Traveling on two passports
#91
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
#93
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
There is a great summer business class deal back again on the MR forum. I'd rather work on that.
#94
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Programs: UA 1K; Hilton: Diamond;Kimpton: ?? ; Omni: Black; Avis: First; Hertz: Five Star
Posts: 656
Right now, the USA is the number one country for credit card fraud. Why? Because as the only country not on chip and pin, it is the easiest country in which to commit credit card fraud. In order to combat that, asking for photo ID is the best the merchant can do.
So WHY is the USA so behind the times and who should the person who does not want to be hassled blame? You can blame the crooks who commit the credit card fraud. You can blame your banks for using outdated technology which has put the American comsumer in the position of being the easiest marks for the crooks. You can blame yourself for putting up with it. But can you really blame the merchant for trying to STOP the fraud?
.
So WHY is the USA so behind the times and who should the person who does not want to be hassled blame? You can blame the crooks who commit the credit card fraud. You can blame your banks for using outdated technology which has put the American comsumer in the position of being the easiest marks for the crooks. You can blame yourself for putting up with it. But can you really blame the merchant for trying to STOP the fraud?
.
Is the argument here that UK immigration officials ask annoying questions because lazy Americans have not insisted that credit card companies go to Chip and Pin cards which in turn creates more credit card fraud which in turn makes UK immigration more suspicious?
If so, then I do not see the link between UK immigration suspicion and credit card fraud.
#95
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
Separate topics are now getting combined here. The connection to credit card fraud JohnMacWW is to the original topic of being asked for photo ID.
The topic of UK immigration is a spin-off topic that has nothing to do with the original topic of photo ID.
Mandolino, every country refuses entry to people who have valid documents, proof of funds and return tickets. Why would you question that at all?
A common phrase used on various countries Immigration pages says, 'satisfy the Immigration Officer of your intentions.' That phrase is often used as the sole justification by airlines for insisting you buy a return ticket even when a country actually has no real rule that insists you have one. Canada is an example I am aware of.
But any Canadian Border Services agent can deny anyone entry if they are not 'satisfied' with your stated intentions. There is a TV reality series showing them doing exactly that, on the National Geographic Channel. http://www.natgeotv.com/ca/border-security
No one other than a citizen of a country has a RIGHT to enter the country. It is entirely up to Immigration to decide whether to let you enter or not regardless of your documentation, money or return tickets.
Basically it's simple. They only have to SUSPECT you of something to decide to deny you entry. So I see no point in asking GUWonder for specifics.
The topic of UK immigration is a spin-off topic that has nothing to do with the original topic of photo ID.
Mandolino, every country refuses entry to people who have valid documents, proof of funds and return tickets. Why would you question that at all?
A common phrase used on various countries Immigration pages says, 'satisfy the Immigration Officer of your intentions.' That phrase is often used as the sole justification by airlines for insisting you buy a return ticket even when a country actually has no real rule that insists you have one. Canada is an example I am aware of.
But any Canadian Border Services agent can deny anyone entry if they are not 'satisfied' with your stated intentions. There is a TV reality series showing them doing exactly that, on the National Geographic Channel. http://www.natgeotv.com/ca/border-security
No one other than a citizen of a country has a RIGHT to enter the country. It is entirely up to Immigration to decide whether to let you enter or not regardless of your documentation, money or return tickets.
Basically it's simple. They only have to SUSPECT you of something to decide to deny you entry. So I see no point in asking GUWonder for specifics.
#96
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
#98
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
#99
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
Exceptions exist, that's what makes a 'general rule' general.
The UK is a member of the EU which means any citizen of another EU country has the right not only to enter but to work in the UK. Other exceptions also exist, so what. I think the point is clear.
Even the 'exceptions' have exceptions. For example, a citizen of an EU country who would normally have the RIGHT to enter can be placed on an 'exclusion list'. Some UK football supporters are regularly banned from entry to some other EU member countries for example.
Don't nitpick what isn't important. The only people they CAN'T refuse entry are citizens of the country GUWonder.
The UK is a member of the EU which means any citizen of another EU country has the right not only to enter but to work in the UK. Other exceptions also exist, so what. I think the point is clear.
Even the 'exceptions' have exceptions. For example, a citizen of an EU country who would normally have the RIGHT to enter can be placed on an 'exclusion list'. Some UK football supporters are regularly banned from entry to some other EU member countries for example.
Don't nitpick what isn't important. The only people they CAN'T refuse entry are citizens of the country GUWonder.
#100
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Facts about the functioning of laws/regulations are always important even when some some aspects of the body law applicable result in benefits or disadvantages for a minority, for a majority or for both.
"Exceptions" aren't exceptions when the "exceptions" are part of the applicable body law. The "general rule" is only a general rule when "exceptions" aren't part of the law/regulations applicable.
The last sentence in the post above is also far from being generally true in the world. Some countries can exclude and even may exclude, from entry and/or travel, some citizens of their own country. Many countries have a legal obligation to grant admission to some kinds of foreign citizens. The US, Canada and Mexico also have legal obligations to provide entry to citizens of the country across the border who happen to be members of some Native American tribes with ties in the neighboring country. These people are not exceptions -- these are people who travel under the rule of law without legally requiring a waiver to enter the country despite not being a citizen of the other country. Most countries have a legal obligation to not make their own citizens stateless, which is why refusing entry to their own citizens is not usually lawfully permissible and people make general statements like in the above post that are not generally true. Most countries -- not all the same ones as those covered by the sentence before -- have a legal obligation to not deny admission to some foreign citizens too.
"Exceptions" aren't exceptions when the "exceptions" are part of the applicable body law. The "general rule" is only a general rule when "exceptions" aren't part of the law/regulations applicable.
The last sentence in the post above is also far from being generally true in the world. Some countries can exclude and even may exclude, from entry and/or travel, some citizens of their own country. Many countries have a legal obligation to grant admission to some kinds of foreign citizens. The US, Canada and Mexico also have legal obligations to provide entry to citizens of the country across the border who happen to be members of some Native American tribes with ties in the neighboring country. These people are not exceptions -- these are people who travel under the rule of law without legally requiring a waiver to enter the country despite not being a citizen of the other country. Most countries have a legal obligation to not make their own citizens stateless, which is why refusing entry to their own citizens is not usually lawfully permissible and people make general statements like in the above post that are not generally true. Most countries -- not all the same ones as those covered by the sentence before -- have a legal obligation to not deny admission to some foreign citizens too.
#101
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Programs: UA 1K; Hilton: Diamond;Kimpton: ?? ; Omni: Black; Avis: First; Hertz: Five Star
Posts: 656
Most laws contain exceptions when they are enacted. Others gain exceptions through court interpretations or in "rulemaking" to adopt regulations that enforce the law. If, however, the state (police, prosecutor, etc) choose not to enforce a law either on occasion or generally, then then the law is still there, but the state choosing not to enforce it does not make that an "exception." In fact you have to be careful treating the situation as an "exception" because the state could choose to applly the law to you.
So it is the case that there is almost always a "general rule" that is the usual legal requirement and then "exceptions" which are special situations that are legally recognized. Non-enforcement, however, falls into a different category.
So, e.g. as a general rule, intentionally killing someone is usually one of several crimes usually called "Murder", "Homicid" or Manslaughter". But, if you kill someone in "self defense" you are usually not considered to have committed murder. Self defense is an exception of the general rule of homicide. If the prosecutor chooses not to prosecute someone who killed someone under some odd circumstances, that does not create a new exception and there is no guarantee that another siutation, with the same facts might not result in prosecution.
#102
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
I do not entirely agree with this (and I am both a lawyer and part-time law professor ). If a law says that you can or cannot do something, it is almost always accompanied by situations where that law is not applicable. The result is that we use the term "general rule" as a casual reference to the black letter part of a law or the rule that applies in most situations. The term "general rule" is not an exact defined term.
Most laws contain exceptions when they are enacted. Others gain exceptions through court interpretations or in "rulemaking" to adopt regulations that enforce the law. If, however, the state (police, prosecutor, etc) choose not to enforce a law either on occasion or generally, then then the law is still there, but the state choosing not to enforce it does not make that an "exception." In fact you have to be careful treating the situation as an "exception" because the state could choose to applly the law to you.
So it is the case that there is almost always a "general rule" that is the usual legal requirement and then "exceptions" which are special situations that are legally recognized. Non-enforcement, however, falls into a different category.
So, e.g. as a general rule, intentionally killing someone is usually one of several crimes usually called "Murder", "Homicid" or Manslaughter". But, if you kill someone in "self defense" you are usually not considered to have committed murder. Self defense is an exception of the general rule of homicide. If the prosecutor chooses not to prosecute someone who killed someone under some odd circumstances, that does not create a new exception and there is no guarantee that another siutation, with the same facts might not result in prosecution.
Most laws contain exceptions when they are enacted. Others gain exceptions through court interpretations or in "rulemaking" to adopt regulations that enforce the law. If, however, the state (police, prosecutor, etc) choose not to enforce a law either on occasion or generally, then then the law is still there, but the state choosing not to enforce it does not make that an "exception." In fact you have to be careful treating the situation as an "exception" because the state could choose to applly the law to you.
So it is the case that there is almost always a "general rule" that is the usual legal requirement and then "exceptions" which are special situations that are legally recognized. Non-enforcement, however, falls into a different category.
So, e.g. as a general rule, intentionally killing someone is usually one of several crimes usually called "Murder", "Homicid" or Manslaughter". But, if you kill someone in "self defense" you are usually not considered to have committed murder. Self defense is an exception of the general rule of homicide. If the prosecutor chooses not to prosecute someone who killed someone under some odd circumstances, that does not create a new exception and there is no guarantee that another siutation, with the same facts might not result in prosecution.
Getting back to the matter of the rights of some kind/group of foreign citizens to enter a country that is not their country of citizenship, plenty of the "exceptions" are not "exceptions". Some of the rights for some kind/group of foreign citizens to be admitted to a country other than the country of their own citizenship are exercisable because they are part of "the usual legal requirement" for the state -- and many states are in some such kind of situation.
Non-enforcement of a written element of law, where such element's enforcement isn't constrained by another preexisting or superseding lawful authority, would not be considered a exception to the general rule IMO too.