Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA > US Immigration, Citizenship and Visas
Reload this Page >

Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Old Feb 6th 2015, 1:53 am
  #16  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 11
Barnes2015 is a jewel in the roughBarnes2015 is a jewel in the roughBarnes2015 is a jewel in the roughBarnes2015 is a jewel in the roughBarnes2015 is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Everything I have read has said cautions are the same as convictions (as they count as an admission/arrest) as far as the U.S. is concerned so will be pursuing the visa route to avoid any future trouble.
I'll let you know know how I get on... I know this is a subject of considerable interest to many posters so would not want to deprive you..
Barnes2015 is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 2:41 am
  #17  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Dec 2013
Location: Consolacion,Cebu
Posts: 1,902
quiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond reputequiltman has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

I may be wrong, but the OP said he had a caution from the campus police. as i understand it in the UK , these only have civil jurisdiction for "crimes' on campus.They are not police in the strict UK definition - the only other ones who are is the British Transport Police , whose powers were enacted in a Parliamentary Bill many, many years ago.
My point is that I understood the US definition of a conviction or caution is one recorded by the "normal" police forces , i.e would show up on an ACPO report, so does a non police caution count?
I remember years ago a guy at my grammar school got caught with a spliff and was hauled before the Head, given a dressing down and cautioned as to his future behaviour. He was told the caution would go on his school record. Would he have to declare this caution if wanting to travel to the US?
Could spend a few hours and many beers discussing this! Would be interested in a US official viewpoint.
quiltman is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 10:13 am
  #18  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 366
johnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by Barnes2015 View Post
Everything I have read has said cautions are the same as convictions (as they count as an admission/arrest) as far as the U.S. is concerned so will be pursuing the visa route to avoid any future trouble.
I'll let you know know how I get on... I know this is a subject of considerable interest to many posters so would not want to deprive you..
Very sound decision that second question about drugs on the esta is very tightly worded. Unlike some things
johnnybrown532 is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 2:52 pm
  #19  
BE Forum Addict
 
zzrmark's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Lauren's Co. SC by way of Palmetto, Florida
Posts: 3,249
zzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by johnnybrown532 View Post
Very sound decision that second question about drugs on the esta is very tightly worded. Unlike some things
Is it?
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

AND

Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs?
I personally think that this statement is terribly constructed. It is in one box, is technically two questions BUT the AND leaves it wide open for interpretation.

Grammatically, I read it as a requirement to only declare the first part of the question IF the second part applies.
Common sense says that they would like you to declare if either part applies as a standalone BUT for that to be correct I would have thought that the statement should be AND/OR not just AND.

However, when it comes to the part 'violated any law', there is no wriggle room - convictions, cautions, a telling off are irrelevant, you either have or haven't and are required to declare thus (obviously after considering your grammatical interpretation of the statement as a whole!)

So here's a fun one.... underage purchase of alcohol (according to your native country's laws).
I'm going to presume we can all agree that alcohol is a drug and that it's purchase for personal use is legal only AFTER the age of 18 in the UK.
So, especially for those of us old enough to remember the time when you popped down the shops as a kid to buy 10 Marlborough for your mam and a six pack of Tenants for dad ( ), does the purchase of alcohol (or tobacco) as a minor warrant a YES to the second part of the question???
zzrmark is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 4:36 pm
  #20  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 366
johnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by zzrmark View Post
Is it?


I personally think that this statement is terribly constructed. It is in one box, is technically two questions BUT the AND leaves it wide open for interpretation.

Grammatically, I read it as a requirement to only declare the first part of the question IF the second part applies.
Common sense says that they would like you to declare if either part applies as a standalone BUT for that to be correct I would have thought that the statement should be AND/OR not just AND.

However, when it comes to the part 'violated any law', there is no wriggle room - convictions, cautions, a telling off are irrelevant, you either have or haven't and are required to declare thus (obviously after considering your grammatical interpretation of the statement as a whole!)

So here's a fun one.... underage purchase of alcohol (according to your native country's laws).
I'm going to presume we can all agree that alcohol is a drug and that it's purchase for personal use is legal only AFTER the age of 18 in the UK.
So, especially for those of us old enough to remember the time when you popped down the shops as a kid to buy 10 Marlborough for your mam and a six pack of Tenants for dad ( ), does the purchase of alcohol (or tobacco) as a minor warrant a YES to the second part of the question???
Are you suggesting that he lie may I ask?

The traveller should not be the one to determine if something is serious or not if they can get through by saying it is not they will. You know that, I know that how can they not know it? Someone stole your i phone. It is that a serious crime? the guy did it says no it's only a phone get over it you big cry baby not like I stole the keys to the kingdom is it?. But 6 months ago it would have been a cimt theft/robbery conviction with maximum sentence consideration.

I just can't understand the thinking behind it.

Last edited by johnnybrown532; Feb 6th 2015 at 5:07 pm.
johnnybrown532 is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 4:42 pm
  #21  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
ian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by zzrmark View Post
Grammatically, I read it as a requirement to only declare the first part of the question IF the second part applies.
The ESTA questions now show two separate questions:

1 - Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?
2 - Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs?

I maintain that the first question is easier to answer - because it's a simple yes/no question and relies solely on your own interpretation of the word "serious". Whether anyone else would consider it serious is, apparently, irrelevant.

The second one, however, requires that you actually know all the laws that relate to possessing, using, or distributing drugs. Unless you are a lawyer, I doubt 99%+ of the population knows all the laws. The question, therefore, is almost impossible to answer correctly... regardless of whether you tick "yes" or "no".

Ian
ian-mstm is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 5:36 pm
  #22  
BE Commentator
 
S Folinsky's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 8,114
S Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by quiltman View Post
I may be wrong, but the OP said he had a caution from the campus police. as i understand it in the UK , these only have civil jurisdiction for "crimes' on campus.They are not police in the strict UK definition - the only other ones who are is the British Transport Police , whose powers were enacted in a Parliamentary Bill many, many years ago.
My point is that I understood the US definition of a conviction or caution is one recorded by the "normal" police forces , i.e would show up on an ACPO report, so does a non police caution count?
I remember years ago a guy at my grammar school got caught with a spliff and was hauled before the Head, given a dressing down and cautioned as to his future behaviour. He was told the caution would go on his school record. Would he have to declare this caution if wanting to travel to the US?
Could spend a few hours and many beers discussing this! Would be interested in a US official viewpoint.
The statute does not define who the recipient of the admission needs to be for bad things to happen. An interesting case is Pazcoquin v. Radcliffe where the admission was to the examining physician.

BTW, this case indicates that obtaining the visa is not the end of the road. Pazcoquin was issued the visa and was nailed at the port of entry. If he had not been nailed at the port of entry, it might have come up when he went for naturalization.
S Folinsky is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 5:41 pm
  #23  
BE Commentator
 
S Folinsky's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 8,114
S Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond reputeS Folinsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by zzrmark View Post
So here's a fun one.... underage purchase of alcohol (according to your native country's laws).
I'm going to presume we can all agree that alcohol is a drug and that it's purchase for personal use is legal only AFTER the age of 18 in the UK.
The statute speaks in terms of "controlled substances" and makes reference to 21 USC 802. Alcohol is not a "controlled substance."

In contrast, the medical grounds of inadmissability do make reference to "drug abuser or addict." That does take in alcohol.
S Folinsky is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 9:04 pm
  #24  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 366
johnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond reputejohnnybrown532 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by S Folinsky View Post
The statute speaks in terms of "controlled substances" and makes reference to 21 USC 802. Alcohol is not a "controlled substance."

In contrast, the medical grounds of inadmissability do make reference to "drug abuser or addict." That does take in alcohol.
What would be required for a person to be considered an abuser of alcohol? A criminal record related to drink? Because plenty of people are binge drinking like hell in uk. Many people exceed and well exceed the recommended minimum unit amount each week and yet don't have a record because of it.

Last edited by johnnybrown532; Feb 6th 2015 at 9:17 pm.
johnnybrown532 is offline  
Old Feb 6th 2015, 10:25 pm
  #25  
BE Forum Addict
 
zzrmark's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Lauren's Co. SC by way of Palmetto, Florida
Posts: 3,249
zzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond reputezzrmark has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Simple Caution, ESTA, Waiver of Ineligibility...please help!

Originally Posted by johnnybrown532 View Post
Are you suggesting that he lie may I ask?
AT no time have I said, or implied, that anyone should lie

Originally Posted by ian-mstm View Post
The ESTA questions now show two separate questions...
Ian
That'll teach me for quoting their help page rather than the form itself!



Originally Posted by S Folinsky View Post
The statute speaks in terms of "controlled substances" and makes reference to 21 USC 802. Alcohol is not a "controlled substance."

In contrast, the medical grounds of inadmissability do make reference to "drug abuser or addict." That does take in alcohol.
I think Ian may be right about the second question!
I understand that neither nicotine nor alcohol are 'controlled substances' but they both fall under the category of recreational drugs and they are both illegal for minors to purchase. Does this not technically make both illegal drugs (for minors)?
I don't suppose any but the most intellectually challenged of individuals would actually consider ticking the yes box for such an incidence (or even admitting to it unless they'd actually gotten a record for it)
zzrmark is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.