While that is true, if you cannot satisfy the U.S. Department of Immigration by truthfully answering NO to questions like have you been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude etc., then you will have to apply for a B1 or B2 visa at the U.S. Embassy in Grosvenor Square, London W1, or maybe a provincial Consulate.
If this is refused that's it, you won't even be allowed to get on a U.S. bound plane, let alone enter the country.
I know a guy who was initially given a B2 visa that lasted for the two weeks that his first trip to New York lasted, he had to re-apply for a visa for every subsequent trip that he made, eventually, after about his tenth trip, he was told at the U.S. Embassy that he was being granted a multiple entry visa that would last the life of his passport, as the U.S. authorities no longer considered him a possible threat, probably as he'd broken no laws here or there for about eighteen years, since his first trip to New York.
I wonder how expensive it is in general going through the whole Visa process. I remember I once looked it up as I was thinking of going and didn't know if I needed a visa or not and this was around 10 years ago and just to make calls to the US embassy or whoever took the calls was mega expensive. I can't remember the exact call rate but I'm pretty sure back then it was either the best part of a pound or even a lot more than that per minute! I think it also said that if people are given visas they have to notify the US embassy in person when they return to the UK. Is that still the case?
Also what if people are given visas to go to the US but they share the same name as someone on the US no fly lists? Or can't that happen? Do they check peoples names against that list before issuing a visa? What if they do but US officials on the other side don't realise that or stop them from entering the US anyway? Will people have wasted their money in going there and not be able to get refunds on their travel arrangements?
Bit more vague than that - drug possession is a crime of moral turpitude whereas some forms of assault aren't.
However, it's unlikely the Americans will know of your criminal past in the UK so the questions are pretty pointless from a security point of view.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that, I'd think that there has always been sharing between the U.S. and the U.K., and other countries too on this subject, particularly since 9/11.
I am not sure why I am getting a lecture on what it is and isn't from you and another poster? I know very well how it works thanks. I was responding to another poster who talked about an ESta and a Visa Waiver as if they were two different things.
You may mean me MTUK, the guy I mentioned in Post 65, (think it was 65), had to get his first waiver in 1976, bicentennial year, well before 9/11, and in those days there was no ESTA, everyone had to apply for a visa I think.
It gives me the impression that it refers to sexual crimes, rape etc., but apparently it covers more than that.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that, I'd think that there has always been sharing between the U.S. and the U.K., and other countries too on this subject, particularly since 9/11.
You may mean me MTUK, the guy I mentioned in Post 65, (think it was 65), had to get his first waiver in 1976, bicentennial year, well before 9/11, and in those days there was no ESTA, everyone had to apply for a visa I think.
Yet the Americans have always been able to visit visa free long before the visa waiver programme was introduced, why is that?!?! :mad:
Yet the Americans have always been able to visit visa free long before the visa waiver programme was introduced, why is that?!?! :mad:
They have to apply for visas as well if they have convictions. Mike Tyson has been refused a visa in the last few years. I'm pretty sure P Diddy/Puff daddy got banned coming here and did maybe Snoop dog once.
They have to apply for visas as well if they have convictions. Mike Tyson has been refused a visa in the last few years. I'm pretty sure P Diddy/Puff daddy got banned coming here and did maybe Snoop dog once.
Yes they did, as did Duane Chapman from Dog The Bounty Hunter, all because he was merely the witness of a murder one of his friends committed apparently! :mad:
Yes they did, as did Duane Chapman from Dog The Bounty Hunter, all because he was merely the witness of a murder one of his friends committed apparently! :mad:
IIRC Duane Chapman also broke several laws in Mexico, didn't he go over the border to try and catch someone when Mexican law doesn't allow for semi legalised kidnapping by private American citizens...
Which would probably be enough for a lot of countries to be wary of letting him in.
It is quite likely he was given a reason. If you are turned away from Immigration upon arrival in the US they will make a note in your passport with a set of numbers and figures on it. That will tell you.
Not saying it wasn't mistaken identity though or something similar
The couple were still on board the cruise ship in Honduras prior to passing through the Panama canal en-route to Los Angeles when they were 'dumped' on the quay side.
Well even in this country a landlord can ask you to leave their pub and doesn't need to give any reason whatsoever. Usually something happens for them to ask you to leave, but they don't have to at all. It works on the principle of it's their place and so they can do whatever they wish at any time and decide who is or is not allowed there. The same with countries: They don't have to make sense and can be wrong and rude, but they can do as they wish.
Ironic that pubs are deemed as private places under the trespass laws and yet defined as a public place under the "Smoking in enclosed public places" law.
So basically you can be totally innocent of anything and yet treated like a criminal and have no recourse to anything or even an explanation.
I once walked into a nightclub and just after walking through the door, someone I'd never met before pushed me flat on my back onto the dance floor. The Bouncers through us both out. I tried to explain but they were not interested. It's embarrassing having you arm forced up your back and frogmarched out, but there is sod all you can do about it.
I don't think this a relevant analogy!.
You are comparing someone missing out on a drink or two in a UK pub to/with an elderly, disabled couple, mid-cruise, being threatened with jail in the USA if they didn't disembark in Honduras and having to find their own way home at a cost of £000s, without explanation other than Mr Garnett's visa had been revoked. The former is a minor trivial incident, the latter having major cost and financial implications.
I'm not even sure it's that news worthy, the US has very tight controls it might be that earlier in life one of the couple had some history, it doesn't necessarily have to lead to a criminal conviction. If the US won't say why (and they probably won't) then all they have to say is that they have their reasons.
There might be an appeal process the couple's insurance should hopefully cover out of pocket costs.
I mean, why even ask if they already know about your past?
All a bit pointless as either they have full access to British criminal records or they are totally relying on the person telling the truth: The non-criminal will have nothing to admit and the criminal will just lie!
So all a bit pointless unless someone is a real major criminal that has been added to everyone's black list.
All a bit pointless as either they have full access to British criminal records or they are totally relying on the person telling the truth: The non-criminal will have nothing to admit and the criminal will just lie!
So all a bit pointless unless someone is a real major criminal that has been added to everyone's black list.
Most do tell the truth and apply for a visa instead if they have a criminal history. However, I've read of cases of people not declaring their criminal past and getting in on the visa waiver programme as recently as a few months ago! :eek:
You are comparing someone missing out on a drink or two in a UK pub to/with an elderly, disabled couple, mid-cruise, being threatened with jail in the USA if they didn't disembark in Honduras and having to find their own way home at a cost of £000s, without explanation other than Mr Garnett's visa had been revoked. The former is a minor trivial incident, the latter having major cost and financial implications.
The analogy was obviously about rights: IE the person in power has them and can do as they wish.
I was not putting a subjective monetary value or inconvenience or moral into the argument.
Most do tell the truth and apply for a visa instead if they have a criminal history. However, I've read of cases of people not declaring their criminal past and getting in on the visa waiver programme as recently as a few months ago! :eek:
It's typical of authorities/Governments: Say nothing and have people think you know everything when in fact they know nothing or very little.
As I said, if someone is a high profile known criminal then they probably know about it, but if someone was convicted by arrested by their local Bobby some time ago for having too much weed on them, then chances are they won't know about it.
On a side note: When I got a job at Eurotunnel security you have to be vetted to quiet high levels and they kept saying "You must put absolutely everything on the vetting form as they will know if you are lying". Of course the question was asked "Well if they know everything can't they just provide a print-out and I'll sign it!"
It's typical of authorities/Governments: Say nothing and have people think you know everything when in fact they know nothing or very little.
As I said, if someone is a high profile known criminal then they probably know about it, but if someone was convicted by arrested by their local Bobby some time ago for having too much weed on them, then chances are they won't know about it.
On a side note: When I got a job at Eurotunnel security you have to be vetted to quiet high levels and they kept saying "You must put absolutely everything on the vetting form as they will know if you are lying". Of course the question was asked "Well if they know everything can't they just provide a print-out and I'll sign it!"
They don't say they will know, not on the ones I have seen. A lot of it is part of honesty and integrity, they run checks on the information you've given them plus they do a standard set of checks as well. They inform you that if you are dishonest it can lead to your clearance being rejected where it may otherwise have been accepted if you had been honest as integrity and honesty are the most important things.
All a bit high-brow for someone wanting a weekend in New York.
No I'm replying to your clearance post, not the couple going to the US.
On the couple, ESTA from memory is just a simple set of drop downs to select from for auto approval, if you did lie on there though about not having a criminal record and they check and you do, then obviously it would invalidate ESTA and the visa waiver would be invalid and your entry to the US would be rejected.
Comments
Doesn't matter now, they don't ask that any more on the ESTA application.
I wonder how expensive it is in general going through the whole Visa process. I remember I once looked it up as I was thinking of going and didn't know if I needed a visa or not and this was around 10 years ago and just to make calls to the US embassy or whoever took the calls was mega expensive. I can't remember the exact call rate but I'm pretty sure back then it was either the best part of a pound or even a lot more than that per minute! I think it also said that if people are given visas they have to notify the US embassy in person when they return to the UK. Is that still the case?
Also what if people are given visas to go to the US but they share the same name as someone on the US no fly lists? Or can't that happen? Do they check peoples names against that list before issuing a visa? What if they do but US officials on the other side don't realise that or stop them from entering the US anyway? Will people have wasted their money in going there and not be able to get refunds on their travel arrangements?
I mean, why even ask if they already know about your past?
It gives me the impression that it refers to sexual crimes, rape etc., but apparently it covers more than that.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that, I'd think that there has always been sharing between the U.S. and the U.K., and other countries too on this subject, particularly since 9/11.
You may mean me MTUK, the guy I mentioned in Post 65, (think it was 65), had to get his first waiver in 1976, bicentennial year, well before 9/11, and in those days there was no ESTA, everyone had to apply for a visa I think.
They have to apply for visas as well if they have convictions. Mike Tyson has been refused a visa in the last few years. I'm pretty sure P Diddy/Puff daddy got banned coming here and did maybe Snoop dog once.
Yes they did, as did Duane Chapman from Dog The Bounty Hunter, all because he was merely the witness of a murder one of his friends committed apparently! :mad:
IIRC Duane Chapman also broke several laws in Mexico, didn't he go over the border to try and catch someone when Mexican law doesn't allow for semi legalised kidnapping by private American citizens...
Which would probably be enough for a lot of countries to be wary of letting him in.
The couple were still on board the cruise ship in Honduras prior to passing through the Panama canal en-route to Los Angeles when they were 'dumped' on the quay side.
I don't think this a relevant analogy!.
You are comparing someone missing out on a drink or two in a UK pub to/with an elderly, disabled couple, mid-cruise, being threatened with jail in the USA if they didn't disembark in Honduras and having to find their own way home at a cost of £000s, without explanation other than Mr Garnett's visa had been revoked. The former is a minor trivial incident, the latter having major cost and financial implications.
Better late than never, extract also referred to by another poster, i.e. from a cruiser's forum:
http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2190855
However I cannot find any newspaper coverage I can only repeat that I personally watched the TV feature last week.
That's just a link to another forum though and even the second post there says "would have been good to have more information".
I'm beginning to have my suspicions that the whole thing was windup fiction in an attempt to make a fast buck.
The story may get picked up in next days
There might be an appeal process the couple's insurance should hopefully cover out of pocket costs.
This website keeps freezing/crashing my PC....anyone else having problems?
All a bit pointless as either they have full access to British criminal records or they are totally relying on the person telling the truth: The non-criminal will have nothing to admit and the criminal will just lie!
So all a bit pointless unless someone is a real major criminal that has been added to everyone's black list.
The analogy was obviously about rights: IE the person in power has them and can do as they wish.
I was not putting a subjective monetary value or inconvenience or moral into the argument.
Happens to some people every time they try to fly to the states.
I really do not know why people choose to go to the USA if they are treated the way I keep reading.
It's typical of authorities/Governments: Say nothing and have people think you know everything when in fact they know nothing or very little.
As I said, if someone is a high profile known criminal then they probably know about it, but if someone was convicted by arrested by their local Bobby some time ago for having too much weed on them, then chances are they won't know about it.
On a side note: When I got a job at Eurotunnel security you have to be vetted to quiet high levels and they kept saying "You must put absolutely everything on the vetting form as they will know if you are lying". Of course the question was asked "Well if they know everything can't they just provide a print-out and I'll sign it!"
They don't say they will know, not on the ones I have seen. A lot of it is part of honesty and integrity, they run checks on the information you've given them plus they do a standard set of checks as well. They inform you that if you are dishonest it can lead to your clearance being rejected where it may otherwise have been accepted if you had been honest as integrity and honesty are the most important things.
All a bit high-brow for someone wanting a weekend in New York.
No I'm replying to your clearance post, not the couple going to the US.
On the couple, ESTA from memory is just a simple set of drop downs to select from for auto approval, if you did lie on there though about not having a criminal record and they check and you do, then obviously it would invalidate ESTA and the visa waiver would be invalid and your entry to the US would be rejected.