889

He wasn't necessarily on a non-stop flight. If he'd been connecting through Seoul or Taipei or Tokyo, there still would have been verification of his US visa and entry eligibility at check-in.

helvetic

I wouldn't call it "employing pro-protesters" as "employing a statistically significant sample size of Honkies, 90% of which support the protests"

But regardless I wouldn't expect HKers to act so unprofessionally at work and show their political beliefs in this context.

889

Where's this "power trip" business come from?

On its website, SAS for example makes clear there's a US directive that airlines are responsible for determining whether there's been presence in Mainland China within the past 14 days:

"Effective 02FEB20 from 23:00 CET, the US authorities (TSA) has issued new requirements for passengers traveling to the US. The new requirements are valid for passengers who has been present in mainland China within the preceding 14-days of the date of the individual’s entry or attempted entry into the United States.

"All airlines must question each passenger to determine whether the individual has been present in Mainland China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau), within the preceding 14-days of the date of the individual’s entry or attempted entry into the United States. If presence cannot be determined, the foreign air carrier must: Examine the passport for entry and/ or exit stamps and also examine the passenger PNR. If determined that passenger has been present in Mainland China the preceding 14 days, SAS must not allow alien persons to board a flight to the USA."

https://www.flysas.com/gb-en/traffic...ation/message/

helvetic

Yes, but airlines are absolutely not required to ask for impossible-to-provide proof thereof. Doing so is ridiculous and absolutely uncalled for.

I've flown around Asia a bunch this week and each time I'm asked if I've been to China in the last 14 days. Never have I been asked for proof.

percysmith

Literally read:
- ask the passenger
- if passenger doesn't answer positively (yes or no), then:
--- flip thru his passport; and
--- examine his PNR
Deny boarding if yes.

I doubt Song has been in China in last 14 days, with his offering of producing a company letter evidencing his whereabouts.

I appreciate there's no PRC stamps in HKSAR passports, born in HK or otherwise.
But to demand the entry-exit travel record of a stamp-less document?
Seems excessive - what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Song asserts he's not been in Mainland China in last 14 days, and there's nothing in front of the check-in agent suggesting he's lying.

Would that airline then extend to demanding HKID entry-exit of everyone they suspect of having a HRP? I mean, everyone born in HK or Mainland China with a Chinese surname can potentially be a lying HRP holder, be they holding Australian/Canadian/Chadian passports or HKSAR.

helvetic

FWIW — impressions on the street on day 1 of being back home:

- Everyone on public transit is wearing a mask. I was pretty much the only person without one. Nobody gave me any funny looks that I could see.

- 99% on the streets with masks, though you'll see the occasional gweilos without it. There's also a few locals without masks, but that's a much rarer sight.

- Hotels all doing temperature scans to get into the lobbies.

- Hand sanitizer provided absolutely everywhere. Elevator buttons covered in plastic sheets and washed hourly in most places.

Streets seem quieter for sure, but it's still HK, therefore still busy.

--

As for why I'm not wearing a mask: 1/ I'm not sick and scientifically it doesn't do anything to make anyone else safer, nor make me safer if I make sure to not touch my face. 2/ I have 2 surgical masks left and I'm saving them for if and when I really need them. 3/ If I found regular priced masks somewhere, I'd buy some, but I'm not going to buy into the price gouger's ........ $100 for 4 flimsy Korean masks

889

The US is free to require airlines to meet whatever requirements it sets.

The critical point here is that aliens seeking entry to the US bear the burden of showing they're qualified for entry. It is indeed exactly the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty."

So if a rule forbids entry to aliens who have been in Mainland China within 14 days, the aliens have the burden of demonstrating they haven't run afoul of that rule. It's a basic principle of U.S. immigration law.

Just be grateful that at the moment at least there's a distinction between Hong Kong and the Mainland for this purpose.

helvetic

You're entirely missing the point. Neither the USA nor airlines require passengers to show the proof requested by the agent. Countless people have been flying without being asked to produce such proof. The situation that happened was an example of an agent going beyond the required directive, perhaps due to discrimination.

889

I'm not missing the point. Did you see the SAS post? Did you read it?

Folks are drawing an awful lot of assumptions here from one single tweet.

The real point is, if you're heading to America and your passport doesn't show with stamps where you've been for the past two weeks don't be surprised if you have problems at check-in. Especially if you're boarding at Hong Kong and especially if your passport shows ties to Mainland China.

A mystery to me why any of this should upset anyone.

percysmith

My mother's Australian passport says she's born in Canton.
Which is true. Cos my grandparents fled the Communist "liberation". My great-grandfather was a KMT mayor or leader of some sort, if I believe the family folklore.
Not likely she has ties to Mainland China on account of her birthplace.

You and I can say we can ignore the pre-Cultural Revolution generation.
And she has a Cantonese rather than a Pinyinised surname (both maiden and married).

This is starting to sound like the Pencil Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil...(South_Africa) or the Dictation Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...Dictation_test

helvetic

First of all, I'm pretty sure he wasn't flying SAS, so not sure why that's relevant.

Secondly, nothing in SAS' policy requires agents to examine and deny boarding when they don't find conclusive affirmative proof that the pax hasn't been to CN. In fact, quite the opposite: it requires asking pax, and if that's not enough to make a determination (e.g. if the answer wasn't NO), then check the passport and/or PNR to see if there are any indications of visiting China.

889

SAS is relevant because they purport to set out at least part of the current USG rules, applicable we can fairly assume to all airlines boarding passengers bound for the U.S. Don't think the Feds have special rules for the Scandinavians.

Further, my understanding has always been that the detailed rules for screening passengers are not public. So the information provided by SAS may be the best we'll get.

Whether you like it or not, whether or not it's reasonable or comports with natural justice, you should not be surprised if there are now issues at check-in if your passport does not show where you have been for the past 14 days.

The message is: Be prepared! Don't assume that tweet is a one-off.

helvetic

Except for the fact that most people (including myself and everyone I know) are flying to the US from HKG and all around Asia by just answering no when the airlines ask if we've been to the mainland in 14 days.

What you're suggesting is absolutely not standard, and is frankly ridiculous. And the fact that the vast majority of people do not experience it is proof.

percysmith

Well in that case fortunately my next two trips are to Australia, where they have to admit me even if I've been to Mainland China in last 14 days.

The trip after that is Japan - how do I prove I've not been to Hebei or Zhejiang? My HKID entry-exit record doesn't say where I'm going.

MSPeconomist

Hotel and restaurant receipts showing locations and dates?