US Stops British Muslim Family From Boarding Flight To Visit Disneyland (theguardian.com) 704
An anonymous reader writes: U.S. authorities blocked a British Muslim family from boarding a plane at London's Gatwick airport. They were flying to Los Angeles on a trip to visit Disneyworld. "U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials provided no explanation for why the country refused to allow the family of 11 to board the plane, even though they had been granted travel authorization online ahead of their planned 15 December flight." This comes at a time when prominent groups and individuals within the U.S. are arguing in favor of blocking entrance for all Muslims. The refusal, and the U.S.'s unwillingness to explain, is raising concern within the UK government. The family is out $13,340 for their plane tickets.
There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:2, Insightful)
FTFA
A British Muslim family heading for Disneyland was barred from boarding a flight to Los Angeles by US authorities at London’s Gatwick airport...
Wow, is it true? The US "authorities" have pretty long arms.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Britain will do whatever the US wants them to do and more.
Re: (Score:3)
With that kind of logic you can find similar "links" between people and everything else on this planet. Why isn't there more tech-related articles on the Vatican website? Why isn't there more religion-related articles on the Microsoft website?
Slashdot is a tech-related news website, not a general news website. Your logic is flawed.
Re:No. There aren't. (Score:5, Insightful)
I myself am wondering why this is even news at all. As far as I know, people are inexplicably denied entry to the US all the time, usually just for having a name "similar" to somebody with known terrorist ties. It's probably easier for that to happen if you happen to be from the middle east and have the same first and last name as somebody else from there who DOES have terrorist ties.
But now we're getting "oh it's BECAUSE he was a muslim" and furthemore "Donald Trump is responsible for this" (yes, there's already a few big news outlets that, strangely enough, seem to assume that Trump already has enough influence to revoke Visas.)
Re:No. There aren't. (Score:5, Funny)
That's why I use MasterCard.
Re:No. There aren't. (Score:5, Insightful)
I myself am wondering why this is even news at all. As far as I know, people are inexplicably denied entry to the US all the time, usually just for having a name "similar" to somebody with known terrorist ties. It's probably easier for that to happen if you happen to be from the middle east and have the same first and last name as somebody else from there who DOES have terrorist ties.
But now we're getting "oh it's BECAUSE he was a muslim" and furthemore "Donald Trump is responsible for this" (yes, there's already a few big news outlets that, strangely enough, seem to assume that Trump already has enough influence to revoke Visas.)
Isn't the fact that random people are inexplicably denied entry to the US enough to make it news worthy? Why isn't an explanation given along with a procedure to clear your name if you're incorrectly flagged on a watch list?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not "your rights " the category is "your rights online "
This story still doesn't fit. Even if it was just your rights, a foreigner has a privilege - not a right to enter another country.
Yes, The privilege was revoked and people where inconvenienced but the only rights in play here is the sovereign rights of the U.S..
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
US bound airlines submit lists of passengers to US authorities before departure. Anybody the US won't accept is not allowed to board though the strange thing here is that these people had all applied for visas in advance, and had them approved.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That doesn't ring true. The UK does not need visa approval for US travel. Anyone with a British passport is part of the visa waiver programme, allowing entry to the US for up to three months (plus another three with an extension if you're rich enough), per year. The exception to this are those on the banned list, i.e. criminals and those with suspect pasts from other countries.
There's far more to this story that the click-bait summary.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
The UK does not need visa approval for US travel.
This is not about visa travel. This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Insightful)
> This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.
Heh. But it's abroad, so the US constitution doesn't apply, right? As in Guantanamo?
Folks -- the situation is so fucked up that there are no words to describe it. And it's deteriorating at a vertiginous pace. And we are all happily working on making it worse.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the US Constitution said something about all men being equal. Does it say it doesn't apply to foreigners?
The US constitution says no such thing. Jefferson's declaration of independence has the phrase that all men are created equal [wikipedia.org] first among the list of self-evident truths, but that did not make it into the actual constitution. And of course "all men" for Jefferson in practice meant at best "all white males".
Re: (Score:3)
More accurately, all educated, land-owning Anglo-Saxon males.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct that the Constitution does not address voting rights, other than to assign them to the states. The Constitution does, however, address the equality of people, in ways such as the three-fifths clause.
Besides, what does what the Constitution says have to do with Jefferson's personal beliefs?
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the US Constitution said something about all men being equal. Does it say it doesn't apply to foreigners?
It's a mixed bag. That text is actually from the Declaration of Independence, which is the document which creates the nation but which doesn't determine how it shall be governed. The Constitution is the rules for how the nation is meant to be governed. Rights are enumerated in the ten amendments to the Constitution known as Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org], which was not meant to be an exhaustive enumeration of rights, but in practice... The First amendment has traditionally been held to apply to non-citizens and citizens alike, and it does say that congress shall make no law etc etc, not that it shall make no law which applies to citizens, while in other countries you have long been able to be punished for your speech. Other rights, however, are protected explicitly for The People, which is given to imply of the United States. So 1st everyone, 2nd citizens, 3rd everyone, 4th citizens, 5th-9th everyone... So there's loads of precedent for denying some rights to foreigners.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution's rights only apply to Citizens and permanent legal residents. Tourists and those in the country illegally are at convenience extended Constitutional rights. As far as what you're getting at here with regard to the above article, the Supreme Court has general deferred greatly to executive judgment on who is and isn't allowed into the country. This is also why Donald Trump's idea to ban Muslims is a legal gray area.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are very different documents. "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal..." comes from the Declaration, which was basically a big political "fuck you" to the British government and especially the monarchy. It's not a law and has no legal weight, and unlike the Constitution it is not subject to updates (amendments). Its language might serve as a guide for the country at times - apparently, to such an extent that some people can't tell the difference between document that is merely of historical interest and the highest law of the USA - but the Declaration is merely a historical document, today.
Re: (Score:2)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"
Unfortunately, it was written before evolution bonked the creation myth. These days, there's nothing "self-evident" about it at all.
(Nor any definition of "man" that doesn't beg the question.)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.
Based upon what article?
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about visa travel. This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.
Non-US-citizens don't have a right to free travel in the US, so the use of the list to control entry/exit by non-citizens would be constitutional.
It's unreasonable to block air travel after approving the Visa; however. Unless there is significant logically valid concern about a specific passenger, the authorities should not be blocking people willy-nilly; However, the authorities need the right to do so when the sit
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, it's not like these people couldn't go to Euro-Disney.
Note that forcing them to do that would be a violation of their 8th amendment rights (if they were protected by the US Constitution).
Re: (Score:3)
As an aside, what are your views on the usage of the no-fly list in vetting gun sales idea.
Re: (Score:3)
As an aside, what are your views on the usage of the no-fly list in vetting gun sales idea.
It violates both the second and fifth amendment.
I am not against basic and sensible gun control. That means somewhere in between California and nothing. I am in favor of background checks, with certain caveats; I'm not really sure that this government is qualified to determine who is sane enough to own a firearm, nor that the DSM is an apt basis for classification. I don't really think civilians need auto-fire weaponry, and frankly you can't prevent them from owning the parts to convert their weapon anyway
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
The UK does not need visa approval for US travel. Anyone with a British passport is part of the visa waiver programme.
We Brits don't need visa's, but do need to apply for ESTA (Electronic System for travel Authorisation) from the US in advance, even if we are using the Visa Waiver. This is what the family had done, and been granted travel approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't ring true. The UK does not need visa approval for US travel. Anyone with a British passport is part of the visa waiver programme, allowing entry to the US for up to three months (plus another three with an extension if you're rich enough), per year. The exception to this are those on the banned list, i.e. criminals and those with suspect pasts from other countries.
Yes, but those on the visa waiver program do need to apply for this in advance of travel via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)
https://travel.state.gov/conte... [state.gov]
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
The visa waiver is not automatic, you have to apply to travel via ESTA. That can be denied, in which case you have to apply for a visa. It's not just "criminals and those with suspect pasts" that are denied authorisation via ESTA, there is little transparency about why the DHS flag people, and sometimes it seems almost random. Don't forget that Ted Kennedy got put on the no-fly list by the DHS, and there was never any explanation other than that it was a "mistake". You can bet there are a lot more such "mistakes" for people with arabic-sounding names though, and for people who aren't US senators, the chances of the mistake ever being corrected are low.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't need a visa but you *DO* need to be pre-approved for travel to the US by the ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) which they were. So they had applied for travel authorization in advance, and been granted authorization.
It's not just Muslims - there was a man deported on arrival a couple of years ago because he had used a particular turn of phrase in British English (which is entirely non-threatening in British English, but interpreted as a threat by the US immigration service) on a twitter message. This showed before the Snowden stuff came out plenty of evidence that the US not only trawls social networks, but has mechanisms to match a Twitter pseudonym to an actual live person. Snowden merely confirmed what we could infer already from incidents like this.
Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:3)
The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America."
http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... [bbc.com]
Fucking stupid, but context is everything, except to bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:3)
They had applied for "authorization" in advance, which isn't the same as a visa.
My guess is that this is related to the changes to the Visa Waiver program where people with dual citizenship no longer qualify to use a Visa Waiver. I don't understand why that can't be explained though.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really strange at all. If they wanted to make an arrest, or just get them in for questioning. Telling them OK, come board, is a perfect way to make sure they can be approached and apprehended without a gun battle. If they are serious terrorist, like the US apparently thinks, they could very well be ready for the government to storm their abode (and would not be planning to let they take them alive and without bloodshed). They last terrorist group had stockpiles of guns, ammo, and explosives. A siege of
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
The screening is done at boarding time not because US authorities have long arms. US authorities have no jurisdiction over who does or doesn't board in the UK. What they are saying is "we won't admit this passenger if he shows up at the US border", Since the airline doesn't want to be stuck with passengers with no place to go once they arrive at the US border, they won't even let you board the flight if you wouldn't be admitted.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's true, and it's the airline that denied them boarding, the airline should refund their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really.
The US - and any other country in the world - has the power to stop people entering official flights into their country. It's quite a basic right. We're actually considering it now for Donald Trump.
It's not that the UK "cooperated" with this or anything. The US refused them entry to a flight to the US. I've seen similar things done because the guy in question was someone who didn't have an official visa who they suspected of working illicitly, so they threw him out of the US before and we was
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please, please don't deny Trump access to international flights. We in the US do not want to be stuck with him either.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:5, Informative)
Give it a few more months and a few more gaffes and Donald Trump will be in the same position. The UK flights will deny him boarding even if the US airports let him through security right to the gate, etc.
Donald Trump doesn't fly commercial. He owns a 757-200.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:4, Funny)
There are more and more voices demanding the UN move its HQ to some more neutral place, like Austria, Sweden or Switzerland.
Jerusalem - seems a suitable place to enshrine endless bickering.
Re: (Score:3)
There are more and more voices demanding the UN move its HQ to some more neutral place, like Austria, Sweden or Switzerland.
And just recently, some of those calls have been coming from other countries.
Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:2)
All the overseas airports I've seen recently have a dhs station before you board. Us imperialism ftw. Also, the summary mixed up Disneyland and disneyworld. Get it right!
Re: (Score:2)
"A British Muslim family heading for Disneyland was barred from boarding a flight to Los Angeles by US authorities at Londonâ(TM)s Gatwick airport...
Wow, is it true? The US "authorities" have pretty long arms."
It wouldn't be unusual, I cleared US security at Canada's Ottawa airport once. I cleared British security in Prague and in Narvik, Norway some years ago, closer to 9/11.
Many of the security-paranoid states in the world have security positioned outside of their own territory in foreign airports th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it has benefits for passengers too. The DHS doesn't have this in the UK (it's likely airline staff denied the boarding, not DHS staff). But they do in Dublin. You clear US customs and immigration in Dublin, so on a Dublin to US flight you arrive in a domestic terminal having already cleared customs/immigration. This means you're much less likely to get held up and miss a connection and can have a shorter layover.
Re: (Score:2)
I can just imagine the grand-standing and filibusters in Congress if Canada (gentle, kind, peaceful Canada!) suggested installing polite, respectful Canadian Customs officials in 'Mercan airports, eh.
Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Please recheck your assumptions. There are many international airports in the USA: most large airports near US borders have international flights.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I dont think you can land anywhere else, JFK is the only international airport in the USA, I believe there are buses from that airport to the surrounding states but you are lucky to get a space on the roof of those.
There are over 160 international airports in the United States, and two each in Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
There are 10 non-stop flights from San Francisco to Heathrow on 12 Jan 2016 alone. That's a Tuesday; there are more on other days.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck? How did I get from Manchester, England to Chicago O'Hare, or London, England to Phoenix, Arizona, or Manchester, England to Philadelphia all by plane if JFK was the only international airport which I most definitely have never ever been to?
The US has a metric fuckton of international airports, these are just some of the ones I've been through, and that's before you include giants elsewhere in the US, like LAX.
Re: (Score:2)
EVERY airport in the US that is open to commercial flights is an "international" airport. This was done in part to expand the authority and jurisdiction of US Customs. Customs has always had authority within 50 miles of the border. Making all airports "international", and also increasing the 50 miles to 150 miles has given Customs authority pretty much everywhere on the continent.
Besides, LAX has always been an international airport. I believe Dalls/FW and a few others have been as well.
To summarize (Score:5, Informative)
..what I need to do, as a European, before being able to get into the US: get a ticket, and better pay that with a credit card (if I pay cash, officials at the airport will ask the hell out of me why I paid cash and annoy me with a very tough security check), pay with a credit card some entry fee, at least 3 days ahead of travelling. Let DHS pat me down upon arrival. Of all these things, only getting a ticket makes sense to me, the rest is security-craze-inspired overhead. Solution: I don't travel to the US anymore. My life is easier that way. If a US-based customer wants to meet, tough luck. I now have as solid a reason not to fly to the US anymore as I have not to go to Saudi Arabia, although the nature of the reason is different. Well done, America !
Re:To summarize (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think most Americans care.
You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
What hassle? Last time I went to Europe I was pretty much just waved through customs. When I visit the US, the most stressful part of the trip is going through customs, you never know if the border guard's having a crappy day and might just unload on you. Happened to me once - after questioning me for 10 minutes and then spending another 5 literally yelling at me, he lets me through but not before threatening to bar me from the US for 5 years for a minor paperwork error. Joke's on him though, that soure
Re:To summarize (Score:5, Informative)
The hassle is returning to the US.
Last time I traveled from the US the only part of the trip that gave me a giant hassle was returning home. Pretty much everywhere else was just "scan your passport and go" but the US sent me through a two hour line to get through customs (as a citizen, mind you, there was a different "non-citizen" line) that combined with a delayed flight meant I missed my connecting flight home. Which I then had to go through a giant hassle to rebook because while the (foreign) airline I booked the flight through rebooked me on a new connecting flight, the US-based airline handling that flight refused to give me a boarding pass for that new flight. So then there was a second round of arguing with ticketing agents while jetlagged.
And that was before I had to go through US airport security because foreign airport security doesn't count and the international terminal was a separate part of the airport than the domestic terminal anyway.
It's the same with visiting Canada - getting into Canada as a US citizen is fairly easy. Returning to the US is a couple of hours as you deal with US customs.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> What hassle? Last time I went to Europe I was pretty much just waved through customs.
I wasn't. I have a big fierce black beard, and my face is a summary of Spain's invasion by the Moors and its' effects on European culture, and I had on a big blue cloak made of polar fleece. They did eventually pass me through, but we wound up spending quite a bit of time as he tried to give me the hairy eyeball. I kept expecting Nobby Nobbs to walk into the room and try to steal my pocket, and for them to call on Cap
Re:To summarize (Score:5, Funny)
A CLOAK? You wear a CLOAK? To hell with the beard, the Moorish ancestry, and any other shit you come up with. I'd give anyone in a fucking cloak the hairy eyeball too. WTF is with you people? Wear a coat. Wear a jacket. Wear a nice wool sweater. Don't come sneaking through security in a God-damned CLOAK! Are you a hobbit in disguise?
Re: (Score:3)
Some people know how to dress well, ya know... It's not hist fault if you are a conformist.
Re:To summarize (Score:4, Interesting)
I got that going into Dallas from the immigration officer. First off there were only 3 immigration desks for an entire B767 load of people. Fortunately, for a change, I was near the head of the queue. Now I normally went direct to Houston (where I worked) and Houston had never been a problem, they looked at my visa, asked a two questions or so about my work (I was on an L1 visa) and stamped my passport. But Dallas was another story. The immigration officer was surly and demanded to see my L1 petition. Fortunately I carried it in my hand luggage, and he looked at it and told me "This is a copy. Give me the original" (it wasn't a copy, it had the ink stamp clearly visible of the US Embassy). When I told him he said it was up to his judgement whether he could let me in and next time I may be deported.
Let's not get into the US Embassy in London. When I got the visa I had to go for an "interview". This consisted of sitting in a huge square room with a bunch of other people for about 4 hours. They give you a number, like a supermarket deli (probably the same system!) and you go up when your number is called. The numbers are called in seemingly random order, so you can't read the book you brought because you suspect if you miss your number they won't call it again and they will force you to schedule a new interview. They also leave these "newspapers" around as reading material called "Going USA", the first half of which is dedicated to people who immigrated to the US saying how awful your home country is and how awesome it is they immigrated into the US and are now running a gas station, and the last half is dedicated to how we're not going to give you a visa anyway. Anyway, so my number was called some 4 hours after I got it. The officer asked me one question "how long have you worked for $COMPANY". I told him. That's all he wanted to ask. We could have done it by phone, or he could have requested that from my employer, but instead I have to waste hours travelling to London and back to be asked a simple question with two word answer.
But that's not the best one. Eventually my visa was converted to an H1 to extend my stay a year. It was approved in the US, and all the paperwork was done in the US, but because I had a vacation home I had to get a new visa put in my passport. The US Embassy in London does this. There's another form (requesting all the information you've already supplied to the INS) that the embassy wants. My employer game me the form and I filled in the few things that my employer didn't (basically the same questions on the visa waiver, including the one about "moral turpitude"), enclosed it with my passport. They refused my (already approved!) visa application because they said this form was out of date. So I go to the US Embassy's website and download the new form.
It is Exactly. The. Same. To the letter, *apart* from the issue date at the bottom. Exactly the same. Of course now I have a non-refundable flight ticket that I can't use because another round-trip time of my passport to the embassy means I have to wait another 10 days.
I think part of the problem is these immigration jobs attract certain type of "little Hitler" personality. I'm not saying all the immigration officers are like this (the ones in Houston for example have never been anything except professional and polite). It's not just the US that does this either. My next door neighbour is Albanian and she's exactly the sort of person we want to come to our country - she's well educated, she's an engineer, fluently speaks three languages - but was treated to a degrading Kafkaesque experience by the UK immigration authorities when she was moving here.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Americans working in tourism will care.
Re: (Score:3)
>
You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.
Hassle as in NOT have to pay $15 in advance entry fee? Or Hassle as in NOT have to get a visa? Or hassle as in only have to flick your passport once at the destination airport and then being able to travel to ~20 other countries without a single border control?
Could you give an example of what you're referring to?
And don't blame it on Europe if the "hassle" is only in obtaining a passport because US bureaucracy is as swift as a 70s banana republic's. That's homemmade.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, my point was that I was counting countries [wikipedia.org].
Country. You know, that thing with a common head of state, often federal laws and institutions... well.. a COUNTRY! a friggin run of the mill independant, soverign state.
Please don't tell me you mixed that up with a US state.
If you start now with listing a countries sub units, alone France with about 100 departements would beat you to that.
And if you just tried to counter-troll with that post, you even missed the obvious rebuff of comparing square miles.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think most Americans care.
You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.
You'd be amazed how many Americans don't fly much anymore because of the TSA bullshit, and the fact that with the added delays, you can often drive somewhere as fast as you can fly, and cheaply with current fuel prices. For me, anything that's less than an 8 hr. drive isn't worth even looking at air fares.
For the record, I've traveled to Europe, and found it to be no more hassle than flying inside the U.S. What hassle do you speak of?
Re: (Score:3)
You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.
You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't fly or take trains inside the US anymore either, because it's too much hassle.
Any travel that takes less than a day by car, even if it's a 12 hour drive, is better done that way. You might even arrive faster, and with your luggage and sphincter intact.
Re: (Score:3)
Give a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
The more fans America has around the world, the better. Border guards need to learn how to do their jobs without needlessly pissing people off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Sounds like bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA: "He said that the airline told them that they would not be refunded the $13,340 cost of their flights. They were also forced to return everything they bought at the airport’s duty-free shops before being escorted from the airport."
EU law states that:
If you are denied boarding or your flight is cancelled or overbooked, you are entitled to either:
transport to your final destination using comparable alternative means, or
having your ticket refunded and, where relevant, being returned free of charge to your initial departure point.
http://europa.eu/youreurope/ci... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FAQ is making it clearer what is meant:
Do I have any rights if I am not allowed to board my connecting flight because I arrived late at the gates due to a delay with the first flight?
If the delay to the first flight was within the control of the airline, then you are entitled to compensation for denied boarding on the connecting flight.
You have to read it in context, you don't get a refund for not checking in on time, not being at the gate including behind held by security, not having the necessary travel papers like passport and visa or anything else that's not the fault of the airline. That you don't have valid travel papers is not such circumstances, that the US government might have led you to believe you did is not the airline's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense.
England is part of the UK, and the UK remains a member of the European Union.
EU laws apply.
As for Julian Assange, he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is Ecuadorian sovereign territory, so technically whilst he remains inside there he's not on UK (or EU) soil. As he's technically in Ecuador which doesn't have an extradition treaty, he's safe there.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple Solution (Score:2)
I feel for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Im a UK citizen, im not religious and I am a family man. Stripping back all of race/religion side of this I put myself in their place.
If I have worked hard to save the money up to take my family on holiday, my children are excited to go do what would probably be a once in a life time experience for them. We fill in all the forms get visa do everything by the book. Then on the day just when we are about to get on the plane get told sorry you cant come, oh and all that duty free stuff you have we will be taking that, escorted out like criminals then told oh by the way all that money you worked so far for and paid? your not getting it back.
I would be livid if it happened to just me, I would be would be enraged if it happend to me and my partner, but then to destroy my childrens hopes I would so angry it would be beyond describing in polite converstation.
I would be kicking off to everyone and anyone. I don't care if it politically embarrases heads of state or not. So good on this family for doing the same. Race or religion may or may not have been part of the reason for this but putting that asside no family deserved to be treated in such a manner and if unless you think it would be acceptable for you and your family to be treated as such then its not ok for this family.
I for one hope they get some explanation for this and if its not a good one they damned well better get appologise refunds and someone should make it up to those kids.
Breaking news (Score:5, Funny)
This just in: according to sources there is strong evidence that one of these travellers had links with a terrorist network in Agrabah:
http://time.com/4155228/amierc... [time.com]
Lucky (Score:3)
I was just talking to a guy from India. He was born in India, but holds an Australian passport. He owns his own software company, and he's very successful. Not too long ago he landed in California. He plan: Go look around. He heard it was a great place. It was his first time to the US. At the boarder they pulled him because he couldn't tell him definite plans for his stay in the US. They questioned him for hours, denied him entry and sent him back to Australia. This is a rich guy who speaks perfect English.
My point is: they should be grateful to be turned back in while still in the UK. They could have ended up making the flight for nothing.
btw. Revealing a reason helps the terrors.
false premise (Score:4, Interesting)
The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.
The actual reason may be anything from insufficient funds to cover a family of 11 to documented terrorist connections. Would it be better for US authorities to provide reasons and let people know earlier? Of course. Is there any kind of obligation to do so? No.
Note that the UK bans people from entry for no other reason than that they voice unpopular political views, so the UK government is hardly in a position to criticize other nations over arbitrary exclusions.
Re:false premise (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
> The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.
There is nothing "obviously" false about this. Racism doesn't have to be applied 100% for it to be a very real force in American culture, any more than H1B visas have to be granted for every job in America to depress salaries for technology people in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
why quote something if youre not even going to read it?
from your own quote: "a growing number of British Muslims are being barred from the US without being told the reason for their exclusion".
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the UK bans people from entry for no other reason than that they voice unpopular political views, so the UK government is hardly in a position to criticize other nations over arbitrary exclusions.
Wasn't there a story a few years ago about the home office denying someone entry after they had arrived at Heathrow, simply because he was visiting London and had no concrete plans of what he was going to do?
The list of people barred from entry to the UK reads pretty bizarre, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Martha Stewart? Busta Rhymes? Michael Savage?
Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't care about muslim psy-ops fairy tales. But a few days ago the korean teenage girl pop band "Oh My Girl" was detained for 12 hours and then sent home from LAX, because US border control searched their luggage and decided they must be underage sex workers, based on the wardrobe they brought for a photo-op and a concert.
The incident was pretty big news in Asia, BBC News covered the story twice and even the infamously anti-korean japanese otaku sided with band members. (Who doesn't like kawaii kittens?) US diplomacy salvaged the incident by stating the girls were turned back for not having an appropriate type of employment-allowed visa, even though South Korea is on the visa lift list.
For details and photos, see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35071156/k-pop-group-oh-my-girl-detained-at-la-airport-on-suspicion-of-being-sex-workers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35101815/k-pop-group-oh-my-girl-had-wrong-visa-says-us-customs-and-border-protection
Of course, the story was submitted to Slashdot but didn't make it for lack of M-word in the title...
Re: (Score:2)
So what visa do under age sex workers need?
Re: (Score:3)
So... since you included links to both articles I presume you give at least as much credence to the second article as you do the first. Sorry if that's an incorrect assumption. That being said:
If the details claimed by the DHS in the second article are true then that was not news and matter-o-fact happens all the time. Being someone who travels internationally all the time for work the US is not alone in that distinction either. A band I work for had a tour put together in Japan. The tour organizer did not
Rotten (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that the United States government shit on these people. Whether it was 'legal' or not is irrelevant.
Warning: your government is afraid of you.
Dear world (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I hate to say it, I would say that the best response is to not come to the US for vacation. You can find the equivalent of pretty much anything you might want to see in another country without being treated like a felon from the most wanted list by the DHS and the TSA.
And maybe... just maybe... if the US loses 200 billion dollars a year in tourism income [worldbank.org], our politicians will pull their heads out of their asses and start making some sane national security policies (but I wouldn't hold my breath).
Re:Dear world (Score:5, Interesting)
And maybe... just maybe... if the US loses 200 billion dollars a year in tourism income [worldbank.org], our politicians will pull their heads out of their asses and start making some sane national security policies (but I wouldn't hold my breath).
As an American, I call tell you that that is not very likely. Few Americans directly benefit from foreign tourism. Americans in general are somewhat xenophobic and its not unusual for them to think that everybody on earth except maybe people in Canada lives in absolute third world squalor in their pitiful, sad country. Americans don't really care at all - not at all - if foreigners face severe restrictions on coming here. And doing "tit for tat" isn't going to change things because the majority of Americans have never been outside of North America. If you just look at the group of Americans who've been outside of North America and remove the ones who've only been to the UK or France and never anywhere else, then you're looking at a pretty small subset of people. Most Americans could not possibly care at all if they aren't allowed to visit foreign countries or if it becomes more difficult to do so because they weren't going to do that anyway.
There may or may not be a good reason why this family ran into problems, but we're unlikely to ever know what the real reason was. My guess is the UK family is Pakistani, which going forward is going to become more and more of a red flag to American DHS people, and they may be connected to a mosque that is under US scrutiny. Or it may just be a complete bunch of crap but either way we'll never know. Some of this may also be a complete overreaction to the recent San Bernardino shootings where the wife was Pakistani and DHS completely fell down on the job by failing to look into the fact that her husband had never actually met her in person before their marriage when he filed for the fiancee visa to bring her over here. All I can say is that over a decade ago I filed for a fiancee visa (we never got married as we broke up before the very final steps of the process, but I digress) as did a friend of mine. We both had girlfriends in Eastern Europe. It was really easy to prove my girlfriend and I had met as I had photos of us together and phone records and email that I submitted with the application to prove we had met in person. My application got preliminary approval and basically all we had to do was go through the final steps, including her personal interview, and she was going to get the visa. Proving that she and I met was incredibly easy since we actually had done so. In fact, at that time there was some government website you could go to where you could look up fiancee visa applications that were denied and the most common reason for denial was lack of proof of a personal meeting. Meeting in person before you apply for a fiancee visa is an absolute legal requirement. So it may suck, but I suspect even if there is no terrorism link that the family is Pakistani and they're suffering for the sins of others from Pakistan.
suspicious (Score:2, Funny)
Embarrassment that this is done in my name (Score:4, Interesting)
www.prophetofdoom.net (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of you idiots don't even know the first thing about Islam.
Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...
Islam... in layman's terms
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
Egypt -- 90% Musl
Re: (Score:2)
One of them has possibly been involved in Islamist activities, has known associates involved in Islamist activities, etc.
Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"
Since many Muslims that pray and celebrate holidays are allowed to fly to the US every single day, maybe its not a big stretch to conclude there is another reason this particular group was flagged.
Re: (Score:3)
... maybe its not a big stretch to conclude there is another reason this particular group was flagged.
Yes it is a big stretch. Your comment is just a variation of the just-world fallacy. In real life, the fact that something bad happened to a person or group, something which doesn't normally happens to other people or groups, is not evidence of the existence of a hidden reason for said people or group to deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
They believe in a false god and their religion is fake
Know any religion to which this does NOT apply?
Also an interresting point; muslims believe in the same god as the jews, christians and rastafarians, it's just that they have an extra book, like the mormons.
Re: (Score:2)
From another news article, one of the extended family trip to Disney is an Imam (aka "a priest") and is likely to be a pillar of his community. Just replace the words Islam with Christian to see how bonkers that statement is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if the US genuinely doesn't want the tourism, many other parts of the world will rock up to fill that demand.
Re: (Score:3)
I think any country would rather have an aircraft explode every decade than stop tourism.
Money trumps lives every single time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And two guys travelling with NINE children will be able to pull this off?
Seems to me the sheer effort involved in travelling with more than ONE child would be enough to render any travel plans nightmarish, let alone a plan to commandeer the plane on the way. No.. sit still. All of you. Daddy's just got to... Azim, put that down. Good. Daddy's -- TAMARAH! STOP KICKING THE SEAT, the man in front is angry. Children, stop crying...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
France (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there's Disneyland Paris, but...
...they might be on strike. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as big.
Plus... Paris.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonono, you read that wrong. That was a UK Muslim Family going to the US, not a US family going to Europe.
Hilarious (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, the US lives on tourist dollars, we hardly have any other industry.