Don't like my country? Great. Don't come here. Don't use US products. Don't use US services. Don't contribute financially to the US. I'm totally cool with it.
The mere fact that we have a torrent of immigration applications only demonstrates that despite the nasty border guards, the crazy laws, and the weird politics, that we still remain one of the best places to live a life. We're not perfect; we're just better in a lot of ways that matter to people.
America is a big place. So is Europe. Everybody has something to be ashamed of. Nobody is perfect. National and regional virtues and vices are intrinsically multidimensional, and do not reduce to a single meritocratic scale. Is America "better" than Europe. Bottom. The question makes no sense, because the notion of "better" or "worse" does not apply.
I am from the UK.
Through time, both historically and more recently, my fellow countrymen have engaged in any number of ethically horrendous actions that disgust and offend my sense of what is right and proper. I don't want to be caught defending the concentration camps in 1950's Kenya. I don't want to be caught defending the (recent) off-hand murder of unarmed prisoners-of-war in Afghanistan.
By the same token, I am imperfect too. I don't want to be caught defending some of the things that I have done and said in the past.
There is no sense of righteousness driving this, just a generalised sense that the world is a slovenly place, and that leading a good, moral, conscientious life is beyond the abilities of most of us.
We all have a responsibility, as fellow human-beings, to support each other in our efforts to improve our world (no matter how futile those efforts might appear to be).
You've said that the US is as varied as Europe. You said that we can stretch that to languages. You gave an example of needing to speak Spanish to get around some parts of the US.
Spain itself has Spanish, Catalan, Galician, and Basque. Sure, you can probably just use Spanish. But about 15% of the Spanish population - living in Spain for generations - don't speak Spanish as a first language.
None if this is about which country / continent is "better".
"But my mother fled a country (her European home country and the country of her birth) that tried to kill her and every one like her."
Bad things happen, US has its own sins with wiped-out indigenous populations. The idea is to correct ourselves and to make things better. Apologetic attitudes aren't helpful in this regard.
BTW, which is that European country if you don't mind?
Nazi Germany. My mother was born during the Third Reich. Just lucky I guess.
BTW, my bartender is Croatian. Ask him how he feels about Europe. IN fact, ask anyone who's had a chance to see what the USA is really like and compare it to their home country. I know a certain Italian grad student who is so desperate to stay here he's on his SECOND Ph.D. I visited Italy and it seems nice, but apparently he places a high premium on being able to earn an actual living that he'd rather stay here.
I've had a chance to see the US. From NY to LA, Mississippi and Denver to Hawaii and Alaska. And I am never going back to live there.
And I am an American. I used to be so proud of my country that I even quit working in IT for a few years to join the military (US Air Force). People would ask each other 'Why did you join?' the normal answer being healthcare or university. When they asked me I would just say 'America has been pretty good to me, I wanted to pay back the favor' Nobody quite knew what to make of this as I spent most half of my life growing up around the world (mainly Europe) and my father's side of my family is Cherokee Indian and black.
The US now (since 9/11 basically) is a shadow of what it used to be. Reading headlines about American government actions is like reading about the good ol' USSR back in the 70s and 80s. Except in the 80s Europe tore down a wall, whilst nowadays the US is building walls (both literally and policy wise)
It's a good thing your mother didnt have to try and enter the America of today to escape persecution. She'd probably be turned away at the border.
Good point. It is certainly true that the US is an absolutely, stupendously, incomprehensibly huge place; with a mind-bending amount of variety and differentiation. I loved living there for the (short) period that I did.
Please level up on your reading comprehension and see if you care to reframe your criticism.
And Lloyd Blankfein grew up in a housing project in Brooklyn. In fact, the same housing project that Jay-Z did. It turns out that where hard work and preparation meet opportunity, there is luck to be won.
I was born here as the child of two lower-class immigrant parents from different parts of the globe. Now I'm a one percenter. My wife grew up in a single parent household from the age of three, moved to NYC with $300 20 years ago and is also a wildly successful person.
Rags to riches is not a fairy tale in the USA. It DOES happen but not without lots of hard work. Luck plays a part, but you'd be AMAZED at how many people with the good fortune to be US citizens can't manage to even get out of bed in the morning to take advantage of the amazing opportunities here.
So Europe is shitty because your mom almost got killed by her government? How about tens of millions of native Americans who were systematically exterminated by their government?
While America was founded on some really great and unique ideas and concepts (your declaration of independence comes to mind), the execution is less than stellar. That in and of itself wouldn't be a problem if you wouldn't claim that you're somehow better and more exceptional than everyone else.
You don't believe there aren't other places in the world where people go from rags to riches on daily basis and where opportunities are abound? You think the rest of the world lives in caves and mud houses? The best way to remedy that would be to get a passport and get out more.
Just an FYI if you can stand to look past your own prejudice and ill-informed speculation:
1. I've lived (and worked) overseas in both Europe and the Middle East.
2. I've visited and spent great deals of time in South America, Central America. I haven't been to Asia but that's been mainly a function of time than opportunity. That'll probably change next year with a trip to Singapore.
3. I've run out of pages in my passport, buddy. I'm likely better travelled than you are. Last month, I did three transatlantic crossings back to back. I've driven from Paris to Milan in a 5-series. I was at the Berlin Wall while there was still a Berlin Wall and I've been back to see it's disappearance. I've even got a picture of myself in East Germany from BEFORE the wall came down.
Before you go off talking trash about how dumb and untravelled Americans are, you might consider that the person on the other end of that screen you live your life on had a Passport and exposure to the world before you were born.
Now that you've got this out of your system and let everybody know how awesome your life experiences are, would you like to address the individual points in my reply or would you like to brag a bit more and hurl some more insults?
While it was unfair of me to bring up the passport thing, you completely missed the point of my post.
No, I didn't miss the point of your post. I understood it completely amidst the insults you hurled MY way and the way you misread what I was trying to say.
I will however accept your apology and reward that with this little gem:
You can get rich in a place called China or in a place called Russia, but you can't criticize the government there AT ALL or you will end up in jail or dead. Or alive and wishing you were dead. Americans, rich and poor, criticize the government all the time, and don't worry about this (much).
There are western countries (like France) where you can get rich and live (mostly) free, but you'll be constantly hounded by the taxing authorities to support their ever-grander uses for the money you earned. Like political elites? Like enclaves of power you can't ever penetrate? France has 'em in spades. In America, you can go to a crappy school and still become President. We've had Presidents with only a high-school diploma. Some had no formal education.
You can live in some Middle Eastern countries like a sheik, but you'll be dependent on a ruling class that holds power via a system of socially acceptable corruption and religious oppression. But hey: LOW TAXES.
You can find examples of places that have individual things that are better (sometimes a LOT better) than we have in the US.
What you can't find is a nation anywhere in the world that has the same level of disparate groups living in more-or-less peaceful coexistence to keep the country moving forward. We have every kind of person from every kind of place with every crazy religion you can imagine. We have so many choices that people make up their own religions. We have so many mixed nationalities in offspring that we have almost lost the idea of what it means to be from-somewhere-else.
It's not any one thing, but the combination of things that has made this place great. We are more cacophonous than many other places but also more resilient. It's tough but we manage. We make mistakes but the people course-correct. We elect bad leaders and then elect good ones.
But if you ask me if I would rather live anywhere else, the answer is NO. I still think the USA is the best place.
But seriously dude, you need to THINK before you attack: You might just learn something. Not all of us older types are terminally fuddy-duddy.
> You can get rich in a place called China or in a place called Russia, but you can't criticize the government there AT ALL or you will end up in jail or dead. Or alive and wishing you were dead. Americans, rich and poor, criticize the government all the time, and don't worry about this (much).
While this might've been true in the past, America has become pretty authoritarian recently. Dragnet surveillance, excessive use of police force, one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, people being imprisoned for writing the wrong thing on Facebook (look up the kid in Texas who got in enormous trouble over a joke), police departments taking bribes from i-banks and then beating protesters up etc.
It's a sad thing because America was founded on some really great principles and now you're just throwing it all away while still claiming greatness and refusing to take a hard honest look at yourself. I don't dispute that China and Russia are shitty places. I am disputing your claim that America is the absolute best country in the world. It might've been for waves of immigrants a hundred years ago. I seriously doubt that's still the case. I for one wouldn't want to live there.
> There are western countries (like France) where you can get rich and live (mostly) free, but you'll be constantly hounded by the taxing authorities to support their ever-grander uses for the money you earned.
America is known to have one of the most vicious and unforgiving tax system in the world where people routinely end up getting serious jail time over tax issues that could easily be resolved with a simple conversation. Then there is the issue of global taxation. I work with a number of Americans colleagues and they all complain how unfair it is that they have to keep paying taxes on their income here despite the fact that most of them haven't been home in years and have little intention of returning. One of my colleagues was unable to fly back home for a period of time because he would've been detained and arrested at the airport over a tax misunderstanding he had with the IRS. Couldn't go home until that got cleared up. I can't imagine something like this happening in my country unless I was wanted for murder or something.
Now granted, taxes in Europe are high, but my country doesn't tax me on my global income. Additionally, many countries have great social safety nets and medical treatment is usually completely covered by national health insurance. This causes our taxes to be slightly higher than in the US, but at least I know that if I or people close to me ever go bankrupt, they won't be sentenced to die on the street just because they can't pay their medical bill. I was pretty sick this summer - total expense: 30 euros. My father got a pretty bad case of cancer a few years ago and the treatment was completely free, from the surgery to the hospital expenses. I looked up online how much the same procedure would've cost in the US and the figure was around $100K. Since my dad doesn't have that kind of money and he's retired, he likely would've died if he lived there.
> Like political elites? Like enclaves of power you can't ever penetrate? France has 'em in spades. In America, you can go to a crappy school and still become President. We've had Presidents with only a high-school diploma. Some had no formal education.
Political elites like the Wall Street banksters who gave massive "donations" to the NYPD around the time of Occupy Wall Street protests? Political elites that get into Congress and Senate and then lobby and try to change laws in the favor of their multi-billion dollar businesses? Political elites who instigate wars to keep their sponsors and donators in the oil-military-industrial complex happy for the next campaign just so they could remain in the office? You know what I'm talking about here.
> What you can't find is a nation anywhere in the world that has the same level of disparate groups living in more-or-less peaceful coexistence to keep the country moving forward. We have every kind of person from every kind of place with every crazy religion you can imagine. We have so many choices that people make up their own religions. We have so many mixed nationalities in offspring that we have almost lost the idea of what it means to be from-somewhere-else.
I am not convinced. While there is this illusion of multiculturalism and acceptance in America, the moment you scratch under the surface you realize racism is still alive and well. A lot of my American friends tell me they would never raise their kids near a black neighborhood. A friend of mine from San Francisco was amazed by the fact that there are no homeless people here and that you can walk anywhere at any time of the night without fear of getting mugged/stabbed/shot. Oh and... there are no ghettos here. Most of the population is uniformly upper-middle class and ghettos are nonexistent. You could fall asleep on the street with a wad of cash sticking out of your pocket, wake up in the morning and it would still be there. I have seen it time and again (literally).
Anyway, this is turning into a rather long discussion so I'm going to leave you with this. My point is not to belittle America, but to say that there are plenty of amazing places in the world that would objectively rank much higher in terms of livability. Just look at any list of the most livable cities in the world, most are either in Europe, Oceania and Canada (haven't found such a list for countries):
C'mon man. You just belittled America with four paragraphs. You don't like America? Fine. Stay where you are. I find it LAUGHABLE that you devote pages and pages of prose to tell me why my country isn't awesome. Seriously, you're an expert right? You DEFINITELY know how things are here.
I know it's fashionable to bash the US on HN, but really, why do people just keep coming here? Why is immigration such a contentious issue? Why do I continue to see posts from people on HN trying to find a way to live or work here? Why is some group trying to anchor a boat off of San Francisco for startups to get around the US immigration system? Why?
Take a look in the mirror. Everything you hate about HERE you have over THERE without the benefit of CHOICE.
> You don't like America? Fine. Stay where you are.
It's not that I DON'T LIKE America, I am just disputing your claim that it's the absolute best place in the world. Your claim is ignorant, arrogant and full of hubris... even offensive to non-Americans.
> Take a look in the mirror. Everything you hate about HERE you have over THERE without the benefit of CHOICE.
Again, I don't HATE anything about America, I am just saying that there are places where a lot of issues that your country has don't exist.
Anyway, I'm done trying to have a rational discussion with you since you seem to be incapable of having one. You keep creating strawmans, moving the discussion goalposts and putting words into my mouth while deliberately avoiding addressing my points. Have fun.
> Problem there is that the US loudly and fundamentally claims to be a democracy. If we are to accept that, then we have to accept that the government embodies the will of its people. Or, seriously consider that the US is genuinely no longer a real democracy.
North Korea also claims to be a democratic. Self entitlement is meaningless.
>Voting choices in the US are much like religion choices and football team choices
This is only true because people fail to vote (or even pay attention) in the primaries.
By the time you get to the general election you get two terrible choices produced by the establishment. The result is that there is no difference between the two party candidates. Sure they're made to sound different, but policy and execution is the same.
This is only true because people fail to vote (or even pay attention) in the primaries
... which is only true because they don't really care who the candidate is as long as they have the R or D after their name.
More than most people want to think about problems and their solutions, they want to feel like they belong to a family, a tribe, a team, or an organized religion.
After getting deeply involved in politics for about five years, I'll pick "no longer a real democracy," at least at the federal level, and my state's pretty shaky. Local's still good.
"Problem there is that the US loudly and fundamentally claims to be a democracy."
That is part of the overall problem currently in the US. It is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic. The representatives are elected democratically, but the whole point of the constitution is to limit to the powers of the government. It seems that 99% of the government has neglected or forgotten that, and sadly most of the general population has as well.
Had a similar problem when flying into NYC. With an Iranian visa stamp in my passport. "Why would anyone go to Iran???" the lady at the border control said. Then she wrote CTR on my immigration form (my imagination believes it means 'Check for Terrorist Record'). Then she showed it to a guy with a machine gun and he replied "Is he a fugitive or something?". Had to wait in a room to talk with some guy. I showed him my passport which has a lot of stamps. "Oh so you were backpacking?". Yup. "Ok you go can".
Do, really, immigration officers ask "What the hell where you doing X?" "Aren't those countries Islamic?" There are parts on this writing that are hard to believe, like they were written to sound like a novel, but I have never been on a situation like the one described, not even close.
I'm afraid so. While I still lived in the US (I'm American), my Malaysian wife lost her green card. As a result, she just had a stamp in her passport (this was the temporary green card) for ages, and each time we flew into NYC we were sent to the "back room" for further questioning.
The agents in front were often somewhat rude; in the back there was a sort of waiting room (with often 20 or so people in chairs) and a front desk where the agents would literary SHOUT at the people called up in front of them. It was not a private interview room (though presumably those were available as well). We were silently horrified during the 10 minutes or so they were shouting and badgering a cringing 60 year old Greek (I think?) man with poor English who apparently had something related to child support out of order in his documents.
There's something very hard to shake about the feeling you get when you are obliged to act polite & unconcerned to petty officials like these when you are inwardly seething with rage.
We left the US in 2006, and still go back on occasion (parents, friends, etc. are still there!), though the last time was now a few years ago. We still dread the immigration experience, though; it's likely to be fine (we don't make stupid mistakes about what we say, and we fake friendliness well), but it always feels like somehow, something will go wrong.
We've were once detained for 45 minutes or so at the English border as well, driving up from France -- we made the mistake of entering while pregnant without being prepared for their suspicion (NHS leeches!) -- but while it was frustrating to be stopped & questioned, they were impeccably polite and kind to us (though they did put a warning in my wife's passport without a word to us... we didn't notice until the next trip through the UK, when we were questioned about that).
Remember that the guy working the border post for the train from Montreal to New York is fairly unlikely to be particularly well traveled, and I'd imagine the vast majority of people they meet fit into a very small category of tourists and Canadians. A border officer working in LAX will have seen far more international travelers. Suspicion of Singapore and Malaysia as a whole doesn't really hold up when you get 500 people a day arriving from there.
I've had UK and Australian Customs officers be similarly incredulous over places I've visited. Honestly, those jobs don't seem to attract the "best and brightest". Nor attract those who even have a passing familiarity with geopolitics and geography. Sigh
Why would any border guard be incredulous over anyone visiting far away places? You'd expect border guards to be used to meeting foreigners. And there's lots of foreign parts in the world.
Why would anyone visit X? Because it's there. Because people live there. Because there are things to see. What other reason do you need?
Some of their questions are there to gauge your response, not get information, but I still have a hard time believing they would call him "a Jew" instead of a version of "Jewish".
As a white foreigner who has considered travelling to the US for a holiday or working in the Valley, these types of reports have a long-term chain reaction on my willingness to start thinking about packing my bags for the States. I wonder if the powers that be understand how far-reaching bad treatments of foreign travellers can be. Or maybe I'm just one developer and my sentiment has no effect in the long run. Do other developers feel the same?
You're not alone, I feel the same. I'm becoming increasingly hesitant to go to the US for a vacation, despite there being some places I really want to visit. I've even turned down two very good job offers in the US.
My other developer friends seem to have similar, though not quite as advanced, feelings about the US. When I mention not wanting to go to the US I get plenty of "yeah, I don't blame you" responses.
You are not alone. I'm a white foreign developer currently in the valley, not working, just visiting and getting involved in the startup scene.
The border and customs BS is the number 1 reason I dont think I could stay and work in the US long term, even though my home country(australia) and profession(dev) are on the 'blessed' lists.
I'm frankly terrified of the US border/customs for 3 major reasons:
1) I'm afraid some ignorant/overzealous border guard will ask about all the startup events, conferences, hackathons etc that im going to and deciding that im looking to 'work' here, regardless of that being untrue.
2) There's no rules! There's only guidelines! Buy a $2000 ticket to come over to visit? No guarantee you'll be let in, its all completely arbitary and totally up to however bad a day the boarder guard is having. Turns every visit into a (low chance) potential nightmare. It's stressful, doubly so when the attitude you always face is 'prove to me your're not a danger to the US'
3) I have an 'interesting' recent history, did a bunch of travelling over the last year, including through Iran and a bunch of former soviet states, and a few uncommon asian countries. Again, if i get a border guard having a bad day I could easily end up like the OP
I hate the borders, they are arrogant, arbitrary, stressful and unpleasant, and will always make me think twice about future US visits.
US immigration can be complicated, but if there is nothing that would raise flags in your passport, why don't you give it a try for holidays so you know what you are missing (and what not)? It's at least an interesting experience. I love staying in the US for holidays, even if I probably wouldn't want to work in the US.
He tried to enter on the US Visa Waiver program. If the guard doesn't like you then you don't get in.
Getting a visa in advance does make the guard do more paperwork if they refuse entry.
From some US gov website;
---
To use the program, visitors must waive all rights of review or appeal of decisions made by an immigration officer and all rights to contest action in deportation except for asylum.
moreover, he considers it a system with graft to be preferable to what he endured in the US, which basically is an attitude of massive entitlement. While I personally believe a person should generally have the right to unconditionally enter any country, this guy doesn't (as evidenced by his excitement and apparent delight at passing through border controls). So, what, is 'getting the green light' some sort of personal validation? And getting rejected such a huge personal affront that he will never go back to the US because he knew he couldn't bribe one of the officers?
It is a very unpleasant experience being refused entry to a country, which has considerable lost costs as a result. I had much a similar experience as OP and can only agree.
I'm not disputing that, but I would suggest a recalibration of the author's other attitudes, then. The author revels in the pomp and circumstance of the border crossing... Just what does he think those are there for?
That is the normal way for many Europeans to visit the US, and pretty much every other country that's friendly to tourists. You just appear at their border and get a tourist visa.
When I clicked through the link to this article, a window popped up asking me to sign a petition to reinstate Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Given her recent vote in favor of the Patriot Act, that was an interesting warm-up act for the main article.
Coming from Romania, I also had to face some extra control in US airports + we also need visa which is given also after an interview. Romania is a country with zero terrorism.
I only wish US people to be treated in EU the same way they treat EU people in US.
I used to think that way, but now I don't. Brazil implemented a retaliation policy, where U.S. citizens are treated much like Brazilians are in the U.S.
Several nice people from the U.S. have had a bad time as a result, and it made me reconsider - I don't think "an eye for an eye" is such a great thing.
If only we could only treat people with power to change things that way :) - but someone traveling is already not a standard U.S. citizen and probably more open by default.
There are plenty of reciprocal visa policies; I understand that China charges US visitors a fee equal to the fee the US charges Chinese, and Brazil's horrific bureaucracy is also just trying to match what they feel Brazilians have to go through if they want to enter the US.
The concept sort of makes sense; I can envision a situation where tourists are appalled by visa procedures (especially if they're going to Brazil) and pressure their politicians to lighten up. The major flaw there is that most americans will never want a visa anyway, so it ends up being a largely invisible protest on the part of the other countries.
>The major flaw there is that most americans will never want a visa anyway, so it ends up being a largely invisible protest on the part of the other countries.
Most Americans don't even have passports! [1]
By punishing the tiny fraction of Americans visiting Brazil or China, these countries are simply shooting themselves in the foot.
It's a mostly invisible protest - and the only people witnessing said protest are the ones who already like you.
What is immigration control doing these days when very few people actually get stamps in passports? And if I have stamps from Somalia and Libya in my passport, why would I go to the US wihtout first getting a new blank passport? Are stamps in passport really that useful?
I keep two passports; one gets stamps from interesting countries, and the other one is used for going to places where being well-travelled is considered suspicious (such as, it seems, the U.S.).
Edit: To expand, in the UK it used to be as easy as writing a letter explaining why you needed a second (maybe it still is; haven't tried for a while). I've also got a third passport, from a different country, but so far not needed it.
That's my problem with these kinds of scenarios. An honest person with a truthful passport will be punished, while someone with a blank passport might not be looked at twice.
Actually I traveled to Japan with a blank passport and was selected for additional checks. Nothing aggressive or in any way impolite, but I would guess a blank passport would be regarded suspicious in many instances.
You may afford to get a new passport first, but the author said that he was traveling continuously and just wanted a last segment before reaching his home. There was therefore no preparation in advance that could include getting a new passport, and also there were no bad expectations.
I have two passports, two different countries (being a dual citizen has it's uses). Countries that I want to visit that other countries dont go in one of them, everything else in the other. Makes life easier in general if you travel a lot.
Under US law, any person may change their name to anything at any time for any reason. So if your name is really your biggest enemy, the fix is not so hard.
Let me suggest that if, in fact, your largest problem is something you can make vanish immediately, just by wishing it to be so, then you don't have many, or serious, problems.
Obviously, it's demeaning to change your name just because someone else doesn't like it. If it were actually giving you trouble, it wouldn't be a hard choice.
My boss (he's European) has 2 passports: one to visit the Arab world, Russia, ... and another for the US. At one point, I went with him to the US and he accidentally grabbed the wrong passport. Bingo! He was stopped and examined in great detail every time: before entering the tax free zone, before boarding, before entering the US....
It was surreal.
> "We are under the impression you have more ties with more countries we are not on friendly terms with than your own. We decided to bring you back to the Canadian border."
In the long run, there will be no border controls or limitations on immigration in the world.
Why? Well, for one thing these controls hardly work at all. Look at the population of illegal immigrants in the US to see how a long fence with vicious patrols and vigorous immigration enforcement still doesn't stop the immigration.
Secondly border and immigration controls violate human rights, without due justification. And no, "too much immigrants are inconvenient" is no proper justification for hunting, arresting, detaining and deporting actual human beings.
Thirdly cross-border trade and immigration is too valuable for both the poorer and the richer countries.
The other reason he will never, ever go back to the US is because he's likely on a watch list now and will be denied any attempt to enter.
It's a shame that happened. The traveler has had an unfortunate interest in traveling to multiple countries with which the US has hostile relationships. And then entered the US in a slightly unconventional way by train via Canada. I think that's a stupid reason to deny entry because an actual "terrorist" would surely have fake documents anyway.
Perhaps the moral if the story is to get a replacement passport without the stamps if you have travelled a lot and take a direct flight.
Yeah this looks like the typical American knee-jerk overreaction to everything these days. It reminded me of the story posted on HN a while back about the guy who got 3 enemas and more asshole searches after getting pulled over for skipping a stop sign and clinching his ass cheeks a bit funny on the car seat while the officer was speaking to him.
What the fuck guys, have the terrorists won? Are you really so shit scared to live normal lives with a slight risk that bad things might go wrong now and then, that you might miss a few bombs, that a few people might die?
> What the fuck guys, have the terrorists won? Are you really so shit scared to live normal lives with a slight risk that bad things might go wrong now and then, that you might miss a few bombs, that a few people might die?
Most US citizens (in the north-east, at least) don't even think about terrorism post-9/11.
Our representatives are making these kinds of decisions for (most of) us and we're just along for the ride.
I remember when I entered the US for the first time in 1999 through the JFK New York airport on my way to San Francisco. I would be studying there, but had all documentation for that, including some necessary documentation for entering the country, in my suitcase. Which was already in the US, while I approached the airport border control. A friendly border control woman walked with me to my suitcase, let me obtain my documentation, and then let me into the country.
Could that still happen today? I sincerely doubt it, I would just be sent back straight away.
I've traveled to over 30 countries and the U.S. does not have a monopoly on rude bureaucratic custom officials.
My worst story is probably in Germany where the border officer would not let me take the used car I had purchased in Germany across the border because the chain of title in my registration was out of order. He ended up calling all the previous owners in the title to determine the proper chain of title before he would let me leave the country with it.
Border officer didn't want you to take a car with a wrong/likely-illegal registration across the border - instead took some time and effort to clarify the details and then allowed you to continue.
In my mind that officer was doing their job well, and acted rather generously in your favour.
The registration and title were in my name because title had cleared the German DMV. He basically didn't believe his own DMV and started calling previous owners in the middle of the night.
Sounds like an actual financial issue - not to you, but perhaps to one of the previous owners who was cheated. Turns out not to be the case; the fact that a German checked a paperwork detail is not at all surprising to me.
I'm a US Citizen, currently living abroad. I dread going through CBP when I have to come back through the Orwellian gauntlet. It's as if anyone who wants to travel outside of the US is unpatriotic. I couldn't believe how nice and professional Mexican, Belizean and Guatemalan customs agents have treated me, especially considering the disdain and contempt a seemingly large proportion of US border officials hold for members of those same countries.
The border interrogations and searches are not providing any substantive security benefit. It is amazing to me that we permit this to continue.
The terrorism myth used to justify hostile wars for resources and territorial control has also been very useful in removing the ordinary rights of citizens at the borders. We should not be surprised if this is extended to the interior of the countries.
This is disgusting. But then the more I think about I wonder if I was a CBP officer how would I behave if I didn't want to be the officer who allowed a terrorist into the US who manages to succeed with some plot. Far fetched perhaps, but I think that mentality has created a culture in CBP.
With that said, I think there's a larger culture of militant xenophobia running rampant in federal, state, and local policing. It's very unnerving - but I guess that's the whole point right? Keep everyone unnerved and therefore divided and under control. On one side you have the people who are afraid of those who are doing the policing and on the other side you have the people afraid of foreigners (or people who "look" like foreigners).
Some of the people who join CBP tend to be a bit xenophobic to begin with.
One of the most bigoted people I've ever met got a job with the CBP after a very brief and unsuccessful stint in the Army where he'd publicly announced to everyone that he was going to Afghanistan to 'kill towelheads'.
"I wonder if I was a CBP officer how would I behave if I didn't want to be the officer who allowed a terrorist into the US who manages to succeed with some plot."
Well, how about having solid reasons for detaining someone, something better than "Who takes a coat to the U.S. in the summer?" And speaking about attitude, be polite at least until you have enough incriminating evidence! Just to offer an example from the article itself - shouting at the drug-smuggler was OK in my book, whereas "what the hell were you doing in Yemen" was not.
Anyone have statistics for admittance/denials for different categories of travelers?
I keep seeing these anecdotes get lots of attention on Hacker News, and all the comments just respond with more horror story anecdotes. But I worry there might be an echo chamber effect, where people who like to comment on articles of this topic are also the people who are already accustomed to, or feel confirmation bias satisfaction at, hearing about these kinds of horror anecdotes.
It's definitely a terrible problem; I'm just wondering if Hacker News commenters are overstating the prevalence of the problem.
"I'm not scared. But it's kind of exciting. It's like I'm in a movie. You're just doing your job. I get that."
Like in movies - yeah, "The Departed" police interview scenes comes to my mind. Stamp visas to some other foreign countries? This one was the hallmarks of visa policy in Gaddafi's Libya - the no Israeli ties tolerated (not even touristic visas). Or a raincoat? Really? Speaking about the human rights, how come this kind of behavior is still warranted?
I don't think people from third world will think the same way. Even with all the issues United States is still a very coveted country to immigrate to from say India.
As a life-long citizen of the US and a sometimes traveler of the world, I would compare the United States to a theme park in China. You can certainly have fun if you tow the line and pretend that there's nothing better outside the gates. Argue with the concession stand about choice and you might just get brought to a back room with no windows. Bring in food from outside and it's a 3 year jail term. But the rides are nice...
Well -- the chickens have come to roost. Terrorism of the 9/11 sort was the result of "faux-colonial faux-terrorism" that certain countries in the west had inflicted on the rest of the world for a long time.
And this sort of thing is happening because they can't just do these things to brown-skinned people, once in a while they have to do these things to white-skinned people. Faux-parity, you know.
1. Who gave this 250+ points?? Is there a way to decrease points?
2. How did this dude get his money to roam around?
In this case, the US Immigration Officers did their job right it seems. They do not have enough resources to check what this dude was doing in Yemen, Dubai, Sri Lanka, ... - better safe than sorry. Was he writing from Pakistan and Palestine as well, that he forgot to mention?
> In the Philippines I had to bribe someone in order to get my visa extended for a few days.
No you don't! I have been asked for "visa extention bribes" in many countries. Do not pay them. Cite the countries law and that you follow it. Bribes kill. "Every bribe you pay helps to kill a child." Just don't!
What I learned from the story: If I ever go on a US trip, I get a fresh passport first.
Another european citizen getting to learn the realities of the world. As many others mentioned he has no idea about what's going on in EU for 'others'. That attitude is almost the same everywhere in the world, only enemies, minorities and passports need to be watched change.
If you've been traveling to Yemen and Somolia and all over the Middle East to places that do not have good relations with the US - then it wouldn't be a terrible idea to "lose" your passport and get a replacement without all the stamps before entering the US.
These stories get everybody riled up but in reality are a tiny fraction of people who enter. I have a story too - when I was visiting Amsterdam I had the most rough body search I have experienced when traveling. Maybe I should never visit there again to see all if the rich culture and friendly people? That'll show 'em! My wife was called into the back room on our way to Aspen because her bag triggered some false alarm. Cross that place off my list, I'm never going skiing there again!
I know I do, but that's not a solution for everyone.
Even if you don't have multiple citizenship, it should probably be standard practice to get a fresh, stamp-less passport if you're planning on travelling to the US or any such hostile country.
I am due for a new passport soon, which is a shame because I will loose a few interesting stamps. But it is probably a good thing as my travel seems to be gravitating towards the US soon. I have avoided the US for >10 years now, but work might bring me there again for some visits next year.
But he doesn't have a choice. The USA will not let him in regardless, so saying he won't ever return is a rather moot point. If he was let in to the country and then decided this it would have a much different perspective. He is likely not pleased that he can't get back in he states and thus it is more than likely the OP is not telling the whole truth.
I honestly don't see what is broken here. No one has the unquestioned right to enter any country except one where they hold citizenship. This post documents one person who was turned away for what he felt was an unreasonable position but that's still up to the United States to decide. It may shock people on Hacker News to learn this, but many other countries turn people away for "frivolous" reasons or no reason at all. For instance, Canada:
No one has the unquestioned right to enter any country except one where they hold citizenship. This post documents one person who was turned away for what he felt was an unreasonable position but that's still up to the United States to decide.
Yes it is. And it is up to the people to decide not wanting to go to US ever again, as stated in this post.
Seems like you got offended by something the writer said. All he stated that he doesn't ever want to go there and I think he is allowed to state that without anyone getting upset about it.
I was responding to the assertion that this is "broken," not to the author of the original article. The author has every right to not visit countries which have wronged him and I see nothing wrong with that. What I do think is wrong is to immediately reply to someone else with a retort of "maybe fix your country."
I see. I think I missed your target and point somewhere in "for what he felt was an unreasonable position" and "It may shock people on Hacker News to learn this". Sorry.
It's not really a counter example. The Eurocrats would love the peoples of Europe to be citizens of a united states of Europe (polls suggest people are not so inclined). The Schengen agreement is a logical step towards that goal and is undeniably helpful for travellers. Countries in the continent of America don't appear to have any such ambition.
Wouldn't the "United" states be similar? Each "state" of the union was like it's own country until they formed their own group. People from the USA usually identify with their state first before the country.
On the other hand, one may contest the premise that a country has a right to refuse entrance to any individual.
I, for one, would rather live in a world where individuals are free to travel at will (protected by international agreements) than in one where only goods and money benefit from this kind of protection.
As someone who lives in a Schengen area country, I experience both, so maybe that influences my opinions : it seems quite retrograde and unbearable to forbid people to just travel as they wish.
If you accept the assertion that countries are allowed to police their borders as they see fit, sans abuse and neglect, then it justifies it on the basis of "reasonable practice." This was a discretionary entry and discretion was withheld. Then again, as I pointed out elsewhere, my angst is not with the author of the article, just the comment to which I replied.
(I happen to subscribe to the theory that, since the world is highly unlikely to do the reverse, borders should be relaxed to the point where people can move as freely as capital, but we're not anywhere close to that, either.)
This is a pretty empty argument. It's up to the United States to decide all of its policies. So what? That doesn't make it unreasonable for outsiders to comment on how stupid or broken they are. Similarly broken policies in other countries aren't really much justification either.
I also have some pretty horrible experiences with the Canadian border (about as bad as the US side seems to be for most).
I was denied entry once for an entirely frivolous reason (before anyone asks, no, no criminal record or DUI or anything) and it made subsequent entries extremely difficult/stressful but I was not turned away.
Edit: That second link. Trust me on this: the worst innocent thing you can ever tell a CBSA agent is that you're dating a Canadian. Especially if the agent decides that they don't like you.
I'm also never going back to Canada, because there's nothing up there worth it for me to be treated that way.
Pretty ironic considering the US started producing tourism adverts. Maybe they should add a disclaimer to the bottom: only applicable to WASPs with $10k in the bank who have never left their home country before.
It's not my country, you assumptive douche. The author was rejected from entering the USA on arguably questionable, but still legal terms.
Based on his account, I'm forced to believe he acted appropriately, and therefore I feel bad for him, but he doesn't have a given right to enter a foreign country.
My advice remains. Custom officials in airports are much better equipped to handle foreigners. So, to hedge your safest bets for next time you go to the US, make the airport your first port of entry.
> The author was rejected from entering the USA on arguably questionable, but still legal terms.
And no one was questioning the legality of this. Legal does not mean good.
>My advice remains. Custom officials in airports are much better equipped to handle foreigners. So, to hedge your safest bets for next time you go to the US, make the airport your first port of entry.
How is that not broken? Why should it matter if you enter via airport or train.
There was no reason to turn him away, other than misperceptions and bigocy by the border agents. That's what should be fixed.
I realize now that I was naive, and many of you would probably say it was my own fault. I thought that if I did something that is not against the rules, things would be fine. Afterwards I found out though that entry into the US is completely the discretion of the border guards. Even if you are legally following the rules, they can deny you on a whim. In this case, I believe they thought I was taking advantage by just leaving the US for a few days and coming back. Which is a valid concern I guess, but if that's so, why wouldn't they put a time limit on how long you have to be away? I think part of my naivety comes from my trusting upbringing in a rural part of a small country.
Either way, it was not the best end to my 5 years in the US, and I doubt I'll be going back anytime soon. This experience just cemented once more that the US is not a country I wish to live in permanently, and have my kids grow up in.