33 ms·

A deportation at the UK border

• Velox 10y ago
  The author quite rightly points out that most of the English speaking countries would treat people exactly the same way, however I find it a little odd that she wouldn't ever go back to the UK, but makes no mention of visiting these other countries. It seems that her opinion of the UK doesn't quite match up with the statement that they are all the same.
  • teddyh 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
• s_kilk 10y ago
  What a horrible story, but sadly not surprising to me anymore. UK Border Control: a uniformly hostile and spiteful organisation.
• rossng 10y ago
  I am not happy about the continued existence of what are essentially rights-free zones at border crossings. Unfortunately, with the current political climate in the UK, I'm not sure the majority of my fellow countrymen would agree. And I'm certain Theresa May doesn't care. It's easy for politicians to ignore these problems, as they will almost never affect their own citizens. A similar situation exists with the NSA abusing the privacy of foreigners - after all, they're not US citizens, so why should they care? At least the Border Force appeared to be more-or-less following the rules (twisted as they might be) in this particular instance.
  • pjc50 10y ago
    Indeed. See also the ongoing sagas of people being deported from Scotland (Brain family, Zielsdorf family). The policy is brutal because people demand that "something must be done" about "immigrants". The system is made ever tighter, but it does nothing to dampen the complaints, because the people who the rightwing public actually want deported are either EU residents or second-generation nonwhite Muslim "immigrants". Neither of which are going anywhere soon.
    • toyg 10y ago
      I agree, but I have to say this: "second-generation" cannot be "immigrants", I hate this pseudo-definition with all its jus sanguinis connotations. Second-generation means you were born and bred in whichever country your parents happened to live in. You are from that country, period. You may or may not have a passport (because jus sanguinis is a terrible, terrible weed growing on law systems the world over), but you are not an immigrant. I am an immigrant; my children, who were born in UK, are not. They might be second-generation this or that (lasagne lovers from Cheshire? Northern-England pizza connoisseurs?) but they cannot be immigrants because they. did. not. immigrate. anywhere. Logic and reason are very clear on the matter. I think you just wanted to say "second generation nonwhite Muslims", which is correct as well as much clearer on the matter and nature of the hatred.
      • pjc50 10y ago
        Sorry, that was part of the point I was trying to make but while using the language of the anti-immigrant campaigners. I've stuck it in scare quotes now. As you say, someone who was born in the country cannot sensibly be called an immigrant.
        • outworlder 10y ago
          Like some anti-immigrant campaigner who is himself a "second-generation immigrant"?
    • joshvm 10y ago
      The hilarity, as pointed out by Lord Hesseltine on Any Questions this week, is that around half the immigrants to the UK come from outside the EU (it's a 50/50 split with 180k each). The EU has no control over them, and even if we totally blocked EU migration the government would still be 600% over its target.
    • tajen 10y ago
      I vote close to extreme right in EU. The only people I want deported are illegal immigrants. I also want talent/work-based immigration and fewer visas for familial regroupement (as in, get one member in EU, get all your relatives in EU). I have been a migrant in Australia. I know what that is. I expect my country to require the same respect from people we welcome. Mainstream parties do absolutely nothing in this direction. I do not mind about nationals who have been French for more than one generation, who belong here, provided they don't burn the French flag like they do so often. Burning the flag is only the emerged part of the iceberg for the little respect some have for their host country - They feel like they belong to the Arabic cause more than they belong to country who provides the free schools they've been to). Burning the French flag should be cause for prison or visa cancellation, but y'know, "we need diversity"... Even our French Minister of Justice refuses to sing the Marseillaise. I'm really fed up with the floppiness of mainstream parties.
  • DanBC 10y ago
    Wait what, what rights did she not have?
    • panglott 10y ago
      She found out later she had a right to legal counsel and a hotel room. She wasn't able to sleep for 30+ hours.
      • true_religion 10y ago
        Curiously, I think the list of countries that deny you legal counsel are lot shorter than the list of countries that do not. It's usually safe to assume that you can have legal representation, unless you are being accused of something that is a diplomatic, political, or military dispute.
        • gsnedders 10y ago
          Even in immigration cases where you are yet to be admitted to the country? I thought that was a very mixed bag.
          • jacobush 10y ago
            Sweden just added it last year. It's also a special fast track immigrations court.
      • DanBC 10y ago
        Did she ask if she could have legal counsel?
    • mthoms 10y ago
      >Wait what, what rights did she not have? The right to leave and the right to privacy primarily.
  • Aelinsaar 10y ago
    We don't seem to stop and think that if everyone is freely abusing everyone else, that's not an ideal situation. While it's impossible to eliminate a lot of these systemic ills, I feel like the general response is sort of, "We can't fix it all at once, perfectly, so lets pretend that it doesn't exist."
• CaptSpify 10y ago
  I do often think that we should get rid of special treatment for "important" people going through these types of systems. If politicians, executives, etc had to go through the same thing, I think a lot of the inefficiencies would get fixed. As they stand now, there's no reason to make them efficient, because anyone who has the power to do so bypasses the system entirely. Imagine how fast things would change if the president had to go through the TSA.
  • throwawaysocks 10y ago
    > Imagine how fast things would change if the president had to go through the TSA. I don't think they would change at all. 30 minutes or an hour of time is inconsequential compared to the political (and non-political...) calculations that are made by someone in an office like that. People tend to be far more conservative when given actual decision-making power, and care much more about the big picture calculations than about their personal annoyances. More-over, lots of congress people do fly commercial and yet support the TSA (either politically or actually).
    • forgottenpass 10y ago
      More-over, lots of congress people do fly commercial and yet support the TSA (either politically or actually). Because they use pre-check. And congresspeople get access to the top of the tiered justice system in America so they don't care about the liberty implications of Pre-Check.
      • throwawaysocks 10y ago
        This suggests that the inefficiencies would not be fixed, but instead explicitly codified exceptions -- with a high cost to the average user but little cost to political and economic elite -- would be created.
• jackgavigan 10y ago
  Unfortunately, like other countries, the UK's Border Force[1] clearly has an above-average share of incompetents and bullies. If you give such people any power whatsoever, they will abuse it. Sadly, that's what happened here. The real problem is that there is no accountability in these organisations. Even if a complaint by Rachel triggered an investigation, the culture in organisations like this is to protect their own. The worst that is likely to happen is that those responsible would be given "words of advice", which is more like a pat on the back than a slap on the wrist. 1: Incidentally, the Border Force is part of the Home Office, which is led by Theresa May, who is behind the push for 1984-style mass surveillance of the UK population.
  • andyjohnson0 10y ago
    > which is led by Theresa May, who is behind the push for 1984-style mass surveillance of the UK population And who is also advocating that the UK leaves the European Convention on Human Rights. All these things are connected.
  • rwmj 10y ago
    I'm never sure if Theresa May is evil or incompetent. It may be she is just incapable of controlling her department, although perhaps I'm being too charitable.
    • JamesMcMinn 10y ago
      > I'm never sure if Theresa May is evil or incompetent. Why not both?
    • toyg 10y ago
      She's just the banality of evil. Her electorate clamours for ethnic purging and she modelled her political career on the "Iron Lady" image, so she wants to be seen as tough. If one of the most important cabinet posts were the Secretary for Milk, she'd insist that cows be milked 24/7, because that's what being "strong" means in that context. Political elites the world over are the weakest in a century, so they react acting tough. They never actually have to deal with the fallout.
• petercooper 10y ago
  There is no VISA you can get to receive an honorarium for speaking in the UK Potential international speakers should also be warned this is also true of the US - except for certain types of academic institution (INA 212(q)). The UK also allows it via https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa but again, only for arts or academia. A commercial conference doesn't count, annoyingly (or even a community conference that merely happened to offer honoraria). However, if you are being paid by your employer to attend a conference to speak, it is fine (big disclaimer: IANAL). Related from a few years ago, Uncle Bob was turned away from the UK: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282583 - but I'm pretty sure he has been back since.
  • scott_s 10y ago
    What an amazing difference a single word makes. I have travelled to the UK to attend and speak at an academic conference, and I probably said so to border agents. That single word probably makes a difference. I never even considered that I would be turned away.
    • petercooper 10y ago
      Yeah, they're trained to pick up on the tiniest things. People seem to get hung by the details they share. I try to follow the "say as little necessary to answer the question" advice. Out of numerous trips, I've only ever gotten to mentioning speaking once. Every other time, "why are you entering [country]?" gets "to attend an industry conference", and that's usually the end of it.
    • nickporter 10y ago
      When going back to the United States from Canada, I was sent to secondary screening because I said I had a TN Visa, when the correct thing to say was TN Status.
      • mynameisvlad 10y ago
        I got chewed out because I said I'm "activating" a H1-B, when I should have said that I was being inspected for approval of an H1-B (or some shit like that).
• fhood 10y ago
  As much as I enjoy feeling superior to the British (spelling color with a 'u' is nothing short of pretentious) I would love to know if people from the UK suffer the same sort of troubles entering the US. As a US citizen I have found traveling to Canada and Australia to be a relatively pain free experience, but then Australians and Canadians are, in general, a whole lot nicer than Brits or Americans.
  • arethuza 10y ago
    "I would love to know if people from the UK suffer the same sort of troubles entering the US" I personally have had extended grief entering the US on a number of occasions - not in the last 4 or 5 years though. Worst was probably an extended session with me being asked why I went to Turkey so often from the UK (saying "it's a nice place to go on holiday" seemed to make them angry [maybe a lack of vacation days] - I think I must have provided 20 variations on that statement). A friend who was a senior corporate lawyer had it much worse when he visited the US from the UK to attend a legal conference - extended stay and a "cavity search".
    • fhood 10y ago
      So do you think this is more of a policy problem or an attitude problem.
      • arethuza 10y ago
        I have no idea - but I've traveled to a lot of places and in terms of friendliness of reception at the border the only place that was worse involved communists and large crew-serviced machine guns (NB crossing into Yugoslavia in the late 1980s by train from Italy). Edit: For the avoidance of doubt, I really like the US as a place to visit both for business and vacation, but the experience at the border can leave a lot to be desired.
        • llamataboot 10y ago
          I'm a US citizen and I don't like having to return to the US from abroad. Sometimes you are lucky and get a border guard that actually acts like a human being, even a human being doing a mostly boring job, but many times you get power-tripping jerks. I often travel with my partner, who is a green card holder, so I get to see that whole barrel of nonsense as well. In airports without the new expedited entry system (forget what it is called) we often have to wait upwards of 2-3 hours to get through an immigration checkpoint.
• moon_of_moon 10y ago
  Human rights in immigrant detention centres is something everyone should get behind. Unfortunately this exact kind of treatment is common at the US border. Search for: denied port of entry nightmare. e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3545548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3545548 I guess when you see scores of people trying to scam the system you get hard nosed about it in time.
  • omonra 10y ago
    Yep. It's human nature - if the people she faced deal with people who are trying to scam the system 90% of the time, they will be conditioned to deal with such individuals. Then when the 1 out of 10 comes across who is genuinely NOT trying to pull a scam, it will be very hard for them to turn their attitude 180 degrees.
    • oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
      Sorry, although I buy the human nature argument there, from a government organisation point-of-view, that kind of behaviour is utterly unacceptable. If it's too difficult for people to do their jobs properly the way the system is set up, change the system. This isn't an impossible problem; we have many state bodies that have to deal with similar situations - police - and they simply should not be able to get away with this.
      • omonra 10y ago
        But - given the rules in place, she actually did not have the right paperwork to give a paid talk at the conference. Ie I think the majority of the ordeal stems from this - not ill-handling on the part of staff who work there.
• growt 10y ago
  Just a small remark: If you're visiting the USA your fingerprints get taken every time (at least thats my experience). So that part of the story (an american complaining that their fingerprints got taken in the UK) is kind of skewed perspective.
  • bluehazed 10y ago
    Weird, I've literally never had this happen (Canada -> USA). I totally believe it, but now I'm wondering about in what cases this policy is applied.
    • growt 10y ago
      I'm german, so it probably depends on the nationality of the visitor or maybe even the destination airport (I landed in Atlanta). But there was no discussion or anything, just "put your finger on this scanner, thanks, next finger ...". Everything was alright with my visa and every other passenger in line had to do the same thing.
    • shawabawa3 10y ago
      > I've literally never had this happen (Canada -> USA). Did you fly in? I imagine it only happens at airports, not at land borders (I'm from the UK and I had my fingerprints taken at JFK)
      • syrrim 10y ago
        I flew from Canada into La Guardia recently and didn't have fingerprints taken.
      • mewfree 10y ago
        I'm a French citizen living in Canada and going fairly often to the US by bus. They do it at land borders too, it's just that Canadian citizens are exempt.
      • memsom 10y ago
        Can confirm this is any non-Canadian, I'm from the UK -> fingerprints on a land crossing.
• jbob2000 10y ago
  This was her mistake: "..where a young man somberly asked me what brought me to the UK. “I’m giving a talk at a conference then traveling to see a bit of England. I have a letter of invitation,” I replied, confidently handing over the requested documents." Just say "A short vacation", whether it is or not. Don't give the agent any more information than they need. Throughout her entire encounter with the agents, she was giving way more information than she needed to, which was prompting further questions.
  • Zikes 10y ago
    "Being compliant and truthful with the authorities in a routine border crossing was her mistake." Whether or not it "just works", or how often people do it, that is just insane.
    • eitally 10y ago
      But the agents don't actually want to know why people are traveling. Knowing that forces them to actually do something that isn't routine, which is annoying and a time sink. It's better to withhold information unless explicitly requested, to simplify and streamline the flow for both you as passenger and they as agents.
      • lucozade 10y ago
        > It's better to withhold information unless explicitly requested But that's not the question. The question is whether or not it's better to lie about why you're travelling. Now, for some percentage of the time it probably is better in practice. But it's a trade with a fairly large downside. Border agents have lots of reasons to carry out checks so you'll need to be very sure that everything else is completely fine and be lucky you don't hit a random check. And they do check. I've had to vouch for people at airports and they've checked social media, Google etc. For the lady in the article, it sounds like what she went through was solely for flouting work laws (and being rude but that would have just affected the degree of surliness). You get caught for directly lying and they'll be all over you for illegal immigration/terrorism. I would expect that to be more lengthy and more unpleasant than the unfortunate lady experienced. My advice? If you want to earn money in a foreign country do it legally. At the very least check with the consulate/embassy and get their answer in writing if possible.
• anentropic 10y ago
  foreign bands coming to play SXSW have the same problem entering USA
• tachion 10y ago
  Not that I dont feel sorry for the author of the story, since this is terrible experience, no matter who experiences it, but as an American, a citizen of a country that has one of most restrictive and humiliating border procedures around the civilized world (try landing with valid visa on JFK as non American human being...) complaining at this sounds - well, odd.
  • Johnny555 10y ago
    Better to keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen because other countries do the same thing? She can't talk about her experience with USA treatment of non-citizens because she didn't experience it. Though she did call it out in the article: And it goes both ways: a colleague I immensely respect will no longer speak or hold workshops in the USA because he was denied entry at our border in a similar process.
    • tachion 10y ago
      I've not said OP should be quiet, nor it was my intention to imply so. I simply felt strange to read complaints about something, that the OP's country excels at. Shall it be connected with some awareness about that fact (much more than the mere line you're quoting) it wouldn't feel odd to me.
  • icebraining 10y ago
    Not everyone feels personally responsible for the actions of the country they happen to be born in.
    • Hondor 10y ago
      They should because they decide the country's actions through their votes. For a democracy like the US or UK, at least.
  • umanwizard 10y ago
    I have heard a lot of anecdotal stories that UK border guards are pretty fucking terrible. Also, although I've never been detained or turned away, I can say that every time I've been to the UK, the border guards and security agents have uniformly been very, very rude. Why do you assume the US is worse than the UK? Do you have a source?
• Singletoned 10y ago
  I can't imagine a circumstance where I would be entering a country like the UK or US, and when asked what my visit was for, I would say anything except for "I'm on holiday". Being out of the ordinary is very dangerous. That said people shouldn't be subjected to such unnecessary unpleastantness.
  • heartbreak 10y ago
    Because getting caught lying to these authorities would make for a much better outcome.
    • gsnedders 10y ago
      Deception to an immigration officer in an attempt to obtain leave to enter (regardless of whether it was successful or not) can result in a one-year ban from (re-)entry to the UK. Deception on a visa application can result in a ten-year ban from (re-)entry to the UK.
      • sveiss 10y ago
        If the travel is in the other direction, entering the USA, the penalty for "misrepresentation" is a lifetime bar. Yes, there are potentially waivers available, but lying to border agents -- and getting caught -- can make your future travel plans range from very difficult to impossible.
  • Johnny555 10y ago
    Though you're kind of screwed when the guy behind you in line says "Hey Singletoned, I can't wait to see your talk tomorrow!", and immigration puts you through the same thing.. (or worse since you were clearly trying to deceive them.)
  • scott_s 10y ago
    Speaking at a conference is not that out of the ordinary. You are more comfortable taking the risk of lying, so that you can appear like everyone else. The author was more comfortable being honest, so that she didn't risk being caught in a lie. I can't fault her for that. (Particularly since I'm confident I have said things like "I'm attending an academic conference" at multiple borders.)
• imron 10y ago
  Unrelated to the issues raised by the article - I love that the callout text was not simply repeated quotes from the body. I wish more sites/people would follow this author's lead.
• droopybuns 10y ago
  The writing style is muddled and kind of hard to read. I'm sorry this happened to her, but it seems like she could be a candidate for a perfect storm of miscommunication.
  • frabbit 10y ago
    I thought the writing style was pretty clear at conveying the disturbing, unsettling nature of an experience like this. I don't think it was miscommunication though: it was an exercise of the arbitrary power held by bureaucrats. Every day it is exercised, sometimes in a reasonable way, sometimes not. We usually only hear about it when it's one of "us" getting shafted. If it's Group 4 Security strangling a black man on a deportation flight, you might get to hear about it... and then forget a couple of years later. I thought the article was good at asking us all to think about how much power we want to invest in a bureaucracy. They always want more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU
• PaulHoule 10y ago
  England has probably the toughest border to cross of any country I have been to.
  • JamesMcMinn 10y ago
    Try entering from Scotland.
    • pjc50 10y ago
      I'm always entertained by how there's a big "Welcome to Scotland" sign on the A1 going north, and no corresponding "Welcome to England" sign in the other direction. The UK has an open land border with another EU country - Ireland - and so far the Brexit campaign have been very unclear about whether this would continue and what implications that might have for ""controlling immigration"" and ""protecting borders"".
      • germanier 10y ago
        From what I know the Common Travel Area with Ireland would almost surely not be effected by a Brexit. In fact, it predates the countries' EU membership by quite a while.
      • razakel 10y ago
        >The UK has an open land border with another EU country - Ireland - and so far the Brexit campaign have been very unclear about whether this would continue It would - see the Ireland Act 1949. >what implications that might have for ""controlling immigration"" and ""protecting borders"". That is what's ambiguous.
  • tatobug 10y ago
    I just went to Europe recently (for leisure), landed twice at LHR from US and Germany with no issues whatsoever. The border folks were very friendly.
    • PaulHoule 10y ago
• michaelbuckbee 10y ago
  Stepping slightly back from this particular horrible experience, I don't understand _why_ this particular set of institutional rules are in place. Was there a thought that foreign speakers who were subsidized by foreign governments were inciting rebellion? Are there tax issues? Was this some big money laundering loophole or something? Is there a concern that people were using this as figleaf to immigrate illegally?
  • gsnedders 10y ago
    It's essentially because it's a very special case of coming into the country for paid work (albeit very temporary!). As such, it falls, by default, into the laws regarding temporary work.
  • rtpg 10y ago
    generally speaking, countries don't want you to be in them and be paid by a foreign company. Think about it, if you're in the UK but being "paid" by a German company, are you really paying the right kind of taxes? What's to stop every major corp from having the Cayman Islands branch hire you. Usually people working for foreign corps end up actually being contractors (and paying self-employment taxes or whatnot).
    • gsnedders 10y ago
      That's not an immigration matter, though. As far as I'm aware, taxation policy isn't really something that comes into play with UK immigration.
    • mseebach 10y ago
      Being paid by a company in any country is equally not OK. It seems the Germany-part is just a red herring/the officer being a dick (it seems they could have easily rejected her straight at the desk - you're here to work, you don't have the visa, done, have a nice flight back, next please).
      • gsnedders 10y ago
• intoverflow2 10y ago
  Pretty much the same sort of experience you'd get travelling any international borders.
  • icebraining 10y ago
    Except inside the Schengen Area. Every time I travel I realize how lucky I am to have this freedom (and wary of political movements trying to kill it).
    • daenney 10y ago
      This. Every time I travel within Schengen it's so easy. And when I need to move for work too. I spent about 30m at a government facility in the exiting country to unregister and another 30 at the entering country to get the equivalent of my social security number. Most of this can even be done over the internet.
    • umanwizard 10y ago
      It doesn't make sense to compare going from France to Germany with going from France to the US. A better comparison would be France to Germany vs. California to Arizona. Both European states and US states are sovereign political entities with their own laws and territory, but with an agreement for freedom of movement. (the US constitution in one case; the Schengen agreement in the other).
      • icebraining 10y ago
        The affirmation that US states are sovereign is not unanimously agreed upon :) That said, even if that's technically true, I think it blurs the history, which is part of what makes it feel special. An US citizen takes that border crossing for granted since birth, but as an European, I'm aware that my grandmother already as an adult had to cross it clandestinely, at the risk of her own life, and even my parents still had to pass through customs and declare the purpose of their trip. I'm the first generation of my family for whom crossing the border is truly a free experience.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• blibble 10y ago
  gov.uk might look pretty, but often the language used on it is imprecise and often inaccurate. directgov (the previous site) was terrible to use and look at, but the information on it was unparalleled in its accuracy and comprehensiveness, which is what I really want from the government. sadly gov.uk have stated that they are more interested in making the information easy to read, rather than accurate.
  • coroxout 10y ago
    It's frustrating. The site is now full of bullet lists about things like when you need to fill in which forms and what documentation you need to provide, and half the time it's not made clear whether you need to meet ALL of bullet points or just one of them. Also the team redoing the website, GDS, seem to be closely affiliated with the firm Govknow, which keeps spamming every email address at my non-profit including non-personal/automated addresses and refusing to unsubscribe anyone, in contravention of the rules about email marketing on the government's own website. (I'm not sure if there's an official link but certainly most or all of the speakers at most of the conferences I get spammed about are from the GDS.)
• DanBC 10y ago
  I'm sorry she had a terrible experience. But the visa requirements are pretty clear, and she needed a standard visa. Here's the "do you need a visa" website. https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa Walk through it. She's from the USA. She's travelling for work, academic or business. She's planning to stay less than six months. Here's the result:https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/usa/work/six_months_or_less https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/usa/work/six_months_or_le... You don't need a visa for some business and academic visits, but you must get a visa to work in the UK. You may be able to come to the UK without a visa if you: are invited as an expert in your profession come for other business or academic activities [...] If you’re invited as an expert You can stay in the UK for up to 1 month without a visa, but you can only be paid to do certain things, eg: give guest lectures at a higher education institution provide advocacy in legal proceedings take part in arts, entertainment or sporting activities Check the full list of what you can be paid to do - it’s the same as what you can do on a Permitted Paid Engagement visa. [...] If you come for other business or academic activities You can stay in the UK for up to 6 months without a visa, but you can only do certain academic or business-related activities, eg: go to a conference, meeting or training take part in a specific sports-related event perform as an artist, entertainer or musician do academic research or accompany students on a study abroad programme Check the full list of what you can do - it’s the same as what you can do on a Standard Visitor visa. Here's the permitted paid engagement visa: https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa Here's the standard visa: https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa
  • Johnny555 10y ago
    She's an animation artist giving a talk about an web animation API, doesn't that fall under If you’re invited as an expert ...take part in arts, entertainment or sporting activities?
    • maxerickson 10y ago
      You'd have to ask the government if the conference is a qualifying arts activity (maybe they consider it something else). The requirements don't make a lot of sense to me, but it is clear enough that obtaining the visa beforehand, just to be sure, is the path of least resistance (and the conference should probably take the lead in figuring it out).
• tomp 10y ago
  > They are now in a database for ten years where they will be shared with all members of the EEA, which is most European countries. Given that she's an American, I really have no sympathies for this. I've had to give my fingerprints to the US border agents every time I went to the US.
  • js8 10y ago
    I do have sympathy for her, but I absolutely agree that Americans need to recognize that they are doing the same thing to others. If you don't want to live in a world like that, start petitioning your own government to change standards for foreigners that come to your country. Positive example is the only reasonable way to convince other countries to follow it.
  • fractallyte 10y ago
    You're not being fair. Quite to the contrary, I have sympathy for both her and you. As she explained in the article, she's not necessarily responsible for the actions of her government.
• kintamanimatt 10y ago
  This is a horrible experience that she went through, but one quote stuck out: > The room’s only other occupants were men. I do not feel comfortable in rooms full of men I do not know with the door closed. Why? This doesn't make sense. What does she think is going to happen? Are most men really presumed to be rapists or something?
  • daenney 10y ago
    To be perfectly honest, as a man, I don't feel comfortable being in rooms full of people I don't know regardless of gender but I feel more uneasy when it's only men. Somehow it feels more threatening to me. Being regularly beat up by a group of boys in school probably didn't help. Some of those feelings stick around. With regards to the rest of your question; I don't think most men are presumed to be rapists and I don't think that is what the author means. There are also many other forms or perceived threats of violence that can make people uncomfortable. There are multiple studies on the topic of male/female group dynamics that you might find interesting to read on this topic.
  • gaius 10y ago
    And American businessmen I stood next to in line at immigration? Perhaps they had companies like IBM and Microsoft backing them, legitimizing their travel and threatening big trouble for anyone interfering. Two women I honestly do not think that gender had anything to do with this, and it's a little weird to shoehorn it in.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • exolymph 10y ago
    It's a Bayesian thing: relatively low risk that a given man will assault you multiplied by the extreme personal suffering of being assaulted = high alert in situations where it would be easy for a man to assault you. She's already vulnerable and exhausted. I would feel uneasy too.
    • 10y ago
• BjoernKW 10y ago
  Unfortunately, I suppose this is exactly what we (meaning the electorate who voted since 2001) wanted. By allowing politicians to pass bills like the Patriot Act (which started this whole mess and quickly brought about similar security and surveillance laws in at least every other country that's on friendly terms with the US) we brought this kind of treatment on ourselves. How can one establish organizations like the TSA or the Border Force - its UK counterpart - and seriously not expect things like this to happen? Unfortunately, the majority likely doesn't care at all when some 'snotty' designer gets held up at the airport and sent back to her home country. "Probably deserves it anyway in some way, doesn't she?" In fact, resentfulness towards people who get to 'live the life' and travel for 'work' might play a role here, too. The aspect of a German company paying her in British pounds. shouldn't be a problem at all. After all, that's what the EU single market should be about. Theoretically, that is ... It seems as if the EU can't get anything right anymore these days, though. Just claiming VAT you payed in another EU country has become so ridiculously complex I have given up on it. Fortunately, in my case it's just things like the occasional conference fee so the loss is minimal but I can't imagine how anyone could run say an eCommerce business in Europe and sell in more than one EU country these days without having to resort to founding a company in each of those countries.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    No, border crossings have been like this since long before the PATRIOT act. Computer scientists were turned away at the borders trying to fly in to give Black Hat talks; I worked for a Canadian company and had strict instructions to tell the Canadian border people I was traveling to see friends, and so on. This has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with visa classifications, and the skittishness of countries about people visiting (or, the concern is, immigrating) to do work.
    • gsnedders 10y ago
      Also: as a reminder, the UK has long been concerned about people smuggling arms and the like for the sake of terrorism: the majority of arms used by the IRA originated in the US for decades before 9/11 (after which the US supply largely dried up, as did US funding of such terrorist groups).
• 2skep 10y ago
  Enough has been said about bad treatment by border guards about every country on earth so don't need to repeat it but I had the following exchange with a Canadian visa officer. Visa Officer:Your Name? How can I help you Me: Dr XYZ. I would like to apply for a visitor visa to Canada Visa Officer: Why would you like to go to Canada Me: I have been invited to speak at a conference Visa Officer: Hmm I see. Me: Is there a problem? Visa Officer: You see, you are not allowed to do public speaking on a visitor visa. You will have to apply a visa for public speaking which takes longer and requires additional formalities and checks. Me: Oh, I see. I am surprised that is the case, I go around the world to conferences and it seems unusual in Canada. Visa Officer: Can I ask you a question Me: Sure Visa Officer (with a smile): Would you say that your main purpose of applying the visa is to attend the conference and you will be sharing your professional and not political views. Me: Yes. Absolutely! Visa Officer: You should then get a visitor visa which will be ready tomorrow after 4. Remember, when asked say that you are attending the conference. Enjoy Canada
  • rdtsc 10y ago
    As a rule answers have to be as general as possible. The more specific information you give them voluntarily, the more they can find something to latch on and make your life miserable. Leave it up to them to ask more details. I wasn't a speaker at my last conference, but I could have been. But my conversation at the border was something like: "Why are you visiting Canada?" / "To go to a conference" / "Where is the conference?" / "Downtown" / "How long will you stay?" / "3 days" / "Ok, welcome to Canada".
    • stcredzero 10y ago
      As a rule answers have to be as general as possible. So, sort of the same strategy used for patent claims?
    • Aelinsaar 10y ago
      The only problem is that while this is fantastic advice, it just means that the people who are going to be abused in the systems are the ones who haven't gotten the message, or otherwise struggle to implement it.
• davb 10y ago
  I'm Scottish, and I absolutely detest traveling through Heathrow. The security and border controls there are some of the most oppressive I've ever encountered. Depending on where you're flying, that could include multiple baggage searches and multiple biometric photos (flying OUT of the UK, I counted three - security, a secondary queue before entering the terminal concourse, and at the gate). Questioning why you're being photographed (let alone asking about data retention policies) just invites further scrutiny and questioning. Recently I had my bag emptied (I wasn't allowed to unpack it carefully) and was questioned very rigorously as to why I was carrying so many cables (I had a micro-USB cable to charge my phone, a laptop charger, and an HDMI cable to watch some Netflix at the hotel). I had to justify each item in my bag. The attitude is the worst part. I feel like I'm being treated like a criminal and have to prove that I'm not. Every time I travel in or out, I feel the anxiety rise. It's difficult to explain. That's not to suggest Glasgow Intl Airport is much better. Flying to the US last month, I check-in queues for AA were enormous. Some staff (I assumed they were customer service agents trying to keep the queuing travellers happy) were walking up and down, chatting with people. They cheerily asked "Where are you going?". "Oh that's exciting. Have you been before? I love that city! Did you have to save up much spending money for an 8 day trip? What are you planning to do when you're there?" As the questions went on, I got more suspicious. "What do you do for a living? Oh that sounds exciting. Did you grow up in Glasgow? What about your fiancée, what does she do? Oh, you got engaged in the US? How long was that trip and what did you see when you were there?" At the end, the guy asked for my passport and attached a "Security cleared" sticker to it. I'd been surreptitiously interviewed and subject to behavioural profiling by staff from a contractor named ICTS [1]. It wasn't a good feeling. I felt deceived. It felt like they were putting a friendly face on trying to catch me out. This only seemed to be happening in the AA line, and I've never been subject to this sort of interview in the past. Does this actually work? I'd assume that any determined terrorist or trouble-maker would have a big smile and a well-rehearsed story. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTS_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTS_International
  • germanier 10y ago
    The Israeli government swears by this method. Given the high threat-level and low incident rate one shouldn't say it's ineffective. Honestly, I would rather have such a method than the almost useless security theatre we face at every airport. (After clicking the link I noticed that it's actually founded by former Israeli intelligence workers.)
• rdtsc 10y ago
  > “Never tell them you’re coming for anything but tourism.” > When I was finally able to talk to my husband again, one of the very first things he told me was, “Don’t blame yourself for being truthful.” Very true. Your response goes into a "bin" (or a checkmark on a form). There are only so many bins there. One for terrorists, one for migrant workers, one for tourists. Self employed web developers, who are paid by a German company, do not fit in any of the bins. But they'll still try to pick one. The lesson bureaucracy is teaching people is to lie. Even though officially on paper they warn people to tell the truth. To put it another way. Consider who you are talking to and decide if they can handle the truth. A bureaucracy and its minions cannot handle it. Or rather, they'll handle it at your detriment.
  • TheAnimus 10y ago
    It's also about having very correct details in this case. If she had bothered to apply for the correct VISA there wouldn't have been an issue, but they clearly feel they are a special little snowflake because animation API is more important than a standardised work VISA system. I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your assertion. Honesty and preparation IS the best policy. Imagine if I'd lied when I was detained in Tampa because of some missing clearance the US Embassy in London had forgotten to do. I had to wait hours in a holding area. I'd paid $200 USD for that. One little lie and the situation would have been far worse.
    • shimon 10y ago
      This seems excessively harsh. I didn't see the author say anything about expecting special treatment or rejecting the value of a standardized work visa system. As far as I can tell, she made a number of reasonable assumptions that someone not familiar with the details of UK travel law might make. Secondly, her intent was to do something beneficial in the country. Whatever your views on on web animation, she was part of an event that brought visitors, economic activity, and tax revenues to the country. Conceivably, the border control agency could have satisfied their rules and not denied their country the benefits of her visit -- by simply charging her a fee for last-minute changes to her visa terms. That would serve as a lesson and deterrent, without subjecting a person who didn't have any malicious intent to a long detention. And don't kid yourself about lying. Lying here doesn't mean "would a fair court judge your statements as true", it means "did the particular agent who interviewed you think you might be lying". There is tremendous discretion for the officers involved, and they get it wrong sometimes. If you think that never happens, you'll support naive systems that have pretty high rates of injustice.
• VonGuard 10y ago
  UK border guards and customs people are, literally, Vogons.
• ahaaaaaaa 10y ago
  Keep in mind, this was a white American detained for some arbitrary visa restrictions which is a rarity. Middle Eastern individuals are very frequently put in the 'corral of shame' for reasons unbeknownst to them. I can't recall how many times I've been randomly searched, or have had officers keep an eye on me. I've also occasionally put through interrogations by irate border patrol over the mundane minutiae of my travel. Her entire ordeal is one I've faced several times solely based off my appearance and name. These acts and laws only give legitimacy to discriminate and harass travellers of certain backgrounds, yet failing to add any measure of security.
  • Manishearth 10y ago
    A lot of times the corral of shame contains old helpless people too, who seem to have been deliberately put there for the pleasure of the corral ranchers. I and my family were traveling back home to Boston. Coincidentally, the Indian grandparents of close friends of ours were on the same flight to visit said friends. Like most old Indian ladies, the grandma was wearing traditional clothes (nothing fancy). They didn't speak much English. They were detained at Logan. Fortunately, my mother (a US citizen) was allowed to be with them as a translator. They had them sit in this room for a long time, after which they asked arbitrary and silly questions. That room was full of other old, non-white people wearing non-American clothing or "religious symbols" (e.g.a turban). Many didn't speak the language. Most were scared and confused. It was pretty clear that the officers just wanted to harass people. If my mother hadn't been there the grandparents would have had a much more gruelling experience and would have probably been stuck there for a while.
    • Camillo 10y ago
      "Old helpless people" are actually a risky category at border crossings. Elderly parents are brought in on a tourist visa, then they stay illegally and end up costing the country money for social services. Of course border controls would try to prevent that.
      • Manishearth 10y ago
• kennell 10y ago
  As someone whos job was to oranize visas for various countries around the world for some time, here is my advice. If you are doing this kind of semi-business/semi-pleasure/speak-at-aconference/whatever trips, just get a tourist visa. Everything else is a giant mess.
  • ibejoeb 10y ago
    (That'd be a really nice service to have, btw) There's a lot of leaping around in the article: >These days, when it feels there’s some shooting or bombing happening every other time you turn on the radio, there’s increased pressure for Border Patrols and TSAs to make us feel safe This is not why she was returned. You can't just show up and work in most of the world. There's an unfortunate amount of wrangling to do, but it's all in the economic interest, not security. This would have been exactly the same pre-Brexit, pre-9/11, and so on.
  • raverbashing 10y ago
    No. Or make sure you only state your purpose of entry as tourism. If you go to a conference in the US (merely for attending) you're entering for business purposes. If you have only a B-2 visa, you will be turned back
    • pbarnes_1 10y ago
      Depends where you're from (VWP allows attending conferences, company meetings, etc).
      • raverbashing 10y ago
        Correct, what I said applies if you're not on any visa waiver program and need an actual visa
• olalonde 10y ago
  > The handlers, they talk like you aren’t listening. Experienced this at US border a few months ago. Officers repeatedly referred to my wife and another man's wife (both Chinese) as "bitches". After flying 12 hours from Hong Kong and not wanting to be put back on a plane, the best you can do is shut up and play their games until they let you through. I was also told by the officer that I was stupid for having shown my visa and "nobody does that" (I'm a Canadian who works in the US, I was under the impression I had to show it each time I re-entered... still confused about what he meant).
• no1youknowz 10y ago
  I remember when I came to the US 3 years ago. I had a return ticket. I had sufficient funds to pay for a hotel, food, travel around the city. I had medical insurance. I was self employed. The problem I had? When I told the border patrol inspector who was asking me questions, that my stay was 3 months vacation. His reaction was like... NO WAY, THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. This was in New Jersey. I was brought to the back, answered all the questions. They took my phone and went through it. When the other border guard came back, he said there were "inconsistencies" with my story. I just said "Oh ok" and held firm. He called the contact I had even him and I think what helped, was the woman who answered. Bitched at him for 5 minutes straight, she was at the airport. I was staying with her until I got a hotel and she was demanding to know "as a tax payer". Why I was there, when I was visiting her and I was a tourist. They let me through. After the 3 months, I returned back to the UK for 2 weeks. I then went back to the US. This time, I had learnt my lesson and went via New York. The border patrol officer this time didn't even look at me. I presume he saw my previous flight information and that AGAIN, I was staying for 3 months. He stamped my passport and "off you go". I've travelled all over the world. Wherever I go and for whatever duration. I am a tourist. End of story.
  • hodgesrm 10y ago
    It's good form wherever possible to prefix conversations American immigration authorities with "I'm an American citizen and..." Sounds as if your companion instinctively knew the drill.
• paulsutter 10y ago
  This is a great article on how /not/ to talk to immigration officials, anywhere. I don't defend any heavy-handed attitude of the officers. It's just useful to understand the purpose behind the process. > the young immigrations officer at LHR was very inquisitive about this old friend I was going to meet while I was in London for a conference: Who was he? Where did he live? What was our relationship? My awkward answers and copious fear sweating must have been unsatisfactory,... The officer is trying to determine whether she is coming for a brief visit, or secretly planning to stay for a long time. That's their primary purpose in life. Expect these questions, and give the answers matter-of-factly. > I just wanted to tell him what he wanted. But somehow that wasn’t enough. He tried to play games to prove something, but I didn’t seem to play along the way he hoped It's an interrogation. Which is exactly like a game. It's their job. The secret trick is to tell the truth. > I told him point blank: there is nothing I can tell you to make you happy. I have to be very careful what information I volunteer, because if I talk too much, you get angry. And now if I don’t talk enough, you get angry. Translation, "I have something to hide and I just want to manipulate you". He doesn't want to hear what makes him happy, he wants to hear the facts. After this they really had no choice but to send her back, even if they were leaning the other way.
  • shimon 10y ago
    And yet, when you place someone in a position where they are tired and nervous, this is the sort of behavior you get. Whether or not they are innocent. It's almost better to take as a cautionary tale about acknowledging your limits. Maybe asking for some rest and legal counsel could have helped. Maybe that would have angered them more. And maybe her responses were very poorly considered and antagonistic. That, combined with the accidental violation of visa rules, seems like grounds for a brief delay and a fine. It doesn't seem like a good reason for a detention of many hours and deportation.
    • paulsutter 10y ago
      Yes - it's a great reminder to request legal representation. And it's true, nobody is their best when exhausted. But violation of visa rules on entry results in being refused entry, anywhere you go. I'm not saying that's good or right, I'm just saying that's how it works. You're asking permission to enter the country, and their job is to confirm that you're entering legally.
• ommunist 10y ago
  Meet the Leviathan. British one is a rather small creature comparing to the US one.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• gambiting 10y ago
  I'm currently an EU citizen living in UK. This here is exactly the reason why I fear that UK might want to leave EU, even though every single English friend of mine is telling me that I would obtain a visa to stay and continue working here without any problems, if visas were introduced. The truth is - if I had to have a visa to stay here, I would rather go to the country of my birth, even though I feel no connection to it. I don't think I could mentally survive the anguish of being denied entry to UK, even though I live here, work here, have my partner, our house and our whole lives here - just because a border official might not like my visa or what I said. It would be just humiliating and the thought of that happening is feeling me with real dread.
• leovonl 10y ago
  Funny, my experience as South American is the exact opposite: expensive USA VISA (USD 160!) for attending a conference, US border asking about everything, checking my story and even knowledge about programming (!), etc - UK border just asking the purpose of my travel, stamping the passport and saying "welcome to UK". And I didn't even need a VISA. One thing for sure is: you have to know the visa requirements and you have to answer what they want to hear. That's true everywhere - USA included - so you're just lucky as a USA citizen to never go through the USA interview process.
  • eitally 10y ago
    If it makes you feel better, when Bush put that policy in place the Brazilian government was quick to institute a reciprocal fee, and the Brazilian immigration agents can be a royal pain for foreigners to deal with (I had a colleague get rejected at border entry once for a stupid, stupid reason).
    • saalweachter 10y ago
      I've heard the story of an American going through the reciprocal process in Brazil -- getting finger printed, interviewed, all sorts of documents generated -- and then having the interviewer confess that they were just going to throw it all away because they didn't actually have anything to do with the reciprocally generated data...
    • brobinson 10y ago
      Don't leave us hanging... what was the stupid, stupid reason?
• ck2 10y ago
  Several generations from now people are going to tell their kids stories of how there used to be people that traveled between countries. I don't see how technology can prevent this outcome, if anything it will make it worse. Governments are just too paranoid and criminals/terrorist too eager to make them punish everyone for their crimes. Vaguely related, did you know Japan has taken in a total of THREE immigrants this year? Japan imprisons applicants and makes life living hell for anyone that wants to migrate there because they are paranoid about outsiders. Tourism is fine as long as you leave.
  • keithpeter 10y ago
    Strange, I know a couple of people who have worked in Japan for periods of a few years - legally I hasten to add - and who have experienced no special difficulties. Those periods of work were pre-2000 and a decade ago more or less. Is this a new phenomenon?
    • ck2 10y ago
      Were they on a work visa with a defined ending date? Probably seen as not a threat like immigration. But I bet overstaying a visa ends very badly there.
      • keithpeter 10y ago
        Ah, yes a visa with definite end date would be likely.
• pjlegato 10y ago
  It's unfortunate what happened to this woman, and probably to many others, but there's no evidence given at all that the "people who look like us" angle was ever a factor in what happened. That is FUD that serves solely to to provoke an irrational emotional response in the reader, not rationally supported in any way. There's no evidence presented in this article to support the author's many claims that the UK immigration system discriminates on a racial "people who look like us" basis. ("It seems to me..." does not count as evidence.) Yes, the immigration bureaucracy is badly broken. Yes, the laws are in many cases stupid and ought to be changed. No, latent racism, sexism, or classism are not in any way factors -- at least based on the events described in this article. The very basis of the article -- a middle class professional white woman from the US was deported because she broke the rules, despite her "looks like us" appearance -- is evidence to the contrary. The one time in the article when she meets someone who might possibly be a racist (which is not even clear), the possible-racist even says that "the rules" always prevent her from ever acting on any of her possibly-racist impulses. Doesn't that mean the system is actually working pretty well in terms of preventing racist factors from entering into its operation? That whole "people who look like us" theme is fearmongering, pandering to those who both love to speculate wildly about others' motives without evidence, and who are also consumed by liberal guilt. (The only thing missing is a "glance of solidarity" somewhere.) She is understandably angry that she was deported, and feels like publicly shaming the system that deported her, so she picks a favorite pet issue (hidden racism) that has cachet in society and projects it onto that system, without any supporting evidence at all. Now, if there is actual evidence of racism in some system, that's another matter entirely. But "it seems to me.." is not, in itself, evidence, it's just unfounded guessing and speculation designed to rile people up into a fit of righteous indignation, on an emotional rather than rational basis.
  • damagednoob 10y ago
    Could not agree more. I find it pretty rich to say "There’s a lot of racism in the UK." based off interactions with a country's border force. Am I allowed to make the same observations about the general US populace based on the way the Mexican border is operated? I had a lot of sympathy for Rachel's ordeal but this paragraph really left a bad taste. As an immigrant to the UK (and now citizen), the single-mindedness in which "The Rules" are applied have been extremely frustrating. But at no point have I thought that it wasn't fair. I've had a visa application rejected and lost £350 in the process. I didn't follow the rules to the letter and I literally paid for it. Since then I've always followed the guidelines and not had an issue since. > The very basis of the article -- a middle class professional white woman from the US was deported because she broke the rules, despite her "looks like us" appearance -- is evidence to the contrary. The fact that she can't see the irony just reeks of privilege.
• bald 10y ago
  That's a very detailed account of what happens for EU citiziens at the US border.
• frabbit 10y ago
  For the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okIjr7vJC0E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okIjr7vJC0E
• opendomain 10y ago
  My biggest problem with this is that Speakers at conferences are NOT paid. This has to be the biggest lie ever told. I know some 'conferences' are small and for the good of the development community. Then the entrance fee should be free. I have been to conferences that paid nothing or 'honorarium' amounts to speakers, but they charge THOUSANDS of dollars to enter. PLUS expensive Hotels. This is what everyone should say when asked to speak at a conference: NO SPEC WORK. SHUT UP- PAY ME.
• johansch 10y ago
  Last time I flew into the US (from Sweden) for another week of work meetings with the team in the Bay area something almost like this happened to me. I wasn't deported though, just sent off to secondary interrogation and was scared and delayed for an extra hour because of nothing. The reason? I was asked by the clerk when I last flew out of the US. Being quite groggy from a very long trip, having made made, many other international trips since that date in January, I was not able to quickly enough answer him in a "confident" manner. I was not allowed to use my phone to actually look up the date. At almost every step until the absolute last minutes, when I actually got to talk to someone, explain my situation, show my business card etc, I was met with passive aggressive hostility. My passport was taken away with my by some random uniformed person who just walked away with into some other room. I had no trust in this obviously incompetent system, so I worried about actually getting the passport back. Everything just seemed incredibly... stupid and arbitrary. If it's just a matter of keeping these mouth breeders occupied it would be a lot more transparent and less disruprupting if you'd just ask an entry fee to your magic kingdom, to pay for the upkeep of these people.
• grownseed 10y ago
  If you ever feel like being dehumanized in the most senseless fashion, immigration is definitely the way to go. Currently an immigrant in Canada, I recently went through a bit of an ordeal. I've been a Temporary Foreign Worker for a few years now, and every year or so, you are required to renew your work permit. So far, this is pretty standard. My first work permit was issues in about five days under a special clause for French speakers, allowing my to forego the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). It went really smoothly overall. The next year, I renewed my work permit, only this time around it took three and a half months. The clause for French speakers had been renamed and moved to a different set of documents, but I had found it. My original work permit had expired while waiting for the renewed one, but at least I was on implied status, so I could work, though I no longer had access to free healthcare, nor could I leave the country (as it would mean losing implied status). Then last year, I went through the same motions to renew my work permit. This time, it took even longer than the previous time and the same "implied status" thing applied. Four and a half months later, I received a message telling me that as of a specific date, the same date I received the message, I no longer had status, because of a missing form from my employer. As it turned out, Canadian immigrations had changed the rules the previous year, and employers were now required to submit a fee along with a form to essentially prove they wanted to hire you (different from an LMIA). This is quite obviously a money-grabbing scheme, but let's not get caught up. I was never made aware of this change in the rules, and clearly my employer didn't pick up on it, yet I was the one paying the consequences. This is all knowing that the conditions of my employment have remained completely unchanged during my whole time in Canada. Not knowing what was going to happen, I was pretty distraught. On top of that, my original application fees had essentially gone down the drain, and I had to re-submit my application and the associated fees, including a premium to restore my status (all within thirty days), all the while receiving no income and not being eligible for Employment Insurance (which I pay, but ironically am not entitled to, since no work = no status = no benefits). I thought I could at least leave the country and go work somewhere else for a while, but that would have invalidated my work permit altogether, a risk I could not take. So I went through the motions, again, getting and submitting information I had already provided countless times. My friends and family kept asking how long it was going to take, to which I had absolutely no answer, nor any recourse to get any sort of clarifications. I had no idea how long my money would last or what my life would become (I've very much settled here, relationship, friends, etc.). Trying to find reassurance through other people or on the Internet ended up achieving the opposite (some of the stories you can read on immigration forums just want to make you cry). A few months later, my work permit was thankfully restored. I now have to mention my work permit refusal and restoration in all immigration-related matters, in the same section that asks you whether you've been associated to terrorists, have murdered somebody and the likes. There are many situations far worse than mine, people having their immigration applications cancelled out of the blue, people unable to work but stuck in the country for up to a few a years at a time, not knowing what the outcome will be, etc. The uncertainty and opaqueness of the whole process is truly mind-boggling. It is genuinely impossible to find a single, reliable source of information. The Canadian Immigration website contains a lot of conflicting and outdated information, lots of links don't work, the language is wildly inconsistent, and more. Calling Canadian immigration will have you on hold for extended periods of time, to eventually be told in one form or another that they won't provide you with any information that's not explicitly on the website. Should you ask for any clarifications, or god forbid point to a problem with the information that's provided, you will systematically be told to seek private help. This essentially means finding immigration lawyers, who I learnt later (from an immigration lawyer friend as I did/could not hire one) do most of their work based on precedent, as immigration law is so unpredictable. This is actually an absurdly compact version of the whole story. I could have mentioned the inherent stress of never knowing whether you have done something wrong, the profiling of immigrants in the name of equality, the rampant abuse of the immigration system by elected officials, the government-backed ponzi scheme for immigrant qualifications, and many more. Hopefully though, for those who are new to this game, this is enough to digest for now.
• andrewaylett 10y ago
  It bothers me that people have to already know their rights to be able to take advantage of them. On one hand, due process. I can see that the option to waive one's rights might be occasionally beneficial, but mostly to the police/border force, rather that to the individual. Police do at least have to tell someone their basic rights, but I find it really difficult to understand people who think that it makes sense to try to deny anyone due process by not doing that (see the Boston Bombers). On the other hand, there are positive rights mentioned here, like the right to go to a hotel to get some sleep. It doesn't seem likely that anyone would know about it unless they were told, so why don't we tell them at the appropriate time? Again, time constraints might mean that in some cases people don't want to take advantage of their rights, but I'm disappointed at how much worse the author's experience was than it should have been.
• pbarnes_1 10y ago
  "I'm here for vacation." Or "I'm attending a conference." The end. Say as little as possible, nicely. Don't turn it into a thing.
• nnd 10y ago
  "I just follow the rules". - So were the participants of the Milgram experiment.
• sparky1990 10y ago
  "I told him point blank: there is nothing I can tell you to make you happy. I have to be very careful what information I volunteer, because if I talk too much, you get angry. And now if I don’t talk enough, you get angry." It was over for her right here. She came across as nervous, evasive, defensive and then antagonist. She is leaking privilege all over this post. And she really was treated just like everyone else in detention. Of course she wasn't a terrorist, but she was being detained and that never feels good, nor is a hotel. That's reality. Border agents have enormous latitude. Your attitude matters when dealing with any authority. Maybe it shouldn't, but there are roles here and when you step out of the expected role you start triggering something. How would she have spoken to a judge in a court of law? Sure, she didn't deserve this, but she didn't do anything to improve her situation, either. It doesn't matter how little sleep she had, or how virtuous her cause, or whether she is a big deal in her industry. It's naive to think that any of this is relevant, frankly. No border guard cares about your self-perception of virtue. They are about tax avoidance and illegal immigration. And just like a pediatrician develops the ability to instantly detect a "funny looking kid," a border guard who sees thousands and thousands of people has similar behavioral flags. "I'm here for a conference." "What topic?" "Web development." "How long are you staying?" "One week." "What else will you be doing?" "I will do a little sightseeing while I'm here." "Have a good stay." CLUNK No lies, nothing cagey in this. There are bins and categories; don't do anything that puts you into a special bin. It's not that hard. Be like the other thousand people they saw this week who are attending a conference. I travel all over the world to speak at conferences. Apart from China and Russia, I never mess around with invitation letters or special papers. I am calm and matter of fact, and so is the border agent. Each of us plays our role and then we move along. "I'm here for a conference." Which is true. FFS, I live in the US and my wife (a Finn) has a UK permanent residency and works in London. I go back and forth about six times a year, I stay for weeks. When they ask the purpose of my visit I simply say, "I'm visiting my wife." I'm friendly and calm. "Are you planning to immigrate?" "Maybe some day." I thought being married to a UK resident would be a flag, but it actually isn't. They care about illegal immigration and tax avoidance because that is their job. I am calm, even friendly, and I don't trigger any suspicion. I finally applied for Frequent Traveler status and now just use the UK /EU electronic gates. That wasn't hard, either. Didn't even need to give a reason for that! Don't be defensive, don't provoke suspicion, don't volunteer unnecessary details. Don't lie, but be shrewd about this situation. Don't trigger special handling. OP does seem to express a bit of a special snowflake tone in her piece. Privilege. Not a good vibe once they are triggered. Earnest humility is the tone you want to adopt. That is proper etiquette given the real power differential. This isn't being subordinate, it's just like being in court. Respect the judge. This border agent is actually judging you--that's their job. None of what happened to her was personal and no one here was ever going to say, "well, you seem like a decent person doing good work; I guess we can just fudge this a teeny bit." They can't and won't do that, and frankly, her attitude probably evoked a little contempt, thus reducing her chances for even what teeny latitude she might have had. Her experience was exactly what people who expect to get a little special handling have when they encounter faceless rule-driven systems. "But this is ME! Why are you doing this to ME?" People without privilege have no such illusions and understand these situations.
• alejohausner 10y ago
  Perhaps it's a generational thing. The OP and many posters here on HN had very nice, supportive parents who told them that the world is on their side, that they would succeed in whatever they tried to do, and that people are generally good-willed. I on the other hand am afraid of figures of authority. I fear the police. I don't think that things will necessarily go well. And I'm especially afraid at the border. I answer the officer's questions as laconically as possible, usually in monosyllables. Things usually go well. Imagine a thought experiment, where the OP's middle class white mind was teleported into an African American's body, dropped into a poor part of town, and stopped by the police. She would have been just as traumatized.