Thread: The US waves the big stick again

Something that should concern anyone who wishes to apply for a visa to enter the USA.

US demands more data on foreign travellers | Bangkok Post: news

Why's that then?

Well, go luck with that. The US is the last place I would want to go.

Why is this "waving a big stick"?

They've had biometric requirements for ESTA for ages.

And if Thailand did a proper criminal records check, you might not have all these fucking lowlives getting in.

Originally Posted by birding

Something that should concern anyone who wishes to apply for a visa to enter the USA.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Why is this "waving a big stick"?

They've had biometric requirements for ESTA for ages.

Its more and its Trump. Pity a fun face to visit if you plan it right VN. Love to give you some tips.

Originally Posted by aging one

Originally Posted by birding

Something that should concern anyone who wishes to apply for a visa to enter the USA.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Why is this "waving a big stick"?

They've had biometric requirements for ESTA for ages.

Its more and its Trump. Pity a fun face to visit if you plan it right VN. Love to give you some tips.

It's consistently quicker, easier and more pleasant for me to get into Thailand, and I'm American. Come to think of it, even China was easier and more polite.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Why is this "waving a big stick"?

They've had biometric requirements for ESTA for ages.

And if Thailand did a proper criminal records check, you might not have all these fucking lowlives getting in.

Once again you show your ignorance.

This is about the US putting in place additional requirements for all countries and threatening any country that does not do as they say not about Thailand.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They've had biometric requirements

now 6 airports where they do a facial scan - be clean shaven if you do not want to be indentified as allah akabar

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And if Thailand did a proper criminal records check, you might not have all these fucking lowlives getting in.

You saying it's illegal for anyone with a criminal history to come to Thailand?

Or the United States?

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And if Thailand did a proper criminal records check, you might not have all these fucking lowlives getting in.

You saying it's illegal for anyone with a criminal history to come to Thailand?

Or the United States?

It is in most countries. I'm not sure about Thailand but they don't seem to give a shit.

In the US it is couched in the all-encompassing term of "moral turpitude".

It not only gives the US the right to refuse entry to those with a criminal conviction, but also those such as:

Nigella Lawson has been stopped from flying to the US four months after she confessed to taking cocaine.

The TV cook, 54, was barred from boarding a flight from Heathrow to Los Angeles at the weekend.

<snip>

While Lawson has not been convicted for any drug offence, it appears that US officials have still decided to deny her entrance to the country.

The US department of homeland security told the Mail that foreigners who had admitted drug taking were deemed "inadmissible".

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ine-confession


(Although she later managed to get it lifted a few months later: "Lawson's lawyers and ABC television had succeeded in seeking a "waiver of inadmissability" that would allow her to travel to the US").

Added:

The ESTA form asks applicants the following:

"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?"

This question relates to ‘moral turpitude’ offences. Moral turpitude’ is a legal term in the US that includes offences relating to:

- Crimes against the person such as murder, manslaughter, rape, gross indecency, serious assaults, kidnapping

- Crimes against property such as arson, burglary, theft, robbery, fraud, receiving stolen property

- Crimes against government authority such as benefit fraud, tax evasion, bribery, perjury.

I should add that when I went through Miami in June, it was piss easy:

You go to a machine, scan your passport, line up your face for the facial recognition scan and then it tells you to queue up to see an Immigration officer.

Mine asked me "How long are you in the US", I said "three hours, then I'm flying out to Puerto Rico".

He sneered "Puerto Rico is in the US" which obviously I didn't correct, so I just said "One week then" and he sent me on my way.

The Department of Homeland Security has been pushing a plan that if enacted would require all Americans submit to a facial-recognition scan when departing the country. This step would be a way to expand a 2004 biometric-tracking law meant to target foreigners.
According to the Associated Press, which first reported the plan on Wednesday, facial-scanning pilot programs are already underway at six American airports—Boston, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, New York City, and Washington DC. More are set to expand next year.

In a recent privacy assessment, DHS noted that the "only way for an individual to ensure he or she is not subject to collection of biometric information when traveling internationally is to refrain from traveling."

In recent years, facial recognition has become more common amongst federal and local law enforcement: a 2016 Georgetown study found that half of adult Americans are already in such biometric databases.

"Americans expect when they fly overseas that their luggage is going to be looked into," Harrison Rudolph, a Georgetown legal fellow, told Ars. "What they don't expect is their face is going to be scanned. This is an expansion of a program that was never authorized for US citizens."

John Wagner, the Customs and Border Protection official in charge of the program, said that the agency will delete such scans within 14 days. But he also said that the agency may keep scans longer after it goes "through the appropriate privacy reviews and approvals."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...leave-country/

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It is in most countries

I think you'll find you're wrong there harry, although its always quite funny the shit some of you English gals extrapolate from headlines.

Just because someones been arrested & convicted of a crime, doesn't mean they can't travel or enter other countries ffs.

There are different levels of crime and the Felony is the line in the sand in most cases. Felons have a real hard time even getting a passport.

LOL @ harry for thinking only people with completely clean records can travel and enter "most countries"

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It is in most countries

I think you'll find you're wrong there harry, although its always quite funny the shit some of you English gals extrapolate from headlines.

Just because someones been arrested & convicted of a crime, doesn't mean they can't travel or enter other countries ffs.

There are different levels of crime and the Felony is the line in the sand in most cases. Felons have a real hard time even getting a passport.

LOL @ harry for thinking only people with completely clean records can travel and enter "most countries"

You're right, I should have said "most countries that share criminal records", because that's the main reason for doing it.

Speaking as a seppo, I don't think they're going to stop you coming into America because you were caught banging someone's goat though, so how would you know?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And if Thailand did a proper criminal records check

The Thais rely on the pretty pieces of paper provided by the UK system. If it has a pretty stamp your OK.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And if Thailand did a proper criminal records check

The Thais rely on the pretty pieces of paper provided by the UK system. If it has a pretty stamp your OK.

I know it's bizarre how they only arrest people when the UK explicitly tells them (and they can find the offender).

You'd think a simple database dump every night and they could turn around these crooks on the lam at the airport.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It is in most countries

I think you'll find you're wrong there harry, although its always quite funny the shit some of you English gals extrapolate from headlines.

Just because someones been arrested & convicted of a crime, doesn't mean they can't travel or enter other countries ffs.

There are different levels of crime and the Felony is the line in the sand in most cases. Felons have a real hard time even getting a passport.

LOL @ harry for thinking only people with completely clean records can travel and enter "most countries"

You're right, I should have said "most countries that share criminal records", because that's the main reason for doing it.

Speaking as a seppo, I don't think they're going to stop you coming into America because you were caught banging someone's goat though, so how would you know?

So you're saying that if ive ever been convicted of a crime, any crime, I can't enter the U.K. or Thailand and you can't enter the US, if you've been convicted of a crime?

Think about how stupid that is for a minute, Harry.

Do you wanna bet your position is the correct one?

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It is in most countries

I think you'll find you're wrong there harry, although its always quite funny the shit some of you English gals extrapolate from headlines.

Just because someones been arrested & convicted of a crime, doesn't mean they can't travel or enter other countries ffs.

There are different levels of crime and the Felony is the line in the sand in most cases. Felons have a real hard time even getting a passport.

LOL @ harry for thinking only people with completely clean records can travel and enter "most countries"

You're right, I should have said "most countries that share criminal records", because that's the main reason for doing it.

Speaking as a seppo, I don't think they're going to stop you coming into America because you were caught banging someone's goat though, so how would you know?

So you're saying that if ive ever been convicted of a crime, any crime, I can't enter the U.K. or Thailand and you can't enter the US, if you've been convicted of a crime?

Think about how stupid that is for a minute, Harry.

Do you wanna bet your position is the correct one?

Dear me, once again you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding of your own country. I did state quite clearly above that the "Moral turpitude" rule is a catch all and leaves it entirely at the whim of the chimp that wants you out.

Crimes that will make you Inadmissible to the U.S.
Below is a very basic list of crimes that will make you inadmissible to the Unites States. This list is by no means complete. You should also note that not all of these crimes require an actual conviction in court to make the applicant inadmissible.

Crimes involving moral turpitude. This includes any attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime. It excludes crimes committed when the person was under the age of 18 years, so long as the person was released from jail more than five years before applying for a visa or other immigration benefit. It also excludes crimes for which the maximum penalty did not exceed one year in prison and the person was not, in fact, sentenced to more than six months in prison. See the more complete list of crimes of moral turpitude below.
A controlled substance violation according to the laws and regulations of any country. This includes trafficking and any conspiracy to commit such a crime. This includes a single offense of simple possession for a small amount of THC residue or for “drug paraphernalia.” It also includes the spouse, son, or daughter of the inadmissible applicant if that person has, within the last five years, received any financial or other benefit from the illicit activities, and knew or reasonably should have known where the money or benefit came from. No actual conviction is required to trigger this inadmissibility.
Convictions for two or more crimes for which the prison sentences totaled at least five years. It does not matter whether the convictions came from a single trial or whether or not the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct.
Prostitution or commercialized vice.
A serious criminal activity for which immunity from prosecution has been received
Human trafficking offenses.
Almost anything that has to do with money laundering.
Do not even attempt to enter the U.S. if you have been previously deported without a proper visa. This is considered a serious felony under U.S. law and can result in extended jail time.
Crimes of Moral Turpitude
The definition of moral turpitude is very broad so we are listing the most common examples of this type of crime below. The actual offenses are ever changing. Some of them may be minor such as shoplifting, while others can be very serious such as murder. The actual penalty for the conviction does not matter.

Passing Bad Cheques
Assault Causing Bodily Harm or With Intent to Cause Harm
Assault with a Weapon
Assault with intent to cause bodily harm
Aggravated Assault. “Aggravated felony” is even worse, though these also have a very loose definition, therefore the offences can change over time. However, there is absolutely no relief, and anyone deported or excluded for this reason cannot ever enter the US.
Sexual Assault
Theft
Burglary
Trespass with Intent to Commit a CIMT
Endangerment and Actual Injury
Child Abuse in some cases
Benefitting from illicit drug trafficking.
Prostitution and commercialized vice.
Involvement in serious criminal activity, where the person has asserted immunity from prosecution, departed the United States as a result, and not subsequently submitted to the jurisdiction of the relevant U.S. court.
Human trafficking, whether inside or outside the United States.
Laundering or aiding or abetting monetary instruments.

Crimes that Shouldn’t Prevent Entry to the U.S.
Not all crimes will result in being denied entry to the U.S.

Crimes that are not considered moral turpitude include where the individual has committed only one crime of moral turpitude, and:
the crime was committed when the individual was under 18 years of age and the crime was committed more than five years ago
the crime did not exceed one year of imprisonment
if the individual was convicted of the crime, but the individual was not sentenced to imprisonment for a term greater than six months
Offences like fail to appear, causing a disturbance, common assault and impaired driving are not ordinarily considered in determining your admissibility to the country. In addition, multiple convictions involving crimes which are NOT classified as crimes involving moral turpitude ordinarily do not block your entry.
The U.S. does not deny entry to persons with a conviction for “Driving Under the Influence” (DUI / DWI) despite how seriously Canada takes this type of offense. However, if there are multiple convictions for this and or other misdemeanors, you could be denied entry.

The UK is a bit more black and white, although they can still deem you unfit for admission if they decide that your criminal record offends their delicate sensibilities (i.e. you look like a c u n t and they're in a bad mood).

Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the UK is to be refused
Paragraph 320(2) of the Rules states that an application should normally be refused if:-
The person seeking entry to the United Kingdom:
is currently the subject of a deportation order; or
has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of a least 4 years; or
has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 12 months but less than 4 years, unless a period of 10 years has passed since the end of the sentence; or
has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 12 months, unless a period of 5 years has passed since the end of the sentence.

Generally speaking, both countries would typically refuse someone who is a known thug/thief/druggie.

Unless of course you are European, which is another good reason to get the fuck out of it.

Originally Posted by Slick

Just because someones been arrested & convicted of a crime, doesn't mean they can't travel or enter other countries ffs.

Plenty of Canadians who have never been arrested or convicted of a crime have been denied entry into the US for merely telling the truth when they were asked if they had ever smoked marijuana.

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by Slick

Just because someones been arrested & convicted of a crime, doesn't mean they can't travel or enter other countries ffs.

Plenty of Canadians who have never been arrested or convicted of a crime have been denied entry into the US for merely telling the truth when they were asked if they had ever smoked marijuana.

Tell me how that goes for ya if you try & enter the UK and say the same shit.

Same goes for harrys shitpost above as well.

None of this has anything to do with background checks & being granted visas.

Probably wouldn't want to tell people at a border crossing you've been doing coke either.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Dear me, once again you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding of your own country. I did state quite clearly above that the "Moral turpitude" rule is a catch all and leaves it entirely at the whim of the chimp that wants you out.

Just quit harry. You failed. Has nothing to do with visas or background checks.

Youre just another safe-space snowflake that thinks "criminals" shouldn't be able "to leave their country"

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Dear me, once again you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding of your own country. I did state quite clearly above that the "Moral turpitude" rule is a catch all and leaves it entirely at the whim of the chimp that wants you out.

Just quit harry. You failed. Has nothing to do with visas or background checks.

Youre just another safe-space snowflake that thinks "criminals" shouldn't be able "to leave their country"

Sorry fuckface, but if you can't read English that's your problem.

Originally Posted by Slick

Tell me how that goes for ya if you try & enter the UK and say the same shit.

You brought up the UK, so you tell me. I'm gonna bet that you can't find a single instance of it in a google search.

Originally Posted by Slick

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by Slick

Just because someones been arrested & convicted of a crime, doesn't mean they can't travel or enter other countries ffs.

Plenty of Canadians who have never been arrested or convicted of a crime have been denied entry into the US for merely telling the truth when they were asked if they had ever smoked marijuana.

Tell me how that goes for ya if you try & enter the UK and say the same shit.

Same goes for harrys shitpost above as well.

None of this has anything to do with background checks & being granted visas.

Probably wouldn't want to tell people at a border crossing you've been doing coke either.

Are you special needs or something?

I told you above, Nigella Lawson was refused entry because she admitted in court that she did coke, she wasn't even tried, let alone convicted. I'm pretty sure she didn't tell them and they probably read about it in the newspapers like everyone else.

But lie about convictions and your chances of being put on the next plane out increase exponentially.

Australia is the same; ask Floyd Mayweather.

Mayweather, 37, was jailed in 2012 for an attack (two years earlier) on his ex-girlfriend and needs the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to rubber stamp his visa application before heading down under next week, where he's expected to be the star turn at two dinners in Melbourne and Sydney.

His ban has been confirmed by Assistant Minister for Immigration, Senator Michaelia Cash.

'A visa has not been granted in this case,' she said.

'The Government takes very seriously its role in protecting the Australian community from the risk of harm by non-citizens who engage in criminal conduct and/or conduct that is of serious concern.

'Visa applicants must demonstrate they are of good character, as required under the character test in the Migration Act 1958, before they are granted a visa.

'I am aware of Mr Mayweather's background – both in terms of his professional success as well as his criminal history – as has been extensively reported in the United States and Australian media.'

'In making character decisions, a range of factors are taken into account. This can include consideration of both a person's criminal history as well as their general conduct over a continuum of time, to reach an assessment as to whether they are of good character.'

I'm guessing that you're flying around with a conviction, probably for mugging an old granny or something, and now I've put the wind up you because you're worried the more developed countries might find out and fuck you off home?

Mind you, they might just deport you for being terminally stupid.




Added: The Aussie character test; note again the vague wording leaving Immigration officials lots of room to maneouvre if they don't like you.

What are the requirements of the character test?

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister) and a decision maker in the Department have the power to make a decision to grant or refuse a visa on character grounds on a case-by-case basis. It’s important to note, that the Minister or the Department have the authority to revoke a visa that has already been granted if it is later established that the person has failed the character test.

A person is deemed to have failed the character test if:

• they have a substantial criminal record
• they have an association with another individual, group or organisation whom the Minister reasonably believes has engaged in criminal conduct
• they are likely to engage in criminal activities in Australia
• they are likely to harass, stalk, or molest another person while in the country
• they are likely to incite discord within the community, or a segment of the community within Australia
• they represent a danger to the community, or a segment of that community by being likely to become involved in activities that are disruptive, violent or threatening.