One big problem with trying to work out the position is that different sources - and that's different "official" and "expert" sources differ on their definitions. For example, http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article13.htm referred to earlier:
The issue of moral turpitude also arises when persons seek to enter the US on the Visa Waiver Program, for on both the green I-94W form and the ESTA online registration questionnaire applicants are asked whether they have ever been ‘arrested or convicted for an offense (sic) or crime involving moral turpitude.’
(My emphasis)
So it seems that the conditions are exactly the same as if you were convicted of the crime, even if you were tried and found not guilty, or even arrested and released without charge once the police established that the accusation was a pack of lies.
"act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man!
Simon Cowell inflicted the X factor on the USA - and they still let him in.:D
Do you have to a declare a caution which was over 5 years ago? For drunken disorderly
Yes you do. It doesn't matter how much time has passed, whether it's 5years or 50years. The form doesn't questions like:
"Have you been arrested within the last 5years?", It's a straight forward black & white question "Have you ever been arrested?".
It's very hard to say you don't understand the questions to the border agent when their so straight forward. The American's don't care about time frames, they care about the answer.
Yes you do. It doesn't matter how much time has passed, whether it's 5years or 50years. The form doesn't questions like:
"Have you been arrested within the last 5years?", It's a straight forward black & white question "Have you ever been arrested?".
It's very hard to say you don't understand the questions to the border agent when their so straight forward. The American's don't care about time frames, they care about the answer.
There is more to it than just "have you been arrested" though. The question asks about moral turpitude - a list is available and from previous threads I'm sure d&d isn't listed as a moral turpitude crime so technically the answer to the question "have you been arrested for a crime involving moral turpitude" (or however it's written) would be "no" for drunk and disorderly
Let's just turn this thread into another "bash the UK as negatively as we possibly can" type of thread! :rolleyes:
Hmm...quite what was there to object to in the post you are denigrating. The fact is that the US does try to protect itself whereas we are very cavalier about it. No UK bashing at all, just a matter of fact.
There is more to it than just "have you been arrested" though. The question asks about moral turpitude - a list is available and from previous threads I'm sure d&d isn't listed as a moral turpitude crime so technically the answer to the question "have you been arrested for a crime involving moral turpitude" (or however it's written) would be "no" for drunk and disorderly
The question on the ESTA page is
"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
There's a number of questions there with the first one being "Have you ever been arrested". The other questions may very well all be no but if you've ever been arrested then you still have to select Yes.
"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
There's a number of questions there with the first one being "Have you ever been arrested". The other questions may very well all be no but if you've ever been arrested then you still have to select Yes.
Not necessarily, I have been arrested 3 times but none of the crimes [ in my opinion ] involved any degree of Moral Turpitude. So I have answered the question correctly.
In my 9 times entering America my past record of misdemeanours has never been the subject of a question by the Border Officer, they are much more concerned that you have a place to stay in the US, have a return ticket to the UK and you will leave the USA on the date you say you will.
"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
There's a number of questions there with the first one being "Have you ever been arrested". The other questions may very well all be no but if you've ever been arrested then you still have to select Yes.
I would read that as meaning that you only have to declare it if your arrest involved a crime of moral turpitude.
Punctuation is important here. There would surely be a comma after 'have you ever been arrested' if one had to make a declaration just for having been arrested?
I would read that as meaning that you only have to declare it if your arrest involved a crime of moral turpitude.
Punctuation is important here. There would surely be a comma after 'have you ever been arrested' if one had to make a declaration just for having been arrested?
exactly - it's "arrested or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude" i.e. "arrested for a crime involving moral turpitude" or "convicted of a crime of moral turpitude" not "have you been arrested?" "Have you been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude"
Nonsense. I have one and i have been with an official visa. I was even declared permanently intelligible due to the nature of my conviction and they still gave me one.
The OP's partner will have not problem getting one. Its an easy process, but its pretty time consuming.
However if he lies and gets caught lying he will NEVER be able to go.
^^^
This.
Very similar circumstances to me. I was deemed inelligable even though my conviction was spent, but applied for a visa and although it took quite a while and required me to attend a interview it was given me without too many issues. The only problem I had was when I arrived in the USA and the imigration guys didn't quite understand the waiver on my visa. I was held for an hour or so while they contacted Homeland Security to confirm the visa was valid. Having said that they were very polite and almost apologetic that they had to delay me.
Had I not declared the conviction and had been found out then you can bet they wouldn't treated me so well. Not worth the risk IMO.
thanks, its so F****ing annoying on how strict they are if he was a tewrrorist id understand
They aren't saying he won't get a visa, just that they aren't going to automatically allow people with criminal convictions into their country. Seems fair enough to me.
Very similar circumstances to me. I was deemed inelligable even though my conviction was spent, but applied for a visa and although it took quite a while and required me to attend a interview it was given me without too many issues. The only problem I had was when I arrived in the USA and the imigration guys didn't quite understand the waiver on my visa. I was held for an hour or so while they contacted Homeland Security to confirm the visa was valid. Having said that they were very polite and almost apologetic that they had to delay me.
Had I not declared the conviction and had been found out then you can bet they wouldn't treated me so well. Not worth the risk IMO.
Things seem to be getting worse though. The first time i applied for a visa it took about 10 weeks to come through. This time its been 4 months already and they are advising a minimum of 6! Goodness knows how backlogged they are because of their stupid restrictions...
Things seem to be getting worse though. The first time i applied for a visa it took about 10 weeks to come through. This time its been 4 months already and they are advising a minimum of 6! Goodness knows how backlogged they are because of their stupid restrictions...
It was 6 months when I applied a few years a go. I ended up bypassing London and getting mine from Belfast. Managed to get the whole lot done start to finish in 2 months. Although that did involve a trip to Belfast for the interview.
Goodness knows how backlogged they are because of their stupid restrictions...
Why is it stupid? You commit a crime, they interview you to see if you might do it while visiting them. If you're no longer a risk they issue a visa and off you go. It seems a very sensible precaution. No-one wants undesirables entering their country and causing trouble.
Why is it stupid? You commit a crime, they interview you to see if you might do it while visiting them. If you're no longer a risk they issue a visa and off you go. It seems a very sensible precaution. No-one wants undesirables entering their country and causing trouble.
Problem is they are the strictest country on Earth for restrictions. If you look at their Embassy website is clearly states that those who have been arrested jet not necessarily convicted or charged with a crime can't travel under the visa waiver programme. Bit much isn't it?
Of course, the other is how would they know who has an arrest on their record or not? I doubt they have access to the UK police database. Or do they?!!
Why is it stupid? You commit a crime, they interview you to see if you might do it while visiting them. If you're no longer a risk they issue a visa and off you go. It seems a very sensible precaution. No-one wants undesirables entering their country and causing trouble.
Its not getting a visa i mind, its the process you have to go through if you are declared ineligible. (in my case for possession of cannabis 13 years ago)
Its stupid because i have already been granted a visa in the past which involved it being sent to washington to waive the ineligibility,. There has been no change in my circumstances since then (so i am blatantly going to be granted one again), and once again i have to wait whilst it sent off again. As i mentioned the backlog is now 6 months +, so they must be incredibly busy and just creating more pointless work for themselves.
Not to mention the fact that the reason i am in-eligible in the first place is now legal in several US states!
Comments
(My emphasis)
So it seems that the conditions are exactly the same as if you were convicted of the crime, even if you were tried and found not guilty, or even arrested and released without charge once the police established that the accusation was a pack of lies.
Yet, another page on the same site (http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article7.htm) refers only to convictions.
It means:
"act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man!
Simon Cowell inflicted the X factor on the USA - and they still let him in.:D
Yes you do. It doesn't matter how much time has passed, whether it's 5years or 50years. The form doesn't questions like:
"Have you been arrested within the last 5years?", It's a straight forward black & white question "Have you ever been arrested?".
It's very hard to say you don't understand the questions to the border agent when their so straight forward. The American's don't care about time frames, they care about the answer.
There is more to it than just "have you been arrested" though. The question asks about moral turpitude - a list is available and from previous threads I'm sure d&d isn't listed as a moral turpitude crime so technically the answer to the question "have you been arrested for a crime involving moral turpitude" (or however it's written) would be "no" for drunk and disorderly
Hmm...quite what was there to object to in the post you are denigrating. The fact is that the US does try to protect itself whereas we are very cavalier about it. No UK bashing at all, just a matter of fact.
The question on the ESTA page is
"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
There's a number of questions there with the first one being "Have you ever been arrested". The other questions may very well all be no but if you've ever been arrested then you still have to select Yes.
That's why they have over 6 million illegal immigrants. Great border control.
Not necessarily, I have been arrested 3 times but none of the crimes [ in my opinion ] involved any degree of Moral Turpitude. So I have answered the question correctly.
In my 9 times entering America my past record of misdemeanours has never been the subject of a question by the Border Officer, they are much more concerned that you have a place to stay in the US, have a return ticket to the UK and you will leave the USA on the date you say you will.
Punctuation is important here. There would surely be a comma after 'have you ever been arrested' if one had to make a declaration just for having been arrested?
exactly - it's "arrested or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude" i.e. "arrested for a crime involving moral turpitude" or "convicted of a crime of moral turpitude" not "have you been arrested?" "Have you been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude"
I think you'll be OK with "drunken disorderly" but not with "Drunk and Disorderly".
well they do a better job than the uk, everyone entering legally is photographed and finger printed which we should do over here
with a population of 311 million it is a smaller percentage than us and the country isnt full to capacity like ours
they dont hand out free money and houses to illegals either, maybe we should be a lot tougher with illegals
This.
Very similar circumstances to me. I was deemed inelligable even though my conviction was spent, but applied for a visa and although it took quite a while and required me to attend a interview it was given me without too many issues. The only problem I had was when I arrived in the USA and the imigration guys didn't quite understand the waiver on my visa. I was held for an hour or so while they contacted Homeland Security to confirm the visa was valid. Having said that they were very polite and almost apologetic that they had to delay me.
Had I not declared the conviction and had been found out then you can bet they wouldn't treated me so well. Not worth the risk IMO.
They aren't saying he won't get a visa, just that they aren't going to automatically allow people with criminal convictions into their country. Seems fair enough to me.
Things seem to be getting worse though. The first time i applied for a visa it took about 10 weeks to come through. This time its been 4 months already and they are advising a minimum of 6! Goodness knows how backlogged they are because of their stupid restrictions...
Problem is they are the strictest country on Earth for restrictions. If you look at their Embassy website is clearly states that those who have been arrested jet not necessarily convicted or charged with a crime can't travel under the visa waiver programme. Bit much isn't it?
Of course, the other is how would they know who has an arrest on their record or not? I doubt they have access to the UK police database. Or do they?!!
Its not getting a visa i mind, its the process you have to go through if you are declared ineligible. (in my case for possession of cannabis 13 years ago)
Its stupid because i have already been granted a visa in the past which involved it being sent to washington to waive the ineligibility,. There has been no change in my circumstances since then (so i am blatantly going to be granted one again), and once again i have to wait whilst it sent off again. As i mentioned the backlog is now 6 months +, so they must be incredibly busy and just creating more pointless work for themselves.
Not to mention the fact that the reason i am in-eligible in the first place is now legal in several US states!