Noorah101

No, that's why I said "to my knowledge".

I didn't say "solely".

Who says the crimes had to be committed in the USA?

Rene

maore

Thanks, I have to use you as a translator/interpreter you have exactly pinpointed the questions I tried to mumble around

maore

"I didn't say "solely"" Ok sorry for the misunderstanding

"Who says the crimes had to be committed in the USA?" let us assume something, their databases is filled with peeps with a US passport holders,aliens who applied for a visa, aliens who committed terrorism|crime while in the US|people who are pursued by international law enforcement agencies.

What would be the probability of getting adverse name hits with a paul jones than a Lu Chuan who for the sake of the argument was born in Syria, there is a rumour going around (yeah let us gossip) that there is a list of country 13-14 which would get a high rate of extra processing not because your name is Osama bin Laden but solely because you were born there, one of the example mentioned quiet a lot is Cuba.

Basically what I am saying is :there are more factors than just adverse name hits to trigger the extra processing ,the consular officer has a great "unchecked" discretionary power. scary isnt it ?

lansbury

You misunderstand. These things are subjective because that is the way human beings operate. Intelligence gathered suggests certain probabilities and a visa gets issued or not on how the human being reviewing it decides. Only a citizen of a country has a right of entry, all other people can ask for permission to enter they have no right of entry and are subject to whatever review of their application the intended host country chooses to make.

As to your gut feeling most of the people I knew doing the job used their brains and could articulate why they refused someone, and in all cases the duty Chief Immigration officer had to concur. But it was still subjective as it was peoples opinions, that is the way the system is set up and that is the way it works. It is designed to keep people out, not let them in. It isn't a justice type system where you get the benefit of the doubt and long may it remain so.

lansbury

Be careful what you wish for. The US has already hinted at removing the VWP for Brits due to the large number of Brits with connections to terrorist countries.

ian-mstm

Realistically? Nothing.


Is it an approach? Yes. Will it yield results? Probably. Will it yield useful results? Perhaps... perhaps not.


Probably, yes... but it's the US government's sandbox, so they get to make the rules. You're a non-USC living outside the US... the US isn't obligated to extend protected status to you.

Ian

materialcontroller

I've never encountered AP. But I have had to apply for a waiver of ineligibility due to having a criminal background. And that is also a long drawn out process where the applicant is largely kept in the dark for months. Now I can imagine AP is even more difficult because, unlike a waiver of ineligibility applicant, you have no idea why you're being made to wait. But I've found the best way to deal with these trials and tribulations is:

• Remember that visiting the USA is a privilege and not a right
• The USA make the rules
• As an outsider you should be respectful of those rules
• The time passes much quicker if you concentrate on the other things in life and don't become resentful or allow this to dominate your thinking

md95065

Perhaps we need a new forum for people who just want to vent about the way that the system works ...

Squirrel

I never wished for anything but I could care less if the US withdraws the VWP. Most countries care not only for protecting their country but also for giving a good impression of their country and attracting tourism. For example I know recently there has been talk in the news about the UK being worried about unnecessarily long queues at the UK Border and the inconvenience to visitors.

Most posters on here spout the mantra 'The US can do what it likes' but they don't seem to see both sides of the arguement like I do. It's a case of getting the balance right between protecting your borders and encouraging visitors who contribute to the economy. Like many countries the US does rely on tourism, especially certain areas like NYC, Vegas, Orlando etc. I'm not saying these places would become ghost towns if the only visitors allowed were Americans, but they would certainly do a lot less business. It may be a privilege to be allowed into America, but an honest visitor who just wants to spend money in the US doesn't deserve to be penalised just because he has the same name as a terrorist. That's what fingerprints are for.

And anyone who thinks tough entry requirements have no effect whatsoever on tourism is burying their head in the sand. We considered a holiday in Goa, India, but decided against it because we'd need pre-obtained visas. We also considered Gambia, but although Brits don't need a visa, Americans do, again expensive and need to be pre-obtained. In the end we booked our holiday in Tunisia because neither of us needed a visa and it's more convenient.

Am I really making no sense at all?

ljaw2002uk

The irony of all this is that it is a complete waste of time.

If someone who intends harm to the US really wanted to gain access to the country they could without too much trouble.

S Folinsky

OP is a wonderful person -- just ask him.

That said, his situation is unusual and there are objective facts which are cause of inquiry. With justification, OP does not like the situation -- I do not blame him.

BTW, it pays to remember that OP lost his British passport with a visa therein. Nobody knows where it is. If nothing else, that is cause for concern. I know that US passports issued to Asian-Americans have a fairly high value on the black market and are subject to theft. See INS v Yang. From what I understand, Mary Wong had her own problems in traveling -- and she did nothing wrong.

MsElui

so are you saying that letting someone in whom they have not adequately checked out is safer?

scrubbedexpat099

The UK is hardly a good example being at the other end of the extreme. There was a big fuss recently about their lack of control.

The US has fingerprints of all terrorists? I did not know that.

Valid choice, personally not an issue that has put me off visiting places. There are an awful lot of people who can use the VWP to visit the Mouse. My family have visited, friends have visited, they would be wondering what the fuss is. Slight hassle with having to get authorised through ESTA but that is it.

maore

Fair points ! Overall I think/believe they are doing a challenging job that I would certainly not be able to do (stick to procedures and trying to be impartial) .Are CO given the way and means to do their job safely and properly ? No way, as stated by previous posters a CO will ask for futher examinations from Washington it will take 4 weeks up to years whereas at the border control an immigration officer is given ways and means to take a decision within a few hours.

Can we criticise a particular system that we can not change ? Yes, it is part of the freedom of expression:I do not need to be Israeli to be disturbed by PM Netanayou home/foreign policies ? I do not need to be Iranian to think President Ahmadinejad is putting Iran in a dangerous path ? I do not need to be British to have strong views about PM Cameron economical policy ? I do not need to be French to feel ashamed by the treatment of Gipsy by the Governement of President Sarkozy? Should I be a Liverpool FC supporter to states that s they are currently playing poorly ?

Do these people care or take into account my point of views ? Nope and that should not stop me from voicing my opinions the same apply to the US immigration system

Allow me to expand on this questions of determination and decision making in terms of security clearances

If we accept the following Assumptions : The current system discriminates based on sexual orientations,religion,race,gender and age in terms of administrative processing (I can only talk about my experience, previous posters mention about others cases where this discimination is also in place in cases of visa decision itself)

Would immigrant/non immigrant accept to pay more in their visa fees to be treated in a fairer way ? i.e. everyone would go through the AP,AO,SAO in a timely fashion (the introduction of ESTA fees concur in a support of a positive answer)

Would that results in a fairer system/perceptions ? yes because everyone getting in the USA for allvisa category would jump through the same loop regardless of their background,sexual orientations,religion,race,gender and age.How does it sound ?

My unimportant view can be considered as extremist but I think there is two ways of going about everything in life:you apply the same rule to everyone or you apply it to no one and money/time should not be a justification for treating people unfairly/differently. - Simplistic view ?

maore

Let me bet on this one ,I think removing VWP could have quiet a few negative effects because:
1. EU countries work on having a common policy in terms of visa (i.e. if a country does not require a visa from country B , they will all apply the same policy towards country B) then you add this up with the DOS reciprocity principles, this would result in millions of irish-americans having to go through a visa application to visit the "old country" - you do not want to mess with that !!!
2. Based on the current queues at European embassies of Paris and London we can say US Embassies currently have no means to deal with a large increase in visa applications that would result from this decision.