chartreuse

Oops, sorry.

nettlebed

NP. It's unfortunate that a movie as funny as Office Space inserted this meme into popular culture. I know that most people don't explicitly associate the phrase with anal rape of prisoners, but I think its usage desensitizes people to the horror of that, and I like to point it out whenever I see it.

I'm not ragging on you, just the meme itself.

Thanks for taking it so well.

DeanUK2US

"I banged Banksy3063's GF"
vs.
"Don't make fun of penitentiary backshots"

I think a review of morals are in order. Don't you?

SunnyMeadow

Having read all the interesting contributions on this matter, it seems to me that part of this "news" is simply to flush out some people who were considering not telling the US about their offences, whenever they occured.

By bringing the notion to people's minds thaty we will "share information" with each other, one does not know what they know or in how much detail.

We all know that governments are the height of ineptitude and statements such as what we have been told are likely to be some person's or some department's "baby" project, with lofty aims, but which is likely to end up like so many other "world changing" ideas- as a smaller and probably much less effective tool than what was envisaged.

However, for those who seek to move to the USA, for a new life etc., I say tell them everything when required, because you can never be accused of lying in future if you say everything. Americans can often forgive you of stuff you have done, but they are much less tolerant about lying.

Fot those who are coming for a short trip and their "offence" could be regarded as minor by the offender, I say the chance that they will have your full history at their fingertips, at the POE, is slim, at the very best.

.....but ESTA might change that if its any good.

spanishfly

I agree 100%, the problem is that until Joe Bloggs is made aware of exactly what information they do have access to at POE we are going to have to disclose the information they request, who wants to be the person that gets all the way from Manchester UK to JFK and then get turned back due to them having access to data that you neglicted to divulge.

Its as if they have setup a huge honeypot for people to come forward and make themselves inelligible for travel if you get me.

Secondly it also seems like one big money spinner for the UK Police force and for the immigration people, $131 for the interview in Belfast is what i have paid, £70 for a police Certificate, £80 for flights to Belfast.

ian-mstm

Nonsense... those people would have already been ineligible to travel. What it does do... is keep honest people honest - and may just catch a few of the dishonest ones also.

Ian

daner92

Truth be told, most immigrants get themselves in far more trouble by lying about their criminal history than they would if they were candid about past transgressions. Most crimes (if they're even a “conviction” in the first place for immigration pruposes) fit a "petty offense exception" meaning that they were not punishable by up to one year of imprisonment. Also, while the crime may seem serious, it may not be a problem (the general exception is drug crimes). Moreover, there are waivers available for almost any crime (especially in the temporary non-immigrant visa categories). Meanwhile, the consequences of lying to immigration officials is a permanent bar to your admissibility to the U.S. Feel free to contact me if you have some general questions.

ian-mstm

Can you please provide a link to the law for this comment? Thanks.

Ian

DeanUK2US

I'm suspicious that the comment(s) aren't cited like the ones posted by JCraigFong and Folinskyinla.

fatbrit

It seems to be new lawyer month on BE.

Doubt many of them will stick around for the long term -- we're an acquired taste.

DeanUK2US

I've noticed. Maybe BE needs it on the wiki that pretending to be an immigration lawyer doesn't get you into the US.

daner92

Sure, the bar is contained at INA 212(a)(6)(C) or 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C), http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/u...2----000-.html there is a waiver at INA 212(i), but it is limited to individuals who can show their removal would result in "extreme hardship" to their permanent resident or U.S. citizen parents or spouse. Kids don't count.

While the misrepresentation must be intentional and material, these considerations are often viewed expansively and indeed if the misrepresentation "shut off" a line of inquiry that may have resulted in a finding of inadmissibility that is enough even if the crime itself is immaterial. http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol09/1210.pdf

daner92

No sure, but the forum does not appear to be letting me post my response with cites. Any idea why?

daner92

Sure, the bar is contained at INA 212(a)(6)(C) or 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C), there is a waiver at INA 212(i), but it is limited to individuals who can show their removal would result in "extreme hardship" to their permanent resident or U.S. citizen parents or spouse. Kids don't count.

While the misrepresentation must be intentional and material, these considerations are often viewed expansively and indeed if the misrepresentation "shut off" a line of inquiry that may have resulted in a finding of inadmissibility that is enough even if the crime itself is immaterial. Matter of J-D-D-,9 I. & N. Dec. 636 (BIA 1962).

Here are the cites without the links. If you have questions let me know.

Ray

Cos your a newbie ... no links allowed just yet .. it stops the spammers

A few more post and you can ...

You can put the link to your site .. in your sig area ..