4 ms·

It turned out that because he had been arrested aged 19 and failed to declare it that the border people felt that he had answered fraudulantly when challenged o

by barking 14y ago

It turned out that because he had been arrested aged 19 and failed to declare it that the border people felt that he had answered fraudulantly when challenged on "Have you ever been arrested?". What interpretation should they have taken from it?

Create 14y ago
For example, that since Clinton also answered fraudulently when challenged, he shouldn't be allowed to fly either. Nixon got caught too -- I presume he also did fly afterwards. But obviously some are more equal; 1984 Was Not Supposed To Be An Instruction Manual.
- chrisbennet 14y ago
  He was turned back because he lied (unknowingly) when the asked him if he'd been arrested.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    I have to wonder if they actually expect people to be honest about that. You paid a lot for that plane ticket, and these people can turn you away for what amounts to any arbitrary reason. Would you really want to tell them about how "undesirable" you are?
    - brian_cloutier 14y ago
      Apparently they do, if you are turned away for not being honest.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        You're phrasing this as if he was dishonest, but he may have been merely forgetful. Ask me what I did 20 years ago and I probably wouldn't know either. Was that time I got taken into a police station for driving a French car in the Netherlands an arrest or not? I really don't know and I think if I judged that I'd never been arrested (not charged, nothing heard from since) that I would be on the right side of that line. So this could easily happen to me. Or, it could happen to me if I still came to the US, which I don't.
buro9 14y ago
The UK has a law called the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, within that is the notion of classes of criminal record being spent. I don't know the specifics, but you always have to declare the equivalent of felonies, but for misdemeanours you can lawfully not declare them after some period of time in which your debt is considered repaid and the record spent. The whole of the EU has such laws. I think most people within the EU would regard this as just a part of living in the civilised west. And the most simple part of that is that if you arrested and never charged, or even charged but acquitted during trial, or even arrested and cautioned... then you never need to declare it. You can quite literally forget about it after some relatively short period of time, I think it's a year or 3. Going back to my brother. Never charged, never cautioned, never went to trial, released without any impact whatsoever... just a bad day, worth forgetting and after 20 years definitely forgotten. I think almost everyone I know would've said no to the question quite honestly believing that it's a perfectly reasonable and honest answer.
- buro9 14y ago
  To reply to myself, the thing that I took away from his telling of this experience and watching his wife almost cry when they got to the part about boarding the plane back with the children... it's this: Every thing that you ever do is recorded somewhere. Every person has a file whether they think they do or not. This file will only ever be used against you. And Europe remembers such a thing... it was only 1990 that the Stasi was dissolved. Yet here we are constructing an even more powerful and permanent version of "a file on everyone". My brother's demonstration was a worker's one, not political. But don't you see that if attending a political rally risks arrest and permanent repercussions, even if you were innocent of everything save for having an opinion... then are we not already at the point in which to hold an alternate political view is to risk inserting something into your file (it exists anyway) which could permanently affect your life. Who knows what the future holds, but for my brother it's unlikely to involve working for a company that ever expects travel to the USA. Thus, one is forced to modify their behaviour to avoid being penalised by the current system. Isn't that what the effect of the Stasi was? I mean, being European, I find it hard to see how history isn't repeating itself on an ever grander scale now that there are tools that allow it to do so.
sp332 14y ago
In the USA, after 7 years, you can have past offenses removed from your record. In fact, you can have all public records removed. I know of a case where a person successfully petitioned a local newspaper to go back and remove the mention of her arrest from their web-accessible archive.
jacquesm 14y ago
> What interpretation should they have taken from it? It wasn't any of their business in the first place, but since they were nosing around where they shouldn't my money would be on 'forgetful'.

by barking 14y ago

Create 14y ago

For example, that since Clinton also answered fraudulently when challenged, he shouldn't be allowed to fly either. Nixon got caught too -- I presume he also did fly afterwards. But obviously some are more equal; 1984 Was Not Supposed To Be An Instruction Manual.

chrisbennet 14y ago
He was turned back because he lied (unknowingly) when the asked him if he'd been arrested.
- betterunix 14y ago
  I have to wonder if they actually expect people to be honest about that. You paid a lot for that plane ticket, and these people can turn you away for what amounts to any arbitrary reason. Would you really want to tell them about how "undesirable" you are?
  - brian_cloutier 14y ago
    Apparently they do, if you are turned away for not being honest.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      You're phrasing this as if he was dishonest, but he may have been merely forgetful. Ask me what I did 20 years ago and I probably wouldn't know either. Was that time I got taken into a police station for driving a French car in the Netherlands an arrest or not? I really don't know and I think if I judged that I'd never been arrested (not charged, nothing heard from since) that I would be on the right side of that line. So this could easily happen to me. Or, it could happen to me if I still came to the US, which I don't.

buro9 14y ago

The UK has a law called the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, within that is the notion of classes of criminal record being spent. I don't know the specifics, but you always have to declare the equivalent of felonies, but for misdemeanours you can lawfully not declare them after some period of time in which your debt is considered repaid and the record spent. The whole of the EU has such laws. I think most people within the EU would regard this as just a part of living in the civilised west. And the most simple part of that is that if you arrested and never charged, or even charged but acquitted during trial, or even arrested and cautioned... then you never need to declare it. You can quite literally forget about it after some relatively short period of time, I think it's a year or 3. Going back to my brother. Never charged, never cautioned, never went to trial, released without any impact whatsoever... just a bad day, worth forgetting and after 20 years definitely forgotten. I think almost everyone I know would've said no to the question quite honestly believing that it's a perfectly reasonable and honest answer.

buro9 14y ago
To reply to myself, the thing that I took away from his telling of this experience and watching his wife almost cry when they got to the part about boarding the plane back with the children... it's this: Every thing that you ever do is recorded somewhere. Every person has a file whether they think they do or not. This file will only ever be used against you. And Europe remembers such a thing... it was only 1990 that the Stasi was dissolved. Yet here we are constructing an even more powerful and permanent version of "a file on everyone". My brother's demonstration was a worker's one, not political. But don't you see that if attending a political rally risks arrest and permanent repercussions, even if you were innocent of everything save for having an opinion... then are we not already at the point in which to hold an alternate political view is to risk inserting something into your file (it exists anyway) which could permanently affect your life. Who knows what the future holds, but for my brother it's unlikely to involve working for a company that ever expects travel to the USA. Thus, one is forced to modify their behaviour to avoid being penalised by the current system. Isn't that what the effect of the Stasi was? I mean, being European, I find it hard to see how history isn't repeating itself on an ever grander scale now that there are tools that allow it to do so.

sp332 14y ago

In the USA, after 7 years, you can have past offenses removed from your record. In fact, you can have all public records removed. I know of a case where a person successfully petitioned a local newspaper to go back and remove the mention of her arrest from their web-accessible archive.

jacquesm 14y ago

> What interpretation should they have taken from it? It wasn't any of their business in the first place, but since they were nosing around where they shouldn't my money would be on 'forgetful'.