Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
the Gards messed with the wrong rich kid
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13665
good for you. I have travelled to the US about ten times. In no case would I have entertained the idea of not having a return ticket, because that would have meant instant deportation whether that is mentioned in the offical docments, or not.
But you've never actually been refused entry on the basis that you don't have a return flight? Otherwise, the fact that you wouldn't go there without a return flight doesn't mean that it is not permitted.Immigration officers have to be seen to be doing their job. There may not be anything so bllunt as a table of refusals per employee, I am pretty sure that a Immigration Officer who never stops anyone would be suspect.
And not having a return ticket is a very obvious flag.
It may be a flag but that's far from saying that it is a prerequisite to entering their country. In most cases, they will ask you how you intend to leave and by explaining that you intend to leave by land they can make their mind up. I've never had a problem with this.EDIT: Here is a question about Canadians getting into the US without a return ticket. Not possible there either.
1. Canada, Mexico and Bermuda are not part of the visa waiver scheme so different rules apply.
2. That looks like an internet forum, so what is said there has no greater weight than what is said on boards.
3. Crucially, that site says:If not holding tickets and documents required for return/onward destination entry may be refused and deportation may follow. This depends on the Immigration Authorities.
So it doesn't support your argument that it isn't possible. In fact, a few paragraphs on it says:I have entered the U.S. with no return ticket, though by land rather than air. I was searched, my luggage was searched, my diary (which was in my luggage) was read from start to finish, and I was told to obtain proof of my financial ability to get a return ticket (which just meant that I walked back to a Canadian ATM and got a receipt saying what my balance was). I was detained at the border for about three hours (if I were flying, I would certainly have missed my flight). They eventually let me through but it was touch and go.
So that site suggests (if anything) that it is possible to enter the US without a return flight and it depends on the circumstances, typically being able to show an ability to pay for a flight home if necessary.0 -
If not holding tickets and documents required for return/onward destination entry may be refused and deportation may follow. This depends on the Immigration Authorities.
In that particular case it was Canada. America does have different rules for Canada, although nothing like the Free Travel area from UK to Ireland.
You are splitting hairs. Absolutely no lawyer in the US, or Ireland, or the American Embassy would advise anybody to go to the US without a return ticket. Precisely because it is up to the individual "immigration authorities" as it is here. That is a huge risk.
In general that means you don't get in. In this case, in Ireland, these guys didn't get it. With some other Garda they may have. Thats what at the discretion of the officer means.
In fact in the US you can be refused for no reason. With a valid work visa, and all documentation, you can still not get in. At the discretion of the immigration officer.
As there, here.
Let's move on, shall we. Nothing to see here. Countries have immigration laws. Sometimes that applies to Americans, as well as being applied by Americans.0 -
it is a case of take it or leave it, if we do not like you then we do not want you,0
-
Join Date:Posts: 13665
In that particular case it was Canada. America does have different rules for Canada, although nothing like the Free Travel area from UK to Ireland.
Yeah I know. I said that Canada had different rules in my last post.You are splitting hairs.
You said that it was impossible to get into the US without a return ticket and then rather offensively told me to grow up. I then politely but firmly pointed out the reasons for my belief that you could get into the US without a return ticket, and you have denied this citing a website that demonstrably does not support your point of view. I'm not splitting hairs I made a valid point which you failed to contradict.Absolutely no lawyer in the US, or Ireland, or the American Embassy would advise anybody to go to the US without a return ticket. Precisely because it is up to the individual "immigration authorities" as it is here. That is a huge risk.
In general that means you don't get in. In this case, in Ireland, these guys didn't get it. With some other Garda they may have. Thats what at the discretion of the officer means.
In fact in the US you can be refused for no reason. With a valid work visa, and all documentation, you can still not get in. At the discretion of the immigration officer.
Who in reality would go to a lawyer for such advice? In any event you've shot yourself in the foot by saying that you can be refused for no reason because it is at the discretion of the immigration officer. So you can be refused or accepted whether you have a return ticket or not. Can you dispute this statement?As there, here.
I suspect that there a group of tourists who turn up without an onward flight booked would be afforded an opportunity to explain themselves and when they do so would have been given the benefit of the doubt.Let's move on, shall we. Nothing to see here. Countries have immigration laws. Sometimes that applies to Americans, as well as being applied by Americans.
I agree that both countries have immigration laws. In both countries a visa is not required (for citizens of the other country) and the immigration authorities have a discretion as to who to admit and who to refuse entry to the country to. The debate is not about whether such laws exist, but as to the application of the discretion.0 -
So you can be refused or accepted whether you have a return ticket or not. Can you dispute this statement?
Yes, but you are 100% certain to be denied by the immigration officers if you dont have a return flight booked, and only have a 1% chance of being denied if everything is in order.
I know this because, in a previous job, my work took me to the US so often that I could have been seen to be "living" there. The Lawyers I dealt with - and I mean US lawyers hired by the US company I worked for were absolutely clear on the issue.
This is to paraphrease what they said:
There is no way into the US without a return ticket. No way. Not a way. It is in no way possible. It is not possible. It never happens for people on visa waiver. Not once. Not ever. It will never happen?
Capice?The debate is not about whether such laws exist, but as to the application of the discretion.
There is no discretion on the US side. If you doubt this call up the US embassy and ask them can you get into the US without an onward flight, or return ticket.0 -
Advertisement
-
Or go to their website
Who is eligible to travel visa free?... Depending on when VWP travelers’ passports were issued, different passport requirements apply. READ MORE about passport requirements for VWP travel to the U.S.
-- Traveling for business, pleasure or transit only;
-- Staying in the U.S. for 90 days or less;
-- if entering the U.S. by air or sea is holding a return or onward ticket. If traveling on an electronic ticket, a copy of the itinerary must be carried for presentation to U.S. immigration at the port of entry. Note: Travelers with onward tickets terminating in Mexico, Canada, Bermuda or the Caribbean Islands must be legal permanent residents of these areas;
Lets put this to rest.0 -
never rippet off any persons know matter what country,we have to make a living,how come it all bad abouy taxi persons,obviously you never heard the good stories about taxi people,if your ever stuck in the arse hole of knowhere,taxi persons will never pass you by,just giving you something to think aboutActually she did a crap job because she didn't let in three people that were obviously on holiday and obviously going to spend cash here.
If you are indeed a taxi driver then that was three rich American kids you missed ripping off.0 -
I am glad these three a**holes where not left in. I dont think there would be much sympathy in the states for them.
The official should get credit for doing her job correctly.
Anyway they hadnt much money to spend here. They where going to sleep on someone's couch.
Three less bums in this country.
I wasnt goin to post at all til i found this moronic statement. They had plenty of money, each of the chaps had credit cards which allowed them to book one way tickets to the US for over a grand when they were kicked out, which the lads pointed out to the littler hitler that wouldnt let them in.
The guys also offered to show her their online banking details to prove they had considerable funds to finance their trip. Each of them had been working for the guts of a year saving to make the trip. The were sleeping on couches as this is apparently the new done thing for backpacking and their is some website facilitating this couch holidaying phenomenon.
Offical deserves absolutely no credit for being a totally unreasonable a'hole who displayed no common sense whatsoever, the chaps also outlined a girl who was just before them in the queue who had the exact same lack of documentation, but didnt take quite the same tone as the three lads, even if they were rude and whatever, still no excuse to bar them from the country and send them back home on a 1000€ plus flight.
Yeah 3 bums alright. :rolleyes:0 -
i posted a long reply and somehow lost it.
the distressing thing for me in this thread(though I discovered it years ago) is that the population of this country breaks down 60/40 or 70/30 on any issue.
My friend tells me that the definition of a DOPE is someone who does not agree with him.
In most cases over the years I have been among the lower percentage groups and (IMO) almost always RIGHT. It does not trouble me now that we irish frequently make Wierd decisions, Nice,Lisbon or brought in Wierd laws on Contraception, abortion, postponed divorce, covered up abuse etc), because I was one of the 30 %
the reason I mention this is my dismay at reading the posts of those who think the immigration officer was right in this case.
I believe she was WRONG in every way , and that those who support her action fall into the category of what my friend would call them.
I MEAN NOTHING PERSONAL. IT TAKES ALL SORTS TO HAVE A FORUM.
congrats to SOVTEK, ,VICTOR, KING VICTOR,PAULI, givy joe and JohnnyS
Regards, Rugbyman0 -
have just started reading this thread am am depressed by the attitudes of those who support the expulsion of three US visitors.
It seems we have a national disease of "what about ery". hell rub it into them, sure look at the way they treat us!
Ireland ,thankfully imo, is now trying to ensure that no asylum seekers arrive here. but to repel US tourists is simply ridiculous.
How many of us know of many ,or any ,US citizens that are abusing this countries welfare system, or working without permits?
the comment that got me to reply is this, from Taximan
If these were Brazillian or Chinese backpackers would you be so vociferous with your argument??
Of course not ,because both of these Nations have sizeable numbers of people here, many doing important jobs ,but with a considerable number of illegal immigrants among them.
the likleyhood of US people smuggling themselves in here to then work the system is almost nil.
Regards, Rugbyman0 -
Advertisement
-
have just started reading this thread am am depressed by the attitudes of those who support the expulsion of three US visitors.
It seems we have a national disease of "what about ery". hell rub it into them, sure look at the way they treat us!
Ireland ,thankfully imo, is now trying to ensure that no asylum seekers arrive here. but to repel US tourists is simply ridiculous.
How many of us know of many ,or any ,US citizens that are abusing this countries welfare system, or working without permits?
the comment that got me to reply is this, from Taximan
If these were Brazillian or Chinese backpackers would you be so vociferous with your argument??
Of course not ,because both of these Nations have sizeable numbers of people here, many doing important jobs ,but with a considerable number of illegal immigrants among them.
the likleyhood of US people smuggling themselves in here to then work the system is almost nil.
Regards, Rugbyman
Just to start I dont think anyone believed they were coming here to work illegaly. The arrogance to label those who do not agree with you as dopes is astounding.
I cant understand anyone making a case for three guys who were either too ignorant or too arrogant to bother to check the conditions under which you can gain free entry into this country or any country for that matter.
I have no doubt that many visitors from the US enter quite freely under similar circumstances, but the fact remains that the officer followed official policy. While this may not of been the most common sense approach, it was within her remit.
I consider myself a well travelled person and I would never dream of going anywhere without first checking out the entry requirements. The other fact here is that nobody here knows the full story. The only side we have heard is that of the 3 guys who were refused entry.
This is another case of Irish people trying to pander to the USA to avoid losing tourists. Just because you have an American passport does not give you the right to circumvent official immigration policy.
We submit to fingerprinting and now background checks before we enter the US. Our only requirements are that they provide onward travel details. We rarely complain as we understand there need for tighter border security, but to rail against one of our own officers for doing her job. Ridiculous.0 -
the likleyhood of US people smuggling themselves in here to then work the system is almost nil.
Who cares? They are subject to Irish\UK immigration law, as we are there.It does not trouble me now that we irish frequently make Wierd decisions, Nice,Lisbon or brought in Wierd laws on Contraception, abortion, postponed divorce, covered up abuse etc), because I was one of the 30 %
Your overwhelming category error ( that phrase is probably something you should look up) is assuming that it is the same 70% who think the same way all the time. I suppose you are in favour of the death penalty too, given your contrarian nature.
I am not permitted by the rules of this forum in calling you a dope for not actually making any real point here, except the point that you are in the minority ( which isn't an argument), and it would be backseat modding of me to point out that your argument is mere ad hominem. So I reported your post instead.
I have no idea why this thread continues. I posted the entry criteria for America. In Bold Black Print it says you have to have a return or onward ticket. So too with us. No European can get into America without an onward, or return ticket. And on the day these guys failed to get in, many failed to get into America, and the EU. That happens every day. We are talking about this because one of the guys has a father who works in the media.0 -
If these were Brazillian or Chinese backpackers would you be so vociferous with your argument??
Those of us who support the deportation, of course we would? If they were Chinese backpackers you probably wouldn't support them. But laws have to applied generally, unless there are specific agreements between countries - like Ireland and the UK.
It wouldnt have been on the news.0 -
Two wrongs don't make a right but...
At least they weren't arrested and put in jail - Italian lawyer locked up for 10 days without legal counsel after flying to the US to see his girlfriend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/14visa.htmlNYTimes wrote:Italian’s Detention Illustrates Dangers Foreign Visitors Face
Article Tools Sponsored By
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: May 14, 2008
He was a carefree Italian with a recent law degree from a Roman university. She was “a totally Virginia girl,” as she puts it, raised across the road from George Washington’s home. Their romance, sparked by a 2006 meeting in a supermarket in Rome, soon brought the Italian, Domenico Salerno, on frequent visits to Alexandria, Va., where he was welcomed like a favorite son by the parents and neighbors of his girlfriend, Caitlin Cooper.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Chris Warde-Jones for The New York Times
Domenico Salerno, with his girlfriend, Caitlin Cooper, in Rome on Sunday. He was held for 10 days in the United States after being denied entry.
But on April 29, when Mr. Salerno, 35, presented his passport at Washington Dulles International Airport, a Customs and Border Protection agent refused to let him into the United States. And after hours of questioning, agents would not let him travel back to Rome, either; over his protests in fractured English, he said, they insisted that he had expressed a fear of returning to Italy and had asked for asylum.
Ms. Cooper, 23, who had promised to show her boyfriend another side of her country on this visit — meaning Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon — eventually learned that he had been sent in shackles to a rural Virginia jail. And there he remained for more than 10 days, locked up without charges or legal recourse while Ms. Cooper, her parents and their well-connected neighbors tried everything to get him out.
Mr. Salerno’s case may be extreme, but it underscores the real but little-known dangers that many travelers from Europe and other first-world nations face when they arrive in the United States — problems that can startle Americans as much as their foreign visitors.
“We have a lot of government people here and lobbyists and lawyers and very educated, very savvy Washingtonians,” said Jim Cooper, Ms. Cooper’s father, a businessman, describing the reaction in his neighborhood, the Wessynton subdivision of Alexandria. “They were pretty shocked that the government could do this sort of thing, because it doesn’t happen that often, except to people you never hear about, like Haitians and Guatemalans.”
Each year, thousands of would-be visitors from 27 so-called visa waiver countries are turned away when they present their passports, said Angelica De Cima, a spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection, who said she could not discuss any individual case. In the last seven months, 3,300 people have been rejected and more than 8 million admitted, she said.
Though citizens of those nations do not need visas to enter the United States for as long as 90 days, their admission is up to the discretion of border agents. There are more than 60 grounds for finding someone inadmissible, including a hunch that the person plans to work or immigrate, or evidence of an overstay, however brief, on an earlier visit.
While those turned away are generally sent home on the next flight, “there are occasional circumstances which require further detention to review their cases,” Ms. De Cima said. And because such “arriving aliens” are not considered to be in the United States at all, even if they are in custody, they have none of the legal rights that even illegal immigrants can claim.
Government officials have acknowledged that intensified security since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has sometimes led to the heavy-handed treatment of foreigners caught in a bureaucratic tangle or paperwork errors. But despite encouraging officers to resolve such cases quickly, excesses continue to come to light.
One recent case involved an Icelandic woman who was refused entry at Kennedy Airport because, a dozen years earlier, she had overstayed her visa by three weeks. The woman, Erla Osk Arnardottir Lillendahl, was deported Dec. 10 after what she described as 24 hours of interrogation and humiliating treatment — locked in a cell and barred from making phone calls. The Department of Homeland Security later issued a letter of regret.
In questioning Mr. Salerno, customs agents seemed to suspect that he intended to work here. Ms. Cooper, a copy editor for an educational publication, said she was in the airport lobby when an agent called to ask about Mr. Salerno’s income and why he visited so often.
The youngest son of a prosperous contractor in Calabria, Mr. Salerno helps out in his brother’s law firm in Rome and is able to visit the United States several times a year. Neighbors said he joined volunteers in refurbishing the Wessynton recreation center in 2006, then became one of its summer attractions, kicking a soccer ball with the kids and playing tennis with the adults.
“He just is a very open, fun and helpful guy,” said Christopher M. Porter, a resident of Wessynton.
Ms. Cooper said that at the airport, when she begged to know what was happening to Mr. Salerno, an agent told her, “You know, he should try spending a little more time in his own country.”
Another agent eventually told her to go home because Mr. Salerno was being detained as an asylum-seeker.
“The border patrol officer said to my face that Domenico said he would be killed if he went back to Italy,” she recalled, voicing incredulity that, in his halting English, he could express such a thought. “Also, who on earth would ever seek asylum from Italy?”
Twelve hours later, when Mr. Salerno was granted a five-minute phone call, he called Ms. Cooper and denied saying anything of the kind. Instead, he said, the asylum story seemed to be retaliation for his insisting on speaking to his embassy.
After being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he was taken to the Pamunkey Regional Jail in Hanover, Va., where he ended up in a barracks with 75 other men, including asylum-seekers who told him they had been waiting a year.
Ten days after he landed in Washington, Mr. Salerno was still incarcerated, despite efforts by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and two former immigration prosecutors hired by the Coopers.
“He’s just really scared,” Ms. Cooper said in an interview last Thursday. “He asked me if Virginia has the death penalty.”
Luis Paoli, a lawyer hired by the Coopers, said there was no limit on detention while waiting for an asylum interview. But even after officials agreed the asylum issue had been a mistake, Mr. Salerno was not released.
“Now an innocent European, who has never broken any laws, committed any crimes, or overstayed his visa, is being held in a county jail,” Ms. Cooper wrote in an e-mail message to The New York Times last Wednesday, prompting a reporter’s inquiries.
Less than 24 hours later, immigration officials intervened and arranged to deliver Mr. Salerno to Dulles, where last Friday he flew to Rome. Ms. Cooper, who said she was now considering moving to Italy, was by his side.
Mr. Salerno was still shaken. “In America,” he said, “there are so many good people and beautiful people that don’t deserve to be showing these terrible things to the world.”
It just made me so angry that stupidity is rewarded with a free trip.
And having said that - after visiting 15 countries and 104 cities, I find that once you are prepared and have all documentation in order, customs and border patrol is a breeze.
You have idiots everywhere though - I've heard of lots of stories about Irish people who turn up at a foreign embassy the day before their flight looking for a visa *facepalm*.0 -
i posted a long reply and somehow lost it.
the distressing thing for me in this thread(though I discovered it years ago) is that the population of this country breaks down 60/40 or 70/30 on any issue.
My friend tells me that the definition of a DOPE is someone who does not agree with him.
In most cases over the years I have been among the lower percentage groups and (IMO) almost always RIGHT. It does not trouble me now that we irish frequently make Wierd decisions, Nice,Lisbon or brought in Wierd laws on Contraception, abortion, postponed divorce, covered up abuse etc), because I was one of the 30 %
the reason I mention this is my dismay at reading the posts of those who think the immigration officer was right in this case.
I believe she was WRONG in every way , and that those who support her action fall into the category of what my friend would call them.
I MEAN NOTHING PERSONAL. IT TAKES ALL SORTS TO HAVE A FORUM.
congrats to SOVTEK, ,VICTOR, KING VICTOR,PAULI, givy joe and JohnnyS
Regards, Rugbyman
This is not an argument of any shape of size. Thinking one is right does not make something true. Nor does the safety of numbers mask an argument that has no credibility nor any relevance. At least most of those you praised actually presented and defended a position.
Yes this forum does have all shades on it but even where there are disagreements it tends to be down to taking different views. Beyond the self-praise here and the puerile labelling of dissenting voices there is really not a lot of evidence of any type of position or argument beyond "knowing you are right".0 -
is_that_so wrote: »This is not an argument of any shape of size. Thinking one is right does not make something true. Nor does the safety of numbers mask an argument that has no credibility nor any relevance. At least most of those you praised actually presented and defended a position.
Yes this forum does have all shades on it but even where there are disagreements it tends to be down to taking different views. Beyond the self-praise here and the puerile labelling of dissenting voices there is really not a lot of evidence of any type of position or argument beyond "knowing you are right".
Hello IS tHAT SO,
nothing of what I wrote earlier was intended to be an arguement, merely my comments,my opinion.
I do not seek safety in numbers, i have long accepted that i usually end up in the 30 % camp, but that I feel that is often the right one to be in. majorities dont make something right.
i havent sen one bit in the whole thread where anyone posted an opinion ,with reasonable backing that the officer was right.
regards Rugbyman0 -
but that I feel that is often the right one to be in. majorities dont make something right.
So bascially if this thread went the other way you would be in the other side. That is not an intellectual argument. It is mere buffoonery.i havent sen one bit in the whole thread where anyone posted an opinion ,with reasonable backing that the officer was right.
Then you are incapable of proper understanding. Reading is not the same as understanding stuff.
Lets hear your opinion as to why the immigration officer was wrong to apply the correct procedures to these guys. "I am in the minority" is not an argument.
This case bugs me. It is open and shut. No return ticket. Out on your ass.
There is no actual coutner argument except of the type "era, let them in. They're Americans."0 -
to TAXI PETE29
Pete ,in two of my 275 posts i have criticised people for calling others idiots. my late father told me never to call anyone an idiot ,because it assumed that I was not one myself,and I could not be sure of that.
the story about my friends definition of a dope and connecting that to those who took a certain view stopped short of any name calling, but i dont mean to split hairs.
the reason i am on now is to quote you on two lines,
"While this may not of been the most common sense approach,"
ON THIS I TOTALLY AGREE, only i would word it more strongly, So WE AGREE on this, therefore the ladys following actions were based on a "not the most common sense approach
"Just to start I dont think anyone believed they were coming here to work illegaly" i agree
I think it unlikely they were here to scrounge on our social welfare system, or to out stay their time here.
Clearly the ladys decision was over the top.
regards Rugbyman0 -
to TAXI PETE29
Pete ,in two of my 275 posts i have criticised people for calling others idiots. my late father told me never to call anyone an idiot ,because it assumed that I was not one myself,and I could not be sure of that.
the story about my friends definition of a dope and connecting that to those who took a certain view stopped short of any name calling, but i dont mean to split hairs.
the reason i am on now is to quote you on two lines,
"While this may not of been the most common sense approach,"
ON THIS I TOTALLY AGREE, only i would word it more strongly, So WE AGREE on this, therefore the ladys following actions were based on a "not the most common sense approach
"Just to start I dont think anyone believed they were coming here to work illegaly" i agree
I think it unlikely they were here to scrounge on our social welfare system, or to out stay their time here.
Clearly the ladys decision was over the top.
regards Rugbyman
While I feel she might of taken a different approach she is under no obligation to do so. My argument here is I dont feel the officer in question can be so harshly criticised when she did her job and followed procedure( to the best of our knowledge anyway).0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Well done that immigration official, we need to do something about all those American illegal immigrants flooding into the country, taking all the jobs from all the Chinese, Brazilian and Russian illegal immigrants.:rolleyes:
While she did her job, she sounds like a jobsworth. Meanwhile the country is flooded with real illegal immigrants. A bit of common sense would go a long way.
asdasd, as for the two Irish lads caught by US immigration. Well if there were no illegal Irish in the US then there wouldn't have been a problem. Frankly their story lacks credibility. Both of them fit the obvious criteria. The fact that one was actually previously denied entry is more than a coincidence. Right now more than a few people are thinking about moving to the states illegally. There will be more sent back like that.0 -
What?
We are to let anybody come into this country from America, but have to accept that Irish people - who clearly have no intention of immigrating, since they have come and gone numerous times - can be
1) Stopped after getting past immigration ( in Shannon)
2) Dragged into a room for 4 hours for interrogation ( clearly a bullying tactic by real jobsworths. What real danger are these people to America?)
3) Sent to Jail. Lose their possessions, wear an orange jumpsuit like common criminals.
4) Handcuffed on their way to the Air France flight the next day.
What utter nonsense. We should control borders,and definitely control them using the same criteria as other countries apply to us.
So why are these Americans in this country? Toss em in Jail and deport them tomorrow.0 -
This kind of subservient attirude to America is something we have in common with the British - just look at the extradiction anomalies between the two countries.0
-
-
diverdriver wrote: »
While she did her job, she sounds like a jobsworth. Meanwhile the country is flooded with real illegal immigrants. A bit of common sense would go a long way.
Do you have some figures to back up the "flooded" statement? I'm curious.0 -
I am not a mod but:
I think debates on whether we are "flooded" with illegals or not, is going to drag the thread off-topic. real quickly.
The only reason I can see why we would treat Americans differently than they treat us is real-politick. They come here as tourists at a much higher percentage than we go there, and we certainly dont want to infuriate some Google executive.
Thats an excuse for grinning and bearing it. But I dont like it.
Not one bit.0 -
What?
We are to let anybody come into this country from America, but have to accept that Irish people - who clearly have no intention of immigrating, since they have come and gone numerous times - can be
1) Stopped after getting past immigration ( in Shannon)
2) Dragged into a room for 4 hours for interrogation ( clearly a bullying tactic by real jobsworths. What real danger are these people to America?)
3) Sent to Jail. Lose their possessions, wear an orange jumpsuit like common criminals.
4) Handcuffed on their way to the Air France flight the next day.
What utter nonsense. We should control borders,and definitely control them using the same criteria as other countries apply to us.
So why are these Americans in this country? Toss em in Jail and deport them tomorrow.
That Tribune story lacks a lot of things namely the reasons they were refused entry and the previous behaviour of the travellers.
1) they did not go through immigration in snn, they flew via paris
2) the US immigration authorities actually enforce the law strictly
3) that's the way their system works, maybe we should learn from them
4) again the newspaper fails to state the full story as to what laws they violated0 -
1) they did not go through immigration in snn, they flew via paris
2) the US immigration authorities actually enforce the law strictly
3) that's the way their system works, maybe we should learn from them
4) again the newspaper fails to state the full story
1) Fair enough. Seems a bit silly though, particularly if one of them was refused before.
2) is that an argument for 4 hours of interrogation. why not " You are not getting in sonny, because I can decide that" so off you go to Jail. What were they trying to learn in the 4 hours of interrogation?
3) Indeed, and if we did the American rich kids would be whining even more.
4) The full story is simple: INS officers can refuse entry if they think you are going to stay ( or even for no reason) , and after one refusal you are flagged and are likely to be refused again. So these guys were stopped because one of them was stopped before. And so it goes. It is clearly a bullsiht procedure, since the older guy has gotten in since, but the US allows immigration officers full decision making power.0 -
You can bet that Irish politicians would quickly lose their voice when some of its own voters and/or citizens gets sent back from America. When it is the other way around, they kick up a huge fuss but here we just bend over and ignore it. It is disgusting.0
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement