Cobol74
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 17,506
- Location
- The banana republic of Ukania
- Car(s)
- Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
I find this a little odd, of course if you are American it will not affect you but everyone else should read if they are thinking of travelling to the USA.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/welcome-to-america-now-go-away-747083.html
What do you all think?
How far would you go for a trip to Walt Disney World? You would need to fly to Florida, of course. But from New Year's Day, the many thousands of British travellers who need visas to visit America will also face a trip to London or Belfast.
How far would you go for a trip to Walt Disney World? You would need to fly to Florida, of course. But from New Year's Day, the many thousands of British travellers who need visas to visit America will also face a trip to London or Belfast.
Starting in 2003, the US Embassy is insisting that applicants for American visas will face an interview, either at the Embassy in Grosvenor Square or the Consulate-General in Belfast. And anyone who has failed to live their entire life on the straight and narrow, but who decides to take a chance on qualifying under the "visa waiver program", is taking an increasing risk of being found out for some past misdemeanour.
A fortnight ago I wrote about a close encounter with the inner workings of the Immigration and Naturalization Service on a trip to Chicago, when I learned I share a name with a wanted criminal. Plenty of readers got in touch to report their own experiences ? a significant proportion involving deportation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that US immigration officials are getting tougher on people who they do not regard as meeting the criteria for admission. Now the Americans are insisting they see potentially doubtful cases to assess their suitability for a visa.
For the vast majority of the five million or so British holidaymakers and business travellers who go to America each year, nothing has changed: you will continue to fill in a form on the plane, and most people will qualify for a 90-day stay. But around 130,000 travellers from the UK each year need visas. That figure includes students on exchange schemes or work programmes, people with overseas passports who are resident in Britain ? and, crucially, anyone who has ever been arrested, anywhere in the world, regardless of whether or not they were convicted of any offence.
Many travellers know to their cost that, in some parts of the world, the police will as happily arrest a foreigner for some imagined transgression as give them the time of day. Indeed, in one or two countries this legal process is seen as an essential part of an officer's remuneration package. Once a "fine" is paid, for which a receipt is rarely given, the "offence" is forgotten. Or is it? Anyone who flies across the Atlantic with a skeleton in their luggage, figuratively speaking, is taking a chance that the US security services have not dug too deep into criminal databases around the world.
The arrival card for people travelling on the visa waiver program asks specifically about crimes involving "moral turpitude" (believed to be a reference to prostitution or pimping) or a "controlled substance" (drugs). But the rules have now been toughened to insist on visas for "people who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction".
Should Euan Blair, the prime minister's eldest son, decide to leave his flat(s) for a trip to America, from 1 January he will be obliged to undergo an interview because of the caution he received two years ago for under-age drinking. Even if your conviction has long been regarded as "spent" under British law your youthful indiscretion may return to haunt you. To apply for a visa, you must spend ?67 ? and a day in London or Belfast. If the official decides they don't want your sort in America, you get no refund.
It might seem extraordinary that British travellers, who are so important for American tourism, are being made to feel so unwelcome. Are we not supposed to have a "special relationship" with the US, not least because of our government's slavish devotion to the White House? But since September 11, the Americans have felt understandably vulnerable. The hijackers involved in the attacks on that date had been legally admitted to the US, a fact that causes great anguish to the authorities.
Naturally, they have no wish to make such mistakes again. That is why they want every visa applicant to have a face-to-face interview.
A few exceptions to the rule that insists on personal attendance: the under-18s, over-60s, and, curiously, entertainers and journalists, can still apply by post. Everyone else who needs a visa and prefers not to make a special trip should apply by post to the US Embassy by New Year's Eve, to avoid the need to turn up in person.
The best source of information about whether you will need a visa is the Embassy's website: www.usembassy.org.uk; or, if you don't mind paying ?1.30 per minute, you could call the premium-rate number, 09055 44 45 46.
* Plenty of travellers fly via America to another country. But the concept of a transit lounge is almost unknown in the US. Anyone flying to Canada, the Caribbean or Latin America via an American airport is likely to have to clear US immigration and customs before the connecting flight. The fact that you plan to stay for two hours rather than three months makes not a jot of difference. A scheme known as TWOV ? Transit Without Visa ? can enable some to dodge officialdom, but the privilege may cost ?100.
The bureaucracy reminds me of the time I turned up at El Salvador's border with Honduras with a Cuban stamp in my passport, which made me persona non grata. I was offered the choice between paying several hundred dollars for a military escort through Honduras to Nicaragua, or heading back to San Salvador. I chose the latter, but in case anyone from the US Embassy is reading: I was not technically arrested.
A recent deportee from America advises anyone who finds themselves in the distressing position of being put on the next plane home explicity to withdraw their application for entry; if not, your passport may be stamped "refused admission" ? guaranteed to interest all immigration officials.
"YOUR SEAT-BELT is fastened like this and unfastened like this ? and those shifty-looking guys in the ill-fitting suits in business class are today's heavily-armed sky marshals."
The prospect of armed guards on UK aircraft is yet another misguided reaction to the terrible events of September 11. The reason those attacks succeeded so horrifically was because aviation had no previous experience of suicidal hijackers. The passengers of the last aircraft to crash on that day ? United flight 93 ? found out, through mobile phone calls, about the terrorists' motives. So they attacked and overpowered the hijackers, causing the aircraft to crash in a field in Pennsylvania rather than becoming the fourth guided missile to strike on that day. Now that passengers know the horrific sequence of events, they would be certain to take collective action, without the aid of armed sky marshals.
The transport secretary's announcement is yet more of bad news for Britain's airlines: they must give up saleable seats for the gunmen and women and will lose business from people who have no wish to fly on any aircraft where there is a gun on board, even if it is in the possession (at take-off at least) of someone on the side of good. Foreign airlines will be delighted, and even on domestic flights to and from London you can avoid the danger, thanks to the Belgian carrier VLM (serving Manchester) and the Irish airline Ryanair (Prestwick, Newquay and City of Derry).
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/welcome-to-america-now-go-away-747083.html
What do you all think?