Newsstand - Magazine editor handcuffed & body searched, deported from LAX

Yet another episode to make us all feel so much happier about visiting the USA. A magazine editor from Australia who was on her way to New York to interview Olivia Newton-John about breast cancer was handcuffed and body searched at LAX over a visa issue.

According to this evening's TV news, she was interviewed for hours, fingerprinted a number of times, groped all over, then held for 11 hours without food or water, in the company of a number of heavily-armed officers of the department of fatherland security before finally being frog-marched in handcuffs to a plane and deported.

All this because they've decided not to let her enter the USA on a visa she claims to have used many times before without any trouble.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7887038%255E1702,00.html

I can relate to this. Earlier this year coming back from SG I was refused entry, all because my wife put in a change of status. Since I am Canadian, and I had onward tickets 6 days later I didn't think it was a problem.
Well they wanted to send me back to Japan as that was the point of departure. I asked them if I could go to Canada instead. The inspector replied United won't pay for that only back to Japan. I offered to pay for it myself. They accepted.
I found out later that day that United not only would have had to fly me back to Japan at their expense but they would also be fined $5,000.
Like the editor from Austalia, I was handcuffed, and kept in Isolation at LAX for 12 hours.
I think The US approach is not only heavy handed but outrageously ineffective.
It's not the American people who create these redicuously policies nor offend the rest of the world at the same time eroding your personal freedom in the name of Freedom. It's your GUN not gung Ho President

It sounds like the nonsensical policy of Zero Tolerance. When officials aren't allowed/capable to interpret policy/laws/procedures there can be no gray area, only black and white. Like the school principal that suspended a student for bringing Tylenol to school cause of a Zero Tolerance drug policy.

The worst US Customs officals I've encountered are in Detroit, MI. Just downright rude to foreign visitors without cause. Pure intimidation in an attempt to see how nervous they can make you or wether they get you to contradict your "story".

I have a Bolivian colleague that was deported pre-Sept 11 from MIA. We work for a major US publisher, he was going to Corp. HQ in NY, NY. They called him a liar, said the company didn't have an office in Bolivia, refused to call a company official, and refused him a phone call too. Put him on the next flight back to S.A. Sounds like they need some Customer Service/Sensitivity Training......

In no way, shape, or form, do I agree with how she was treated, and I have seen these stories many times now. It's really awful. On the other hand, based on her own words, and that of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokeswoman she was removed from the US yesterday because she did not have the correct visa. It is her responsibility to have the correct visa every time she visits the US, even if she was incorrectly admitted 7 other times before. She should have been aware of the law and followed it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Australian tourists travelling to the US can travel under the 90-day visa waiver program, but not for the purpose of working.

"A lot of people are being turned around when they get to the US, basically because they don't have a visa and they think they are getting in under the 90-day visa waiver program and they find out when they get there that they're not eligible for that," she said. </font>

[This message has been edited by jeffreyt (edited Nov 16, 2003).]

Two observations here.

a) The US requires a specific "class I" visa for "Foreign Information Media". They are NOT eligible to travel under a normal class B1/B2 business/tourism visa. They are also NOT eligible for the Visa Waiver Program when traveling on a journalistic assignment, no matter their citizenship. The law is EXTREMELY clear about this and has been that way for as long as I can remember.

b) I have personally experienced an overzealous INS agent at a port of entry. I spent 17 hours being interrogated and was subjected to every trick in the book including physical abuse in order to coerce a false confession of illegal activity. I finally was able to negotiate a "deal" where I would sign the confession they demanded in exchange for being allowed to withdraw my application for admission. I then moved to Canada and have not returned to the United States since. For the last two years I have pursued this through both official and unofficial channels to the point that I have received an informal admission of error from the State Department, but am still waiting for a formal apology before I am willing to visit the US again.

In conclusion, I don't doubt that the US agents treated the deportee very badly - but I also don't doubt that the deportation was warranted under the circumstances detailed above.

She should have had the correct visa. They should have treated her better.

From a "Let's encourage tourism in the US" viewpoint, picking on a journalist is dubious. Harassing a woman who is covering breast cancer seems really stupid.

If they'd just said, "Sorry, ma'am, but you can't enter under this visa. We are enforcing things more strictly now. You'll need to wait here until the next flight out. Would you like some juice? A sandwich?" they might have come across looking petty, but not thuggish. It might never have made the news at all, instead of being covered on TV and newspapers across Australia.

Not defending the actions of US Customs Agents. But I have been treated really bad by Canadian Agents especially Portal, Sask. I have heard this is some kind of training border. I can also tell you horror stories about Port Huron,Mi. (whatever the Canadian city was).

Posted in the Travel Safety/Security forum:

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/Forum57/HTML/000308.html

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jarinzfin:
from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027021940.html

Editor deemed 'national threat'

When an Australian magazine editor flew to Los Angeles last week to interview Olivia Newton-John she had no idea she would become the story.

New Idea editor Sue Smethurst said she would lodge a formal complaint with US authorities after she was treated as a threat to national security and deported back to Australia after nearly 15 hours of interrogation at Los Angeles airport.

"I would have walked across broken glass to get home," Ms Smethurst said today.

The 30-year-old said she was interrogated, fingerprinted, had mugshots taken and was refused access to a lawyer.

"I was being made to sign documents and swear oaths - and I was quite concerned that that could be misconstrued and I had no help at all," she said.

Ms Smethurst was expecting to interview Newton-John about breast cancer on a visa she had used on eight other occasions.

But security staff withheld clearance leaving her in detention for almost 15 hours.

"Their justification for refusing me was that under American law ... [they] have the right to refuse a foreign journalist entry," she said

"They said to me you don't understand, you have no choice, no rights here under American law."

A frequent business traveller to the US, Ms Smethurst said she still did not know why she was detained although she asked repeatedly what the issue was.

"Their words to me were: we will tell you when we have a problem and your silence is appreciated."

During the ordeal, "innocuous items" like lipliners and make-up - deemed "a national security threat" - were taken from her, she said.

A cup of tea was also forbidden, she added.

Arriving home yesterday, Ms Smethurst said her greatest concern now was to have her record cleared.

"I have a file that's half a centimetre thick," she said.

She said she was unsure whether she would be able to re-enter the US ever again and would take up the case with the authorities.

"I know that immediately when I travel, and probably regardless of the fact that it's in the United States, I have an immigration record," she said.</font>

Well, all I can say is that I hope Bush's America continues to crash and burn.

In 2004 I'm going to vote NO to 4 more years of crashing and burning and YES to reconstruction. Mr. Bush, "read my lips" your days as President are numbered.

Same here. I'm sick and tired of being ashamed of my country's government. It's time for them to go away.

Bruce

What Bruce said. Not that I voted for Bush in the first place ... I will continue to vote Libertarian as always.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by BDLORD:
Not defending the actions of US Customs Agents. But I have been treated really bad by Canadian Agents especially Portal, Sask. I have heard this is some kind of training border. I can also tell you horror stories about Port Huron,Mi. (whatever the Canadian city was).</font>

Canadian city is Sarnia, Ontario.


My two yen - She is silly for not getting the proper Visa. US Immigration must have little lee-way in these matters. I have experienced these Jack-Boot officers before. Yes - they go over board. Nothing new here - all the more reason to get the correct Visa.

My son has lived in Israel his entire life, speaks English with a heavy Israeli accent, but is an American citizen by virtue of my being one.

Shortly after 9/11 he visited the States for the first time. His American passport got him through Immigration at JFK without any problem and then he headed to Ottawa via Niagra Falls. Canadian Immigration refused to let him into the country -- they said that they did not believe his story that he was a tourist.

He called me, I advised him to return at a different time of day, and this time say he wanted to visit Niagra Falls. This sounded reasonable to them, so he was let in without a problem.

Apparently, US Immigration is not the only one which is a bit power crazy.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Kremmen:

According to this evening's TV news, she was interviewed for hours, fingerprinted a number of times, groped all over, then held for 11 hours without food or water, in the company of a number of heavily-armed officers of the department of fatherland security before finally being frog-marched in handcuffs to a plane and deported.


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7887038%255E1702,00.html</font>

This is certainly a big story in Australia, and yet there is nary a mention in the Los Angeles media (and I don't mean local TV, they are hopeless!)

Anyone know the editor's desk number at the L.A. Times?

Here is U.S. Custom's side of the story (as interpreted by loyal U.S. citizen Rupert Murdoch!)

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7913020%255E1702,00.html




[This message has been edited by HeHateY (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kdbab64:

If they'd just said, "Sorry, ma'am, but you can't enter under this visa. We are enforcing things more strictly now. You'll need to wait here until the next flight out. Would you like some juice? A sandwich?" they might have come across looking petty, but not thuggish. It might never have made the news at all, instead of being covered on TV and newspapers across Australia.</font>

According to:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/18/1069027109455.html

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">"She was offered a meal, threw a sandwich against a wall and threw the juice in the trash can."</font>

BTW, Aussie FlyerTalkers: Who owns "The Age"?


[This message has been edited by HeHateY (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

Big friggin' deal...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/18/1069027109455.html

Smethurst said she would lodge a formal complaint with US authorities over her 15-hour ordeal, during which she said she was interrogated, fingerprinted, had mugshots taken, was refused access to a lawyer and was finally deported.

"I was marched through the airport with my hands handcuffed behind my back," she said. "I was body searched, I've had every part of me groped beyond belief.</font>

First of all, being handcuffed and marched through the airport isn't an 'ordeal' other than the humiliation aspect.

Secondly, a body cavity search is, by regulation, done by a female officer. For me, that hardly fits the mental image of "grope", which normally implies a male "groper". As with the previous multi-page discussion of a Belgian tourist trying to enter without a visa, customs will always do a body cavity search on everyone caught violating visa regulations.

Same applies to mugshot and fingerprints.

Third, access to a lawyer isn't part of her rights. At best, she'd have the right to speak with a consular official - but not a lawyer.

Finally, if Ms. Smethurst objects to being treated like a criminal, here's a news flash.

She was a criminal.

Plato,

Have you totally lost your judgment? OK, I know that you are male. So am I. How would you like it if I gave you a body-cavity search? What, no fun, you say? Well, now you have some tiny inkling of an idea how she must have felt.

Bruce

She had a cavity search?

Davistev,

She said she was groped, just like a lot people flying says security does to them. But within just about 10 or so posts, its turned into a cavity search.

hehe Fun

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Psychocadet:
Well, all I can say is that I hope Bush's America continues to crash and burn.
</font>

So you are hoping for the destruction of America?
Get the hell out of my country.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ap2110:
So you are hoping for the destruction of America?
Get the hell out of my country. </font>Funny -- that's just what I'm hoping for the Shrub who *is* destroying America. Unfortunately, it seems that the Brits are going to give him back in a few days.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
I'm sick and tired of being ashamed of my country's government. </font>

If you are so d**n ashamed, then move to a country where you don't hang your head.
The U.S. will press on regardless of the ashamed liberal irrelevants.

________________________________________

What is our aim? It is victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. - Winston Churchill (May 1940)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
Funny -- that's just what I'm hoping for the Shrub who *is* destroying America.

</font>

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Please desist in personal attacks. This thread is very interesting and a good debate until the last part which has degenerated.

I think we all know that criticizing the president's policy, or the president, or the government, doesn't mean the person levelling the criticism should just leave the country.

That's ridiculous and I expect people posting to be above that.

--richard, moderator

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
Please desist in personal attacks. This thread is very interesting and a good debate until the last part which has degenerated.

I think we all know that criticizing the president's policy, or the president, or the government, doesn't mean the person levelling the criticism should just leave the country.

That's ridiculous and I expect people posting to be above that.

--richard, moderator</font>

I certainly did not level any personal attacks against the posters. But I do find it highly offensive that the statement of "hope Bush's America continues to crash and burn" was thrown into this thread. Only when I called into question this poorly chosen phrase did you step in and say the debate has degenerated.

[This message has been edited by ap2110 (edited Nov 19, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ap2110:
I certainly did not level any personal attacks against the posters. But I do find it highly offensive that the statement of "hope Bush's America continues to crash and burn" was thrown into this thread.</font>

I'll tell you what I find offensive - your suggestion to another poster to "get the hell out of my country", apparently because they have a different political opinion than yours. I think most people here would consider that a personal attack since it was clearly directed expressly at another poster who did nothing but state an opinion that you happen to disagree with.

The other poster lives in the US, and based on his/her statement that they plan to vote in the upcoming presidential election, I have every reason to believe that they are a US citizen. In addition to the patently offensive notion that an American should leave the country if they don't agree with the current administration, how is it any more your country than their country?

Then, you go on to talk about "ashamed liberal irrelevants" as well as a thinly-veiled reference to President Clinton. I realize that you are new around here (by the way, welcome to FlyerTalk!), but this sort of rhetoric is best left to the OMNI forum of FlyerTalk, and personal attacks are best left unsaid altogether.

While Ms. Smethurst didn't have the correct visa, I don't see this is a criminal matter. She didn't try to sneak into the country, she came to the airport and was told she didn't have the correct paperwork. Now if Customs/INS had simply said sorry and sent her home, that would be reasonable. However, handcuffs a search, and isolation were not reasonable under the circumstances. I would be very upset if something like this happened to me. No one should be subject to this type of treament because they didn't file the correct papers.

Its when things like this incident (and other recent incidents) that increasingly give the US and its government a bad name around the world. Which is truly a shame because I don't think they really represent the people as a whole which generally are much nicer and saner than the officials described in this article.

I agree with you GWN although I think some sort of restraint is needed when escorting detainees through public places lest you get a repeat of our shenanigans at YVR last year when the deportee woman was liberated from the clutches of a happless Commissionaire.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Great White North:
While Ms. Smethurst didn't have the correct visa, I don't see this is a criminal matter. She didn't try to sneak into the country, she came to the airport and was told she didn't have the correct paperwork. Now if Customs/INS had simply said sorry and sent her home, that would be reasonable. However, handcuffs a search, and isolation were not reasonable under the circumstances. I would be very upset if something like this happened to me. No one should be subject to this type of treament because they didn't file the correct papers.

Its when things like this incident (and other recent incidents) that increasingly give the US and its government a bad name around the world. </font>

Why can't customs just give qualified folks a visa on the spot? Seeing see had a visa just the wrong type of visa. ... Many other countries do this. And...how is the airline suppose to know which type of visa she needed to travel with? She had a valid visa. Didn't she?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Same here. I'm sick and tired of being ashamed of my country's government. It's time for them to go away.

Bruce</font>

Well said. And I'm a long-time Republican.

Even if you believe in strict border controls, the shabby way our INS and Customs agents (whatever the hell they are called now) treat people who are not criminals or terrorists is frightening. A big potential problem? If it is ok to treat people this way when they are in violation, then expect this sort of BS treatment even when the authorities make a mistake. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

I only hope that Plato90s never finds himself the unfortunate victim of a paperwork snafu, leading to a mistaken belief that his status is unlawful. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

This case (and that of the Belgian woman visiting LA) smacks of men doing not what is right - but men behaving badly. And that is unacceptable.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Plato,

Have you totally lost your judgment? OK, I know that you are male. So am I. How would you like it if I gave you a body-cavity search? What, no fun, you say? Well, now you have some tiny inkling of an idea how she must have felt.

Bruce</font>

I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't call it groping.

I do understand that she felt humiliated, but you conveniently fail to address the central point.

She committed a crime and was treated like a criminal. If she thinks being handcuffed, searched, and deported is humiliating, she shouldn't commit visa fraud in the future.

Is there any question on whether she committed a crime?

If not, then we're back to the same idea you expressed when a Belgian tourist was expelled. Preferential treatment should be given to "harmless mothers" and "Australian journalists", in your opinion.

Just don't tell me it's justice when it's clearly favortism.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CarmelGreg:
Why can't customs just give qualified folks a visa on the spot? Seeing see had a visa just the wrong type of visa. ... Many other countries do this. And...how is the airline suppose to know which type of visa she needed to travel with? She had a valid visa. Didn't she?</font>

First of all, the law clearly defines situations in which such visas can be handed out. This isn't one of those case.

Secondly, the airline will not be fined because she had a valid tourist visa. Her violation is that she's here on business, and as a working foreign journalist, entering on a tourist visa amounts to fraud.

What do you expect INS to do when someone enters on a tourist visa and then expresses her intent to illegally work in America? Let them go?

Why not throw out the entire concept of a work visa then? We'll just let everyone in on tourist visas and let them work.

Or are you, like bdschobel, just looking for a way to bend/break the law to provide preferential treatment for the demographic you sympathize with.

[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited Nov 20, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
First of all, the law clearly defines situations in which such visas can be handed out. This isn't one of those case.

Secondly, the airline will not be fined because she had a valid tourist visa. Her violation is that she's here on business, and as a working foreign journalist, entering on a tourist visa amounts to fraud.

What do you expect INS to do when someone enters on a tourist visa and then expresses her intent to illegally work in America? Let them go?

Why not throw out the entire concept of a work visa then? We'll just let everyone in on tourist visas and let them work.

Or are you, like richard, just looking for a way to bend/break the law to provide preferential treatment for the demographic you sympathize with.</font>

Plato, I'm not for people working illegally.
While I suppose "criminal" might be technically correct (I don't know) so is speeding. I'm not looking to bend/break the law (just UAl's policies), I merely wondered (outloud) why? and what's wrong with having a lane in INS (or a room or whatever) to correct visa's or upgrade visa's or whatever with visa's for person whom qualify for entry. She could have just said she was a tourist and I doubt anyone would have been the wiser. She (apparently) didn't know what kind of visa she was traveling on or she was "playing" dumb. Either way "criminal" is a pretty harsh label to apply to her "crimes".
She probably exaggerated ( ie..I told you a "million times", and you "never" listen...)her groping ordeal but I also suppose that's to be expected, somewhat.
Correct her visa on the spot. Big deal. Make her pay a penalty.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CarmelGreg:
Plato, I'm not for people working illegally.
While I suppose "criminal" might be technically correct (I don't know) so is speeding. I'm not looking to bend/break the law (just UAl's policies), I merely wondered (outloud) why? and what's wrong with having a lane in INS (or a room or whatever) to correct visa's or upgrade visa's or whatever with visa's for person whom qualify for entry. She could have just said she was a tourist and I doubt anyone would have been the wiser. She (apparently) didn't know what kind of visa she was traveling on or she was "playing" dumb. Either way "criminal" is a pretty harsh label to apply to her "crimes".
She probably exaggerated ( ie..I told you a "million times", and you "never" listen...)her groping ordeal but I also suppose that's to be expected, somewhat.
Correct her visa on the spot. Big deal. Make her pay a penalty. </font>


I agree with Plato90s on this issue. I also think that the INS maybe acted a bit out of line, but let's always remember that we are hearing one side of the story. I have many cop friends, and do you folks know the main reason why they have to put handcuffs on people these days? lawsuits.....
We don't know if she was possibly aggresive or passive, but we all know that people take strange actions when they are held against their will. Handcuffs usually prevent any harm to the arresting officer as well as the perpetrator. I remember the good old days, when we were able to talk to the authority and when we were not guilty of anything, no harm done. Then some people freaked out when questioned, which in turn forced the authorities to subdue the offender, maybe even do some bodily harm, and next thing you know the city/state/or the feds are paying out millions to the innocent victim, and true enough s/he was innocent, but occasionaly the cop needed to figure that out only after talking to the person. Handcuffing a possible perpetrator is in the legal manual now for any law enforcement agency for the safety of both.

Now your suggestion that INS has a special line for any visa problems. Do you realize what a proverbial Pandora's box that would open? If you do it for one, by law you would have to do it for anybody that shows up without/fake/wrong visa. That means that every case would have to be treated exactly the same, means more beauracrcy, 1000's of new federal employees, etc...etc..
In some ways INS is doing that now, it just they don't call it special line. In her case, after they investigated and decided she had the wrong visa, send her home. It always was and is the responsibility of the traveler to insure s/he has the right document. This is not only true for the US but just about everywhere in the world that I've been to. If I showed up in a country without the required visa, I would be put on a plane just the same as she was to go back home. And if you are going to say that in the other countries I would not be treated like a criminal, you may be right, but then read my first paragraph again, and blame out lawsuit happy society. Also it has been documented where Americans were held for days, weeks and months showing up in some countries, just because the local authorities felt like it, so please spare me the sob stories. At least she was free few hours after she broke the laws of this country.

Many Australians come to the USA everyday. What are they doing correctly?

Evidently they are getting the proper visa, if required.

------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by andrzej:

I agree with Plato90s on this issue. I also think that the INS maybe acted a bit out of line, but let's always remember that we are hearing one side of the story.

Now your suggestion that INS has a special line for any visa problems. If you do it for one, by law you would have to do it for anybody that shows up without/fake/wrong visa.
In some ways INS is doing that now, it just they don't call it special line. In her case, after they investigated and decided she had the wrong visa, send her home. It always was and is the responsibility of the traveler to insure s/he has the right document. This is not only true for the US but just about everywhere in the world that I've been to. If I showed up in a country without the required visa, I would be put on a plane just the same as she was to go back home. And if you are going to say that in the other countries I would not be treated like a criminal, you may be right, but then read my first paragraph again, and blame out lawsuit happy society. At least she was free few hours after she broke the laws of this country.</font>

All right. I have no problems with handcuffs. I'm also not defending any positions or actions here.
I'm not suggesting the special line would be for people without/fake/ visa. o.k forget the special line. I really think that they should have fined her and processed her. It's not that difficult of a task. I also understand she probably made a big stink with the first agent and if so then understandably she was deported.

My reference to other countries, to clarify, was re: getting a visa "on the spot". I can walk from Brazil to Paraguay and be processed "on the spot". The same from Peru to Bolivia, Bolivia to Chile. Granted it wasn't a "business" visa or "work" visa, merely a 90 day tourist visa. Brazil, does require a visa be secured for US citizens prior to entry.
It took me two days waiting in Lima for a Brazilian tourist visa (good for 5 yrs).

Yes. It is the travelers responsibility to secure the correct documents.

With zero tolerance everything is either black or white and we all know gray exists. So this leads to children being suspended for bringing Tylenol to school, every flyer considered a terrorist by the TSA, reporters being deported for having the wrong type of visa, etc... "By the book" mentality is black and white.
I'm still feeling she should have been fined a few hundred and processed into USA.



[This message has been edited by CarmelGreg (edited Nov 20, 2003).]

Dupe

[This message has been edited by CarmelGreg (edited Nov 20, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CarmelGreg:
All right. I have no problems with handcuffs. I'm also not defending any positions or actions here.
I'm not suggesting the special line would be for people without/fake/ visa. o.k forget the special line. I really think that they should have fined her and processed her. It's not that difficult of a task. I also understand she probably made a big stink with the first agent and if so then understandably she was deported.

My reference to other countries, to clarify, was re: getting a visa "on the spot". I can walk from Brazil to Paraguay and be processed "on the spot". The same from Peru to Bolivia, Bolivia to Chile. Granted it wasn't a "business" visa or "work" visa, merely a 90 day tourist visa. Brazil, does require a visa be secured for US citizens prior to entry.
It took me two days waiting in Lima for a Brazilian tourist visa (good for 5 yrs).

Yes. It is the travelers responsibility to secure the correct documents.

With zero tolerance everything is either black or white and we all know gray exists. So this leads to children being suspended for bringing Tylenol to school, every flyer considered a terrorist by the TSA, reporters being deported for having the wrong type of visa, etc... "By the book" mentality is black and white.
I'm still feeling she should have been fined a few hundred and processed into USA.

[This message has been edited by CarmelGreg (edited Nov 20, 2003).]</font>


And in turn, I was talking about countries that DO require US passport holders to get a visa before arriving. If we showed up without one, we would be deported on the spot just the same.


[This message has been edited by andrzej (edited Nov 20, 2003).]

You people have no idea what goes on out there.

I can safely say I have witnessed at least one serious violation of a visitors AND CITIZENs rights every 10 days or so since 9/11.
The airports are a kinder-garden compared to what happens on cargo ships/ports
In the latest incident 11/16 the chief engineer of the vessel “Top Success” was thrown face down on the ground and hand-cuffed by an overzealous reserve Hillsborough county deputy sheriff just for walking on the dock to inspect some damage to the ships hull.
The sheriff who was posted at the gangway to inspect all documents was either sleeping or watching TV. The C/E came down, walked along the dock and was only observed after he was half-way along the ships side. The deputy shouted out to him and either he did no hear or did not understand. So deputy dawg gunned his pick-up ( which was unmarked ) toward him and the engineer and seeing the vehicle heading directly for him the tried to run out of the way ( as all of us would have seeing an strange unmarked vehicle heading directly toward you)
Upshot within minutes 2 border patrol cars and 4 other patrol cars were on the scene. The engineer spent 3 days in jail, under interrogation for attempting to jump and running away from a deputy, this despite him being allowed to inspect his ship dockside in the previous US ports of Philadelphia, Savannah and Wilmington.
The above is no second hand story, I witnessed the entire incident with my own eyes.
He was returned to his ship late night with a half-assed apology.


The excuse about handcuffing somebody for their protection or to avoid lawsuits is a pure BS argument. I suppose it O.K for us to treat other countries citizens the same way we might happened be treated in some. The apologists here appeared to be contented for the US authorities to behave just like the some other places, fine but it sure as hell is not OK for me.
I cant help it if I hope and believe we in the USA should aspire a higher standard.
(God knows we run around telling everybody that we do)
mike

I think it's good to treat people the way we want to be treated.

If I have violated a visa technicality, that doesn't make me a criminal, not in the same way that I am if I shoplift, for instance. There is no comparison.

This is not a civilized approach -- that would be to treat me kindly and send me back, but not to handcuff me, cavity search met, etc. That's insane.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MIKESILV:
You people have no idea what goes on out there.

I can safely say I have witnessed at least one serious violation of a visitors AND CITIZENs rights every 10 days or so since 9/11.
The airports are a kinder-garden compared to what happens on cargo ships/ports
In the latest incident 11/16 the chief engineer of the vessel “Top Success” was thrown face down on the ground and hand-cuffed by an overzealous reserve Hillsborough county deputy sheriff just for walking on the dock to inspect some damage to the ships hull.
The sheriff who was posted at the gangway to inspect all documents was either sleeping or watching TV. The C/E came down, walked along the dock and was only observed after he was half-way along the ships side. The deputy shouted out to him and either he did no hear or did not understand. So deputy dawg gunned his pick-up ( which was unmarked ) toward him and the engineer and seeing the vehicle heading directly for him the tried to run out of the way ( as all of us would have seeing an strange unmarked vehicle heading directly toward you)
Upshot within minutes 2 border patrol cars and 4 other patrol cars were on the scene. The engineer spent 3 days in jail, under interrogation for attempting to jump and running away from a deputy, this despite him being allowed to inspect his ship dockside in the previous US ports of Philadelphia, Savannah and Wilmington.
The above is no second hand story, I witnessed the entire incident with my own eyes.
He was returned to his ship late night with a half-assed apology.


The excuse about handcuffing somebody for their protection or to avoid lawsuits is a pure BS argument. I suppose it O.K for us to treat other countries citizens the same way we might happened be treated in some. The apologists here appeared to be contented for the US authorities to behave just like the some other places, fine but it sure as hell is not OK for me.
I cant help it if I hope and believe we in the USA should aspire a higher standard.
(God knows we run around telling everybody that we do)
mike </font>


Mike,

I was charged with and had to pay for things I never did and this was way, way before 9/11. Did I think the cop was an a**hole? Sure I did. Did I think that the whole Chicago PD were the same? No way. I had many friends on the same CPD. Please stop this about individual abuses of power attaching it to the official policy. I believe that everything you saw was as posted, that does not mean that everybody in that department would do the same thing. I also agree that some of the anti-terrorist laws are totally wrong, against our own American principles and thus breed some of these abuses by some individuals in power, but please, don't bring up one case here or there and try to tell me that's the way it is. I do prefer freedom over safety, and if you have a chance to ever meet me or my friends you would know better. I came from a country that had no individual rights, and I tought many of my friends the value of protecting individual rights. At the same time I'm also a reasonable, logical person. Our great economy is based on people feeling safe and protected, and so is most of the industrialized world. Another 9/11 happens and we're right back to people locking their doors and not moving. Personally I think that's STUPID, but that's the reality. For many people security is more important than freedom - STUPID - YES I AGREE - but true. So our government has to walk that fine line. ****ed if they do, ****ed if they don't.
Again, I don't agree with many of the propositions, and that includes war on drugs laws as well started back in the late 60's. We have not won that one just yet, and the terror war will be a long one, and by cutting the freedoms of regular Joe will not do it, but honestly, it is the regular Joe that wants and in many cases demands that the government does whatever it takes.

Still what does that have to do with the case above? A citizen of a foreign country breaking a law of this country. It's simple in my book.

Andrej: first off the above incident is just the lastest of many, many incidents I have witnessed in recent months.
I have numerous contacts with INS, Customs DEA and FDA field officers, sometimes up to six or more times a day.

I only brought it up as an example of the type of treatment being meted out to many visitors to out shores. All seamen and ALL VISTORS including US citizens for whatever reason going on board all vessels in the Tampa port must show a proper ID, everytime they up/or down the gangway and off and a written log kept by the security officer ( mostly Hillsborough county deputies) so technically the engineer was in violation of a rule supposedly instituted by the local Coast Guard commandant.
Note this is unique to this port only, another example of some local chieftain setting his own rules.

My point is that although both the Australian visitor and the chief engineer broke the law, the treatment meted out by the authorities was unnecessarily harsh. Just like the Australian visitor who had previously visited the country with the same visa, the engineer was able to go ashore in other US ports - no problem.

Its just that currently and since 9/11 the individuals performing any form of security have in many cases tended to lose all sense of proportion and the ability to see things in any other shade other than black and white.

Its really very ironic that the rules in place are almost a throw-back to the rules you might have experienced in your country of origin. Its not too long ago that Eastern bloc nation, vessels did not allow their crews to go ashore in US ports.

mike

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MIKESILV:
Andrej: first off the above incident is just the lastest of many, many incidents I have witnessed in recent months.
I have numerous contacts with INS, Customs DEA and FDA field officers, sometimes up to six or more times a day.

I only brought it up as an example of the type of treatment being meted out to many visitors to out shores. All seamen and ALL VISTORS including US citizens for whatever reason going on board all vessels in the Tampa port must show a proper ID, everytime they up/or down the gangway and off and a written log kept by the security officer ( mostly Hillsborough county deputies) so technically the engineer was in violation of a rule supposedly instituted by the local Coast Guard commandant.
Note this is unique to this port only, another example of some local chieftain setting his own rules.

My point is that although both the Australian visitor and the chief engineer broke the law, the treatment meted out by the authorities was unnecessarily harsh. Just like the Australian visitor who had previously visited the country with the same visa, the engineer was able to go ashore in other US ports - no problem.

Its just that currently and since 9/11 the individuals performing any form of security have in many cases tended to lose all sense of proportion and the ability to see things in any other shade other than black and white.

Its really very ironic that the rules in place are almost a throw-back to the rules you might have experienced in your country of origin. Its not too long ago that Eastern bloc nation, vessels did not allow their crews to go ashore in US ports.

mike</font>


Mike,

It's amazing how we agree, yet we have different points of view.

I always tell my friends down here in Sarasota county, how I can't believe that some people get poped for 5 grams of weed, smoking a joint, walking on the wrong side of the street, no lights on the bicycle, etc...etc...

I did get screwed in Chicago for things I've things I've not done, but I will admit that some of the things I got away with were nothing short of miracles and I was a teenager/young adult at that time. I do believe that the difference comes from the locality and departmental policies.

Personally I got screwed by individual cops in Chicago, down here people are getting screwed by departmental policy. I truly believe that here the counties/cities and maybe even state use any and all laws to collect additional "crime" tax. It's sad, but true. At the end some of our deputies think they are nothing short of gods. It's not right and it should not be that way. BUT I still blame my neighbors, even some of my friends, because we allow it and as I said before demand IT in the name of some security promise. That's all it is folks, a promise, because if somebody decides to strap a bomb to their body and walk into a club in Ybor, no border control agent is going to stop that, and for sure, strip searching me is not going to stop that.

At the same time, I still try to give benefit of the doubt to some of our politicians and if there are laws, I will say, hey, I'm not exempt, you shouldn't be either.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ap2110:
If you are so d**n ashamed, then move to a country where you don't hang your head.
The U.S. will press on regardless of the ashamed liberal irrelevants.

</font>

"My mother drunk or sober"

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cygnus X-1:
Many Australians come to the USA everyday. What are they doing correctly?</font>

Most are coming in under the visa-waiver program, staying for less than 90 days and not telling the BCIS agents that they hope to start looking for a job the next day!

The story doesn't say what kind of visa the woman had, perhaps she had entered previously under visa-waiver. Looks like she won't be eligible for that anymore, given she has now been deported/removed from the USA. Sounds like a spoiled brat that couldn't take being treated like an ordinary passenger. Throwing food around and having a tantrum is hardly going to get you sympathy with law enforcement. In any case when entering under visa-waiver you give up all rights to appeal the decision on whether you are allowed entry or not.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PW1P:
In any case when entering under visa-waiver you give up all rights to appeal the decision on whether you are allowed entry or not.</font>How unfair. I have friends who used to have visas to the US. On one entry the visas were summarily cancelled by the INS officer because they were "...No longer needed due to the VWP." Of course now when they fill out the VWP form they don't dare tick the box that indicates they've had a previous visa cancelled or revoked. Imagine how much trouble *that* would cause!

That is unfortunate, because anyone that wants to stay for more than 90 days does require a visa. Also if you wanted to work in the US.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CarmelGreg:
Why can't customs just give qualified folks a visa on the spot? Seeing see had a visa just the wrong type of visa. ... Many other countries do this. And...how is the airline suppose to know which type of visa she needed to travel with? She had a valid visa. Didn't she?</font>

She had no visa. She had planned to enter under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows nationals of certain countries to be admitted to the US without prior arrangements provided the purpose of their visit meets certain criteria. Apparently, people planning to worki as journalists are not eligible for the VWP.

As for other countries issuing visas on the spot, this is done only for certain reasons. For example, as a US Citizen, I can't just show up in Canada or the UK and tell them that I plan to stay there for 2 years and get a job and expect them to issue me a visa for that purpose on the spot. I would be admitted if I were going there as a tourist or for business meetings. Although the particulars are going to vary by country, the US is really no different than other countries in this respect: you need to meet the requirements of whatever program allows you to be admitted without a prior visa in order to take advantage of it.

As to "how is the airline supposed to know," the answer is that they aren't. The responsibility to have the proper travel documents always rests with the traveler and the traveler alone. The airline has a responsibility to not transport people that are obviously ineligible for entry, such as people from non-VWP countries that don't have a US visa in their passports, but the final decision is always going to be with the immigration inspector upon arrival in the US. A certain number of people will be found to be ineligible for entry regardless of any pre-checking that goes on prior to departure.

The only thing I see wrong with this story is the way the woman was treated. There definately seems to be a long-standing institutional problem with INS in this regard. I think it's the standard problem that will naturally creep into any law enforcement agency if it's not kept in check, and made worse by the fact that most US citizens will never deal directly with it, so there's little political pressure to fix it.

My fifth post on this... WHY IN THE HELL don't we have an ETA system for visitors LIKE Australia does??? These continuous misunderstanding are clearly not going to end.

What a waste of resources to hold, detain and question these people...

ALL visitors should need an ETA. End the Visa waiver program. Allow the ETA to be applied for online, etc... If it denies you the ETA (e.g. tell it you're on business, it asks you for more info)...then you must get a paper visa...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PW1P:
Most are coming in under the visa-waiver program, staying for less than 90 days and not telling the BCIS agents that they hope to start looking for a job the next day!

.</font>

huh! Not true.

[This message has been edited by davistev (edited Nov 24, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
I have friends who used to have visas to the US. On one entry the visas were summarily cancelled by the INS officer because they were "...No longer needed due to the VWP." Of course now when they fill out the VWP form they don't dare tick the box that indicates they've had a previous visa cancelled or revoked. Imagine how much trouble *that* would cause!
</font>

If their visas were cancelled with a notation "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" then they do not have to declare those as cancellations or revocations.

It's extremely common to have visas cancelled "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" for a variety of reasons. Some examples include a student who transfers schools, a worker who transfers jobs, an airline crewmember who leaves the airline, a lady who changes her name at marriage, etc... Those folks are still eligible for the VWP program.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by essxjay:
I will continue to vote Libertarian as always.</font>That was a big help in the last election. Dubya says "Thanks".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by davistev:
huh! Not true.

[This message has been edited by davistev (edited Nov 24, 2003).]</font>

So you are saying that the majority of Australians are coming into the US under B1/B2 visas? Seems hard to believe when they can enter without any visa shenanigans for less than 90 days.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PW1P:
So you are saying that the majority of Australians are coming into the US under B1/B2 visas? Seems hard to believe when they can enter without any visa shenanigans for less than 90 days.</font>


No the majority of Australians enter the US under the Visa Waiver Program and they leave within 90 days. The majority most certainly do not work in the US. The majority are in the US as tourists, visiting family, seeing Disneyland etc. It's a nice place to visit. I found it amazing that a blanket statement above would imply that most Australians enter the US for employment reasons.

This is not true.


There are enough jobs in Australia - no need to go to the USA.

regards
Dave

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by davistev:
No the majority of Australians enter the US under the Visa Waiver Program and they leave within 90 days. The majority most certainly do not work in the US. The majority are in the US as tourists, visiting family, seeing Disneyland etc. It's a nice place to visit. I found it amazing that a blanket statement above would imply that most Australians enter the US for employment reasons.</font>

Also, we must be careful to distinguish "business" and "employment" reasons. For example, any of the following would probably be fine under the business category of the VWP even though they involve "work":

- Attend a trade show, seminar, or conference
- Visit a branch office for meetings
- Visit customers for a sales presentation
- Visit perspective vendors

They key is that all of these activities are part of your regular employment back home, and the activity in the US is incidental and temporary to your job.

The types of "business" things that you can't do on the WVP would include:
- Get a job in the US, even at your branch office here
- Enroll in a community college class related to your job (requires a student visa).
- As we apparently found out in this thread, act in your capacity as a journalist to conduct an interview.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
My fifth post on this... WHY IN THE HELL don't we have an ETA system for visitors LIKE Australia does??? These continuous misunderstanding are clearly not going to end.</font>

I agree that we should have an ETA system similar to Australia. But I don't think it would have helped in this situation. If the traveler assumed that they were traveling to the US for incidental business purposes and therefore was eligible for an ETA, the fact that a journalist working in that capacity is not eligible may not be determined until they reach the port of entry. Unless, that is, there's a lot of additional disclosure and perhaps a written questionnaire to be filled out before the ETA is requested.

Separate from this case, I think one of the big things that an ETA system could help with is all of those people who are having trouble because they overstayed a previous VWP visit (perhaps only by a day or two, and perhaps only because the airline made a mistake when turning in the I-94). Also, it would be very easy for a traveler to make the mistake of thinking that 3 months = 90 days and do something like enter on June 1 and depart on Sept 1, thinking that this is 90 days when it's really 92 days.

Anyway, an ETA system would alert the traveler to this problem such that they could get it cleared up before departure, rather than be delayed and possibly deported on a minor issue. I know that in the case of a minor overstay, one way to regain the ability to travel to the US is to get an actual visa. I'm not sure if you can regain your eligibility for the VWP.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by HeHateY:
BTW, Aussie FlyerTalkers: Who owns "The Age"?
</font>

Since nobody else has said, it's owned by John Fairfax Publishing. Fairfax is the only major competitor to News Ltd (ie. Murdoch) we have.

You will learn your lesson pretty soon, as inbound tourism and business travel is on the decline. If INS doesn't stop with its nazi-like behaviour towards people coming to the US, tourists will go elsewhere and spent their money there.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by daysleeper:

You will learn your lesson pretty soon, as inbound tourism and business travel is on the decline. If INS doesn't stop with its nazi-like behaviour towards people coming to the US, tourists will go elsewhere and spent their money there.</font>

Happening already at least two businesses near port a Tampa closed in the last month, much less ship crew patronage.
mike

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by daysleeper:

You will learn your lesson pretty soon, as inbound tourism and business travel is on the decline. If INS doesn't stop with its nazi-like behaviour towards people coming to the US, tourists will go elsewhere and spent their money there.</font>

Good! Maybe the U.S. government will notice the decline and do something about it. Everybody is NOT a terrorist!!!

Bruce

I found this on the State Dept's web site at http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html:

NOTE: Representatives of the foreign press, radio, film or other information media require a nonimmigrant Media (I) visa and cannot travel to the U.S. using the visa waiver program.

This was in bold type on an otherwise non-bold page. It seems quite clear to me. I also would expect that a member of the press that goes to the US and/or their employer who sends reporters to the US would be at least vaguely aware of this. I repeat my assertion that an oz-like ETA program would not catch a situation like this. At some point and on some level, there has to be responsibility with the passenger to be sure that they are traveling with the proper documents.

Any responsible business person and their sponsoring organization, especially one dependent on travel, would be aware of this requirement.

The way she was handled seems excessive if it is true, and we don't know if that was or was not the case, though it may be. That deserves some inquiries.

The fact that she was summarily deported was appropriate.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Steve M:
I also would expect that a member of the press that goes to the US and/or their employer who sends reporters to the US would be at least vaguely aware of this. </font>

I know that every single freelance writing contract that I have signed with a US-based publication includes the clause that I am responsible for acquiring my own I-1 visa if I were to be assigned to cover a story in the United States. This is pretty common knowledge to most anyone who travels to the US as part of the media.

I think that perhaps the problem is that Bush and his Texan cronies have trouble with their English and confuse "tourist" with "terrorist."

"We will win the war on tourism" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by daysleeper:

You will learn your lesson pretty soon, as inbound tourism and business travel is on the decline. If INS doesn't stop with its nazi-like behaviour towards people coming to the US, tourists will go elsewhere and spent their money there.</font>

Actually it is NOT on the decline, we already know that this is not the case. In the first 9 months of this year we have already had more foreign tourists in my hometown than we did all of last year, so I think you might want to rethink this. Although you do seem to have a real problem with the US even though you deny it. People still come here and they are welcome, but as with ANY country you enter, you have to have the proper documentation beforehand.



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Actually it is NOT on the decline, we already know that this is not the case. In the first 9 months of this year we have already had more foreign tourists in my hometown than we did all of last year, so I think you might want to rethink this.</font>

Comparing with last year is rather unfair. You should be comparing such figures over a longer period. The immediate knee-jerk reaction to 11 Sep 2001 is over (for most tourists, if not the US government). As an additional factor, the US dollar is way, way lower than a few years ago, so holidays in the US are far more affordable than they have been for well over 5 years. This should be giving the US a gigantic tourism boom.

Were it not for the US discouraging tourism, we should expect figures to be significantly higher than the late 90's.
According to official US figures, 1998/1999/2000/2001/2002 international arrivals were 46,395,587/48,491,187/50,944,701/44,898,314/41,891,707
(see http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2002-04-001/index.html )

Had the 1998-2000 trend continued, we'd expect about 56M visitors to the US in 2003. I doubt it'll be remotely close to that.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Kremmen:
Comparing with last year is rather unfair. You should be comparing such figures over a longer period. The immediate knee-jerk reaction to 11 Sep 2001 is over (for most tourists, if not the US government). As an additional factor, the US dollar is way, way lower than a few years ago, so holidays in the US are far more affordable than they have been for well over 5 years. This should be giving the US a gigantic tourism boom.

Were it not for the US discouraging tourism, we should expect figures to be significantly higher than the late 90's.
According to official US figures, 1998/1999/2000/2001/2002 international arrivals were 46,395,587/48,491,187/50,944,701/44,898,314/41,891,707
(see http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2002-04-001/index.html )

Had the 1998-2000 trend continued, we'd expect about 56M visitors to the US in 2003. I doubt it'll be remotely close to that.</font>

Regardless, there are more tourists coming this year than last, if the US were anti-tourism as you claim, the numbers would be reversed. Personally I wish there were fewer tourists here due to their poor driving skills and the fact that they tend to walk out into traffic without looking first. We call it the "deer in the headlights syndrome" since they are usually fixated on something they do not see at home and just walk out into the street in front of traffic. Thankfully few of them are hit, but that is due to the drivers ability more than their own agility, diminshed by wonderment.



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Personally I wish there were fewer tourists here...</font>

Well, that's an opinion that will stand out on a forum devoted to travel... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Personally I wish there were fewer tourists here due to their poor driving skills ...</font>

You are not serious, are you?? Look at all the people that get a drivers license in this country!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by atlantic:
You are not serious, are you?? Look at all the people that get a drivers license in this country! </font>

No, I am not really serious, I am glad they come so I don't have to pay state income taxes, but have you ever driven down International Drive in Orlando? You either have to avoid those tourists wandering out in front of you on foot, or you have to avoid the ones trying to drive on the wrong side of the road. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif It is both exhilerating and frightening at the same time.



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

I think we have to think of the lives of American youth serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other threats around the world. Longterm American security is borne out of goodwill generated over years - a billion acts of understanding, sensitivity and global awareness.

Australia is an ally that worked with US in Iraq and has been a staunch supporter of the US internationally. We will be squandering any remaining goodwill by mistreating a journalist for a visa aberration. It is perfectly fine to say "please refrain from using a visitors visa in the future and use a journalist visa".

Iraq has proven to us how dependant we are on the rest of the world as the rest of the world is on American leadership. Flexibility and a human face are critical in the war against terrorism or we will be ceding little victories to the haters of US and democracy and liberty. Mistreating journalists and proudly talking about the number of journalists deported seems wierd.

Many of the journalists who inform the people of US and western democracies similarly violate some obscure laws in many dangerous fronts and lands of this world. If we expect reciprocal treatment for them all around the world, we would be in great trouble as a free nation - free flow of information is essential to our democracies to thrive.

I for one believe that humanitarian workers and journalists need to be given special privileges to travel, speak and report freely.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
It is both exhilerating and frightening at the same time.
</font>

Kind of like running the TSA gaunlet in the past month or two.

So now you have added economist to your list of expertise? Kinda like posing as a TSA expert. Good thing your making 20x more than you did with the TSA.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by enjoystravel:
Many of the journalists who inform the people of US and western democracies similarly violate some obscure laws in many dangerous fronts and lands of this world.</font>

Thankfully some tactical use of good'ol American greenbacks usually make these problems go away. Thankfully US law enforcement is of a higher calibre, even if they sometimes make mistakes.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I for one believe that humanitarian workers and journalists need to be given special privileges to travel, speak and report freely.</font>It appears that they are. Imagine what this woman's story is going to be like!? But remember, this is all for our "safety".

I feel like I'm living in a special version of Huxley's "Brave New Worlds" where the Soma has been replaced by "safety."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CarmelGreg:
Kind of like running the TSA gaunlet in the past month or two.

So now you have added economist to your list of expertise? Kinda like posing as a TSA expert. Good thing your making 20x more than you did with the TSA.</font>

Whose violin do you dance to? I play my own song.


------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.