sibsie

I think they'll have problems with DVT lawsuits if they start confining people to seats on long haul flights.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

What makes you think that journalist's don't have "nomral" entry? The VWB and VWT program is the exception to the normal visa rules. And the "I" classification was created a long time ago to facilitate entry of journalists. In fact, along with clergy & religous workers, & fashion models, they are one of the few occupations named in the organic statute to get specific dispensation to come to the US to pursue their occupation.

An argument could be made that a brief visit by a journalist for the purpose of one story might be a legitimate "business" visit under the "B" -- but there is no specific authority that I was able to find easily.

However, the "I" visa does cover the area -- also, it allows for long term stays as a journalist, say as a foreign correspondent, and it has employment authorized incident to status.

Roland Perry

In message <[email protected]>, Folinskyinla
<member4043@british_expats.com> writes
    >What makes you think that journalist's don't have "nomral" entry?

Normal entry for a Brit is on the VWP.

    >An argument could be made that a brief visit by a journalist for the
    >purpose of one story might be a legitimate "business" visit under
    >the "B" -- but there is no specific authority that I was able to
    >find easily.

This is in fact what the journalists claim. But I also can't see any
relevant exemption that would permit this.

    >However, the "I" visa does cover the area -- also, it allows for long
    >term stays as a journalist, say as a foreign correspondent, and it has
    >employment authorized incident to status.

That's fine; but it's more paperwork to get an "I" than a VW. There's
also the impression that those required to get a Visa are *less* welcome
than those who don't. Fiancees and those with a criminal record, for
example. It's not surprising that Journalists are wary of getting sucked
into the Visa-getting system (even if it's actually supposed to be
assisting them).
--
Roland Perry

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The VW is for "visitors" -- period. It is normal for "visitors" only. A British Engineer will come on an H-1. An executive for a British company having operations in the US will come in on a L-1. British students come in an F-1. The ALL get VISAS. That is NORMAL. If they use the VW for purpose of study, work, etc, that is illegal.

There is NO discrimination against journalists -- in fact they get their own special visa category which is pretty easy to qualify for.

Marjeta

OK. Question: What about green card holders. Will they still be able to travel with their old passports (without biometrics)?

sibsie

Yes. It only applies to people entering under the VWP without a visa.

curlylocks

For anyone who has lots of family who visit regularly (like I do)... here is all thie info from the home office on the new biometrics & passports info...


http://www.passport.gov.uk/news/news.asp?intElement=695

Andy Platt

Thanks for posting that. My parents were all in a tizzy about this when I
phoned them today but I straightened them out. In particular I told my Mum
that, under no circumstances, was she to apply for a visa without consulting
with me first.

As an aside I think that the US needs to step up quickly and try to calm
things down before their tourist industry gets damaged. If the UK got a
waiver for the machine readable passports issue for a year you can bet your
bottom Joachimstaler that one will be available for the biometric
information issue should it be necessary.

Andy

--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
"curlylocks" <member12936@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > For anyone who has lots of family who visit regularly (like I do)...
    > here is all thie info from the home office on the new biometrics &
    > passports info...
    > http://www.passport.gov.uk/news/news.asp?intElement=695
    > Originally posted by sibsie
    > Yes. It only applies to people entering under the VWP without a
    > visa.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Roland Perry

In message <[email protected]>, Folinskyinla
<member4043@british_expats.com> writes
    >The VW is for "visitors" -- period. It is normal for "visitors" only.
    >A British Engineer will come on an H-1. An executive for a British
    >company having operations in the US will come in on a L-1. British
    >students come in an F-1. The ALL get VISAS. That is NORMAL. If they
    >use the VW for purpose of study, work, etc, that is illegal.

I think we may be at cross-purposes. There is a category under VWP for
"business". [In fact, if as a Brit you qualify for the VWP and try to
get a business Visa for a visit "just in case" the Embassy won't let
you.]

The "business" of a journalist is writing. Plenty of them *visit* the
USA to cover a story, file it with their publication in Europe, and then
go straight back home again. They don't have an employer in the USA, but
in a sense they are "working from home", where "home" is their hotel
room!
--
Roland Perry

Andy Platt

"Roland Perry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In message <[email protected]>, Folinskyinla
    > <member4043@british_expats.com> writes
    > >The VW is for "visitors" -- period. It is normal for "visitors" only.
    > >A British Engineer will come on an H-1. An executive for a British
    > >company having operations in the US will come in on a L-1. British
    > >students come in an F-1. The ALL get VISAS. That is NORMAL. If they
    > >use the VW for purpose of study, work, etc, that is illegal.
    > I think we may be at cross-purposes. There is a category under VWP for
    > "business". [In fact, if as a Brit you qualify for the VWP and try to
    > get a business Visa for a visit "just in case" the Embassy won't let
    > you.]
    > The "business" of a journalist is writing. Plenty of them *visit* the
    > USA to cover a story, file it with their publication in Europe, and then
    > go straight back home again. They don't have an employer in the USA, but
    > in a sense they are "working from home", where "home" is their hotel
    > room!

I was going to write something similar but never got round to it. The use of
the VWP for business is a very grey area. There are some black and white
issues that we can all agree on but I would totally agree that a quick hop
across the Atlantic to get and file a story would *seem* to be well in scope
of the VWP.

If the US didn't intend this to be the mechanism that people from the visa
waiver countries used, there would be another mechanism. It's obviously a
bit much to suggest that any engineer visiting the US for a business related
activity should have an H-1B or L-1 which would seem to be the
interpretation that you could give to Folinskyinla's statement. It would
effectively prohibit all business travel!

Andy.

--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
    > --
    > Roland Perry

Roland Perry

In message <[email protected]>, Andy Platt <[email protected]>
writes
    >If the US didn't intend this to be the mechanism that people from the visa
    >waiver countries used, there would be another mechanism. It's obviously a
    >bit much to suggest that any engineer visiting the US for a business related
    >activity should have an H-1B or L-1 which would seem to be the
    >interpretation that you could give to Folinskyinla's statement. It would
    >effectively prohibit all business travel!

I used to have a "proper" business visa, but soon after the VWP came in,
this was cancelled "without prejudice" one time I arrived in the USA. On
enquiring, I was told that I could not have it re-instated, as the VWP
was intended to cover non-immigrant business trips.
--
Roland Perry

Squire

In article <[email protected]>, jcapulet <member3678@
british_expats.com> writes
    >I don't know the specifics about that but I can relate my own
    >experience. When I was flying from Canada back to DC, they told us that
    >(for security reasons), no one is allowed to stand up within 30 minutes
    >before landing at Reagan National Airport. Did they say if it was a
    >certain timespan prior to landing, or just over US airspace in general?

Flights to and from Reagan National airport at Washington D.C. is a
special case. The airport was closed for some time after 9/11 and after
its re-opening the FAA mandated that all passengers on flights within 30
mins of the airport remain seated.

Incidents have occurred subsequent to this ruling which have lead to Air
Marshals intervention and/or diversion of the aircraft.

-----------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Washington Post Nov 13, 2001

U.S. sky marshals on a flight from Pittsburgh to Reagan National
Airport suddenly ordered a plane to land at Dulles International
Airport yesterday, after a passenger got up and started walking toward
the cockpit, authorities said.

The passenger, Raho N. Ortiz, 33, refused to follow a new federal rule
requiring passengers to remain seated in the last half-hour of an
approach to National, said Chris Murray, an FBI spokesman.

About 15 minutes before the plane was to land at National, Ortiz got
out of his seat and started walking briskly toward the front of the
plane, where a restroom and cockpit are, said David Castelveter, a
spokesman for Arlington-based US Airways.

As Ortiz neared the cockpit, a sky marshal in plainclothes seated near
the front yelled, 'Stop!' said passenger Mike Cannon, of Arlington.

Two sky marshals -- one with a gun drawn -- and a third man ordered
Ortiz to get on the ground. He complied without a struggle, Cannon
said. He "kept saying: 'I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just wanted to go to
the bathroom.' "

Flight attendants had announced the ban on getting up during the last
half-hour of the flight, passengers said.

After the sky marshals had Ortiz handcuffed on the ground, the
marshals ordered the other 106 passengers to put their hands behind
their heads and later on the seats in front of them for the rest of
the trip, several passengers said. Some said they briefly thought that
the plane was being hijacked and panicked.

The plane, a nearly full Airbus A319, remained at Dulles rather than
following the usual pattern of being allowed to continue on to
National after a diversion, said Tom Sullivan, a spokesman for the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs both airports.

Ortiz, a lawyer, works for the Environmental Protection Agency, his
mother said last night. When the plane landed at Dulles shortly after
5 p.m., the FBI arrested him on a charge of interfering with a flight
crew. By 8:30 p.m., the FBI had dropped the federal charge and
released Ortiz, Murray said.

However, the Airports Authority police issued a summons ordering Ortiz
to appear in court in Loudoun County to answer a charge of misdemeanor
drug possession in connection with the alleged possession of
marijuana, according to an Airports Authority spokesman.

It was the first time that U.S. sky marshals diverted a US Airways
flight, Castelveter said.

Federal Aviation Administration officials refuse to discuss the sky
marshal program in detail, but sources say marshals are aboard all
flights into and out of National.

Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, could not confirm whether yesterday's
was the first flight diverted by sky marshals. Since flights resumed
service to National after Sept. 11, some flights bound for that
airport have been rerouted to Dulles. But in most cases, the cause was
improper procedures by the pilot, Brown said.

Flight 969 took off from Pittsburgh International Airport at 4:19 p.m.
and was due at National at 5:20 p.m. Ortiz left his seat shortly after
5 p.m.
-----------------------------------------------------

June 14, 2002
Congressman Questioned After Flight
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- New regulations requiring that airline passengers
remain seated until 30 minutes after takeoff from Reagan National
Airport led to an embarrassing incident for a Georgia congressman.

Unable to wait in a long bathroom line when passengers were finally
allowed to move freely, Rep. Sanford Bishop contends he had no choice
but to ask a flight attendant for a plastic cup and some privacy.

``The bottom line is he desperately needed to go to the bathroom,''
Bishop's spokesman, Selby McCash, explained Friday. ``There was
someone in there taking a very extended time. He was beyond physically
being able to wait and was in considerable discomfort.''

Bishop, a Democrat, wasn't charged or detained after the Thursday
night flight, but he agreed to explain the situation to security
officials when the flight touched down at Hartsfield Atlanta
International Airport, McCash said.

At the flight attendant's direction, Bishop, who was seated in coach,
relieved himself in a closed area between the cockpit and first class.
When the bathroom door finally opened, he disposed of the cup and
washed his hands, McCash said.
-----------------------------------------------------


--
squire
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. (Groucho)