4 ms·

Visa just gives the officer the option to let you in. He can deny you entry virtually at will. CBP officer is god at the border. I have been temporarily deni

Visa just gives the officer the option to let you in. He can deny you entry virtually at will. CBP officer is god at the border. I have been temporarily denied entry even as US citizen, until they checked with their superiors for a few hours and found out they could not in fact do that. Odds are they just wanted that person gone and the real reason can't be spoken out loud.

rustystump 1y ago
I think more often one can attribute incompetence rather than malice in 99% of cases like this. 911 was an inside job! Or maybe the us of a had an oopsie.
- mothballed 1y ago
  It's a possibility. It's why I've always thought the bribery or commission model makes for fairer and more efficient immigration. There has to be something in it for the border guard to bring in good productive people, so that's what they work towards. Right now they only get rewarded if they deport or collar somebody, so that's all they seem to care about, and letting in good people is seen as more of a nuisance they must do while trying to get notches for their promotion.
  - notahacker 1y ago
    > There has to be something in it for the border guard to bring in good productive people, so that's what they work towards. Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to identify good productive people if the incentive scheme is defined as "accept a couple of hundred dollars" vs "don't accept a couple of hundred dollars"...
    - mothballed 1y ago
      You can't bring in good people if there's not people. There are already a few sprinkles here and there to reward them for stopping some of the bad people, but nothing if they let in a good person. $200 is better than nothing...
      - notahacker 1y ago
        I don't think there's a shortage of good people trying to get into the US or the West... Or that people responsible for processing visas and checking papers have been restricting numbers despite what their bosses and the wider public ask for. If you want more immigrants than the guidelines and quotas permit, the route to it isn't legalising bribery.
        mothballed 1y ago
        So what is your solution to get the border guard to have as much incentive to make sure good people, who mind you already have a visa, get in just as eagerly as he wants to collar the criminal who will bump up his chances at promotion? I guess another option might be to give the similar kind of promotional awards to metrics of good immigrants being let in as they do to collaring criminals. >If you want more immigrants than the guidelines and quotas permit, the route to it isn't legalising bribery. I'm talking about the officer having an incentive to actually follow the "guidelines." His cost to reject someone is basically zero. He gets rewarded nothing for letting you in. I'm not talking about the officer getting paid to let in people without a visa, I'm talking about having an incentive to actually do his job and not just chase reasons to reject people with no cost to a bunch of false positives. Edit: (As an aside, the US actually has a loophole that allows US businesses to bribe foreign officials, including for immigration, to get them to do their job that they were already obligated to do. So really they would just be legalizing it for "them + the rest of world" instead just "the rest of world." Pure American exceptionalism to realize grease payments are legitimate and helpful everywhere but magically the US) Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
        notahacker 1y ago
        I'm not sure what I find more baffling, your continued insistence that some people's difficulties in getting into other countries are a matter of border guards needing incentives as opposed to very public top down hostility to immigration and obsession with perceived threats, or the suggestion that empowering border guards to extort people for bribes if they wanted to get into the country would somehow lead to fairer immigration routes, as opposed to more money being extorted from vulnerable people. You won't believe how many borders I've crossed without paying bribes, or for that matter how little attention to metrics or the goodness of people crossing was paid at the one border that did garnish their staff's wages with an unofficial dollar fee for everyone...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- etblg 1y ago
  In America's case, it often seems to be both at the same time!
  - rustystump 1y ago
    No. People are just chronically online but it is more popular to call xyz group abc term. Perhaps i have too much faith in humanity though.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      Humanity overall is great. I don't know what else to call hundreds of South Korean "oopsies" other than malicious imprisonment, though.
hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
Yeah, but you are also protected by most rights, such as those against unlawful detention, if you are legally inside the U.S. Of course, what the law is doesn’t really matter anymore.
tshaddox 1y ago
> He can deny you entry virtually at will. CBP officer is god at the border. Do you know what the actual laws/regulations are for this stuff? My understanding is that there are in fact valid and invalid reasons for denying entry to a valid visa holder, but that the valid reasons are in practice broad and subjective enough that a CBP officer could nearly always justify their decision (something like "I wasn't convinced they would abide by the terms of their visa").
pandaman 1y ago
The reason, even in the article, is clearly stated - immigration without a valid immigrant visa. It's a valid reason and no amount of reddit upvotes over "iTs DuAl InTeNt!11!!" makes a difference. There are just two kinds of US visas: non-immigrant and immigrant. You are not allowed to immigrate on a non-immigrant visa. "Dual intent" applies only to the issuing of a visa: by default a non-immigrant visa can only be issued to someone who has proven the lack of an immigration intent (which is assumed by default, so one has to prove the lack of thereof in order to get a visa) but there is an exception for some non-immigrant visas, which can be issued without such a proof. This is all "dual intent" means. Not "it's an immigrant visa if I intend it to be one!". These visas are still non-immigrant and carry all the restrictions of other non-immigrant visas i.e. they don't allow immigration. So while it's fine to have an intention to immigrate with such a visa, it's illegal to actually immigrate. This is not some esoteric knowledge and can be found within 15 minutes of internet search and reading. I imagine the protagonist of the article said something that showed he has immigrated, at least the article describes him as an immigrant - he lives in the US and has nothing to come to in the home country. Thus the reason for denial of entry.

rustystump 1y ago

I think more often one can attribute incompetence rather than malice in 99% of cases like this. 911 was an inside job! Or maybe the us of a had an oopsie.

mothballed 1y ago
It's a possibility. It's why I've always thought the bribery or commission model makes for fairer and more efficient immigration. There has to be something in it for the border guard to bring in good productive people, so that's what they work towards. Right now they only get rewarded if they deport or collar somebody, so that's all they seem to care about, and letting in good people is seen as more of a nuisance they must do while trying to get notches for their promotion.
- notahacker 1y ago
  > There has to be something in it for the border guard to bring in good productive people, so that's what they work towards. Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to identify good productive people if the incentive scheme is defined as "accept a couple of hundred dollars" vs "don't accept a couple of hundred dollars"...
  - mothballed 1y ago
    You can't bring in good people if there's not people. There are already a few sprinkles here and there to reward them for stopping some of the bad people, but nothing if they let in a good person. $200 is better than nothing...
    - notahacker 1y ago
      I don't think there's a shortage of good people trying to get into the US or the West... Or that people responsible for processing visas and checking papers have been restricting numbers despite what their bosses and the wider public ask for. If you want more immigrants than the guidelines and quotas permit, the route to it isn't legalising bribery.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        So what is your solution to get the border guard to have as much incentive to make sure good people, who mind you already have a visa, get in just as eagerly as he wants to collar the criminal who will bump up his chances at promotion? I guess another option might be to give the similar kind of promotional awards to metrics of good immigrants being let in as they do to collaring criminals. >If you want more immigrants than the guidelines and quotas permit, the route to it isn't legalising bribery. I'm talking about the officer having an incentive to actually follow the "guidelines." His cost to reject someone is basically zero. He gets rewarded nothing for letting you in. I'm not talking about the officer getting paid to let in people without a visa, I'm talking about having an incentive to actually do his job and not just chase reasons to reject people with no cost to a bunch of false positives. Edit: (As an aside, the US actually has a loophole that allows US businesses to bribe foreign officials, including for immigration, to get them to do their job that they were already obligated to do. So really they would just be legalizing it for "them + the rest of world" instead just "the rest of world." Pure American exceptionalism to realize grease payments are legitimate and helpful everywhere but magically the US) Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
        notahacker 1y ago
        I'm not sure what I find more baffling, your continued insistence that some people's difficulties in getting into other countries are a matter of border guards needing incentives as opposed to very public top down hostility to immigration and obsession with perceived threats, or the suggestion that empowering border guards to extort people for bribes if they wanted to get into the country would somehow lead to fairer immigration routes, as opposed to more money being extorted from vulnerable people. You won't believe how many borders I've crossed without paying bribes, or for that matter how little attention to metrics or the goodness of people crossing was paid at the one border that did garnish their staff's wages with an unofficial dollar fee for everyone...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
etblg 1y ago
In America's case, it often seems to be both at the same time!
- rustystump 1y ago
  No. People are just chronically online but it is more popular to call xyz group abc term. Perhaps i have too much faith in humanity though.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Humanity overall is great. I don't know what else to call hundreds of South Korean "oopsies" other than malicious imprisonment, though.

hshdhdhj4444 1y ago

Yeah, but you are also protected by most rights, such as those against unlawful detention, if you are legally inside the U.S. Of course, what the law is doesn’t really matter anymore.

tshaddox 1y ago

> He can deny you entry virtually at will. CBP officer is god at the border. Do you know what the actual laws/regulations are for this stuff? My understanding is that there are in fact valid and invalid reasons for denying entry to a valid visa holder, but that the valid reasons are in practice broad and subjective enough that a CBP officer could nearly always justify their decision (something like "I wasn't convinced they would abide by the terms of their visa").

pandaman 1y ago

The reason, even in the article, is clearly stated - immigration without a valid immigrant visa. It's a valid reason and no amount of reddit upvotes over "iTs DuAl InTeNt!11!!" makes a difference. There are just two kinds of US visas: non-immigrant and immigrant. You are not allowed to immigrate on a non-immigrant visa. "Dual intent" applies only to the issuing of a visa: by default a non-immigrant visa can only be issued to someone who has proven the lack of an immigration intent (which is assumed by default, so one has to prove the lack of thereof in order to get a visa) but there is an exception for some non-immigrant visas, which can be issued without such a proof. This is all "dual intent" means. Not "it's an immigrant visa if I intend it to be one!". These visas are still non-immigrant and carry all the restrictions of other non-immigrant visas i.e. they don't allow immigration. So while it's fine to have an intention to immigrate with such a visa, it's illegal to actually immigrate. This is not some esoteric knowledge and can be found within 15 minutes of internet search and reading. I imagine the protagonist of the article said something that showed he has immigrated, at least the article describes him as an immigrant - he lives in the US and has nothing to come to in the home country. Thus the reason for denial of entry.