4 ms·

Being denied entry is the same as being accused of a crime, but not being allowed to face your acuser nor defend yourself in any way. It's infuriating in every

Being denied entry is the same as being accused of a crime, but not being allowed to face your acuser nor defend yourself in any way. It's infuriating in every way, even if it doesn't affect directly. Why? Because someone, somewhere - most likely without a shred of empirical proof - decided that it would be "safer" if people aren't told why they were denied, because otherwise the "bad guys" would be able to circumvent the system or some other equally moronic rationale. We all know the type of close minded, ignorant pinhead who made that decision, and it's infuriating they actually have any sort of control over our daily lives.

75dvtwin 9y ago
Not sure I agree with the analogy " Being denied entry is the same as being accused of a crime" Consequence of being accused of crime is prosecution, with potential loss of freedom (or death). Consequence of being denied entry into one country in the world -- is not the same (unless you are unfairly prosecuted in your own country and there is no other country that you can go to). Being denied to enter a country, more akin, in my view, to being denied a job interview (and subsequent employment).
- majewsky 9y ago
  How is "being denied to enter a country" not "loss of freedom"?
rsj_hn 9y ago
I get that this is a nice jumping off point for a general condemnation of the security state, but in this specific case, the VISA waiver program is primarily intended for tourism and allows only very limited business use: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Purpose%20Listings%20March%202014%20flier.pdf https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Pu... The common thread is that you can use it to receive awards, attend conferences, or meet with clients, but only if you do not receive any income for doing that. So something like an office all hands meeting is really a gray area -- you are being paid a salary to attend that all hands meeting. IANAL, but it doesn't seem like an extreme situation to say that this should require a regular B-1 VISA and not be covered under the visa waiver program. Now you can argue that all hands should be covered, or that the VISA waiver laws should be changed, but reasonable people can disagree about this. I don't think the situation warrants current the level of outrage, or is a good poster boy for condemning bureaucrats wanting "control over our daily lives". Also, the individual was not denied entry, he was denied a VISA waiver. He can still get the VISA and then enter. This is really something you need to check beforehand.

75dvtwin 9y ago

Not sure I agree with the analogy " Being denied entry is the same as being accused of a crime" Consequence of being accused of crime is prosecution, with potential loss of freedom (or death). Consequence of being denied entry into one country in the world -- is not the same (unless you are unfairly prosecuted in your own country and there is no other country that you can go to). Being denied to enter a country, more akin, in my view, to being denied a job interview (and subsequent employment).

majewsky 9y ago
How is "being denied to enter a country" not "loss of freedom"?

rsj_hn 9y ago

I get that this is a nice jumping off point for a general condemnation of the security state, but in this specific case, the VISA waiver program is primarily intended for tourism and allows only very limited business use: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Purpose%20Listings%20March%202014%20flier.pdf https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/BusinessVisa%20Pu... The common thread is that you can use it to receive awards, attend conferences, or meet with clients, but only if you do not receive any income for doing that. So something like an office all hands meeting is really a gray area -- you are being paid a salary to attend that all hands meeting. IANAL, but it doesn't seem like an extreme situation to say that this should require a regular B-1 VISA and not be covered under the visa waiver program. Now you can argue that all hands should be covered, or that the VISA waiver laws should be changed, but reasonable people can disagree about this. I don't think the situation warrants current the level of outrage, or is a good poster boy for condemning bureaucrats wanting "control over our daily lives". Also, the individual was not denied entry, he was denied a VISA waiver. He can still get the VISA and then enter. This is really something you need to check beforehand.