Visa Officer:Your Name? How can I help you
Me: Dr XYZ. I would like to apply for a visitor visa to Canada
Visa Officer: Why would you like to go to Canada
Me: I have been invited to speak at a conference
Visa Officer: Hmm I see.
Me: Is there a problem?
Visa Officer: You see, you are not allowed to do public speaking on a visitor visa. You will have to apply a visa for public speaking which takes longer and requires additional formalities and checks.
Me: Oh, I see. I am surprised that is the case, I go around the world to conferences and it seems unusual in Canada.
Visa Officer: Can I ask you a question
Visa Officer (with a smile): Would you say that your main purpose of applying the visa is to attend the conference and you will be sharing your professional and not political views.
Me: Yes. Absolutely!
Visa Officer: You should then get a visitor visa which will be ready tomorrow after 4. Remember, when asked say that you are attending the conference. Enjoy Canada
Leave it up to them to ask more details. I wasn't a speaker at my last conference, but I could have been. But my conversation at the border was something like: "Why are you visiting Canada?" / "To go to a conference" / "Where is the conference?" / "Downtown" / "How long will you stay?" / "3 days" / "Ok, welcome to Canada".
When US CBP asked if I was "presenting, or attending", I did NOT take the opportunity to explain that everyone was expected to participate and present :)
I know that b/c my lifestyle is sometimes "unusual" while at the same time I have a strong inherent tendency to be very correct and "overly" honest. :D
"Why are you visiting Canada?"
"I"m here for a conference"
"What's the conference about?"
"Computer vision, you know, programming research"
"How long are you staying?"
There was a point on the outbound journey where they were checking everyone's passports by the scanner (i.e. you'd go through and everyone would set the alarm off, but it seemed to be a passport check rather than anything else), as soon as they saw it was British they lost interest.
It does, the lineups at Toronto's Pearson Int'l airport are longer for Canadians in my experience.
This is very good advice, anyone prepping for depositions would have heard it already but it works very well for border personnel too.
On the other hand, I've gotten across with no delay at all by saying "I'm picking up a friend at the Vancouver airport" and "I'm going to go buy this drill press off of Craigslist -- see this printout?" Neither of those is illegal, and in neither case can they expect you to have hotel reservations or know any Canadians, etc.
One of my favourite parts about driving to the border is going through scenarios with my passengers, and how to answer each question.
Honesty might get you in trouble, but thats still probably a better place to be than trying to lie your way out
So, sort of the same strategy used for patent claims?
The thing is, these laws are not meant to apply to "you", and the enforcement officers understand that - these laws are designed for people from lower-income countries seeking prolonged employment, i.e., economic migration; not first-world travelers that happen to earn some money while on the trip - the immigration officers entire reason of existence is to detect and prevent the former, while the latter doesn't matter, so they understand all the factors but since it's hard to draw an exact line, these laws do apply to e.g. conference speakers as well, and if you explicitly disclose to them that yes, you intend to do some paid job during your trip, then they pretty much have to deport you, and it's much harder for them to turn a blind eye and follow just the intent/goal of that law.
I wonder if the immigration officers described here actually thought they were being fair, because they were applying the law as written to a white American, even though the law was not written to keep out white Americans.
Which is to say, we can be horrified by the attitudes of the officers, but it's the law that needs to be changed, not their attitudes.
I remember once we were traveling by road to Waterloo, to meet some buddies. We picked up those 1.5L bottles of booze, one each. That's 6L of booze in the car. At the Buffalo border, the dialog went like this:
Guard: where are you going?
We: Niagara Falls, just for the evening (we were afraid that they might now allow us in if we admitted to partying in Waterloo)
Guard: are you bringing in anything?
We: This booze.
Guard: As a gift for someone?
We: No, just for ourselves.
Guard: (incredulously) You'll drink that by yourselves?
Guard: (rolls eyes) OK, come on in.
I was flying home from England to Sweden and going through the inspection before departure. The guy checking me could tell that I was upset about it all, having to remove my belt and maybe even my shoes. When we were done, he had the greatest line: "Thank you for your cooperation, from Mr. Obama."
We all play the game, but to not know the game is surprising. Hack the system, sure. But know you are hacking at least.
(I'm assuming OPs presentation was work related)
It's easy for politicians to ignore these problems, as they will almost never affect their own citizens. A similar situation exists with the NSA abusing the privacy of foreigners - after all, they're not US citizens, so why should they care? At least the Border Force appeared to be more-or-less following the rules (twisted as they might be) in this particular instance.
I am an immigrant; my children, who were born in UK, are not. They might be second-generation this or that (lasagne lovers from Cheshire? Northern-England pizza connoisseurs?) but they cannot be immigrants because they. did. not. immigrate. anywhere. Logic and reason are very clear on the matter.
I think you just wanted to say "second generation nonwhite Muslims", which is correct as well as much clearer on the matter and nature of the hatred.
I have been a migrant in Australia. I know what that is. I expect my country to require the same respect from people we welcome.
Mainstream parties do absolutely nothing in this direction.
I do not mind about nationals who have been French for more than one generation, who belong here, provided they don't burn the French flag like they do so often. Burning the flag is only the emerged part of the iceberg for the little respect some have for their host country - They feel like they belong to the Arabic cause more than they belong to country who provides the free schools they've been to). Burning the French flag should be cause for prison or visa cancellation, but y'know, "we need diversity"...
Even our French Minister of Justice refuses to sing the Marseillaise. I'm really fed up with the floppiness of mainstream parties.
It's usually safe to assume that you can have legal representation, unless you are being accused of something that is a diplomatic, political, or military dispute.
The right to leave and the right to privacy primarily.
The real problem is that there is no accountability in these organisations. Even if a complaint by Rachel triggered an investigation, the culture in organisations like this is to protect their own. The worst that is likely to happen is that those responsible would be given "words of advice", which is more like a pat on the back than a slap on the wrist.
1: Incidentally, the Border Force is part of the Home Office, which is led by Theresa May, who is behind the push for 1984-style mass surveillance of the UK population.
And who is also advocating that the UK leaves the European Convention on Human Rights. All these things are connected.
So when we sleep walk into a mass surveillance state I can honestly look at the people who live around me and say 'this is your damn fault'.
This is of course exacerbated by circumstance. In that harsh situation, like in any prison (effectively what it is), people mob together into their tribes, and in this particular situation, those tribes are based on nationality.
If not in this situation then when? We must place expectations on people in positions of power over others to treat all people fairly regardless of race. People should be judged by their actions. Those in positions of power who violate the trust we put in them should be punished.
To argue like the police or guards are somehow allowed to throw a tantrum is just incredible. If they can't do their job in stressful situations they're not qualified, period.
Pro tip: Enter the UK from Ireland. There is no document check. No annoying border guard questions! No body at all. Just walk on through.
With Ryanair this will set you back a whole 30-50 bucks. Plus you can choose your London airport.
When arriving in Ireland, tell them your purpose is to drink a real Guinness! And maybe learn how to dance the jig.
Political elites the world over are the weakest in a century, so they react acting tough. They never actually have to deal with the fallout.
Assuming that's reasonably accurate, it is hard to imagine how spending half your day every day just reading about people who are probably the worst of the worst in many cases could not have a profound effect on how you view the world.
Whether anyone so deeply immersed in such a biased view should be expected to serve in such a position for more than a short period of time, and whether they should be responsible for making judgements about much of anything else during that period, are entirely different questions.
In general, it's not really practical to vilify individuals over policies and the actions of the bureaucracy -- that's different from not holding them responsible for things they're responsible for, but it's too easy to forget that Snooper's Charter was voted out of committee 444 to 69 a few days ago. They're all rotten.
Why not both?
1) What's your nationality as shown on your passport?
2) What are you coming to the UK to do?
Tourism, including visiting friends or family
Work, academic visit or business
Transit (on your way to somewhere else)
Join partner or family for a long stay
Get married or enter into a civil partnership
Visit your child at school
Get private medical treatment
For official diplomatic or government business (including transit through the UK)
3) How long are you planning to work in the UK for?
Answering USA, Work, less than 6 months takes you to this page: https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/usa/work/six_months_or_le...
That was ast updated on 9th June, so let's look at archive.org - they have 2 snapshots, one of which is from May 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150509170713/https://www.gov.u...
At the top, in bigger font and bolded font are the words "You may need to apply for a visa".
It links to the standard visitor visa: https://web.archive.org/web/20150518091959/https://www.gov.u...
That page says:
If you visit the UK on business
You can apply for a Standard Visitor visa if you want to visit the UK for business-related activities, eg:
you’re coming to the UK for a conference, meeting or training
No matter how it's described I can't imagine why people feel it's okay to travel to a different country to take part in a business meeting (even if that's unpaid) without either getting a visa or getting good quality legal advice.
My anger here is reserved for the conference organisers who didn't say "We don't know, let us ask a lawyer".
We need to get those people a job in the Department of Motor Vehicles where they belong.
> the young immigrations officer at LHR was very inquisitive about this old friend I was going to meet while I was in London for a conference: Who was he? Where did he live? What was our relationship? My awkward answers and copious fear sweating must have been unsatisfactory,...
The officer is trying to determine whether she is coming for a brief visit, or secretly planning to stay for a long time. That's their primary purpose in life. Expect these questions, and give the answers matter-of-factly.
> I just wanted to tell him what he wanted. But somehow that wasn’t enough. He tried to play games to prove something, but I didn’t seem to play along the way he hoped
It's an interrogation. Which is exactly like a game. It's their job. The secret trick is to tell the truth.
> I told him point blank: there is nothing I can tell you to make you happy. I have to be very careful what information I volunteer, because if I talk too much, you get angry. And now if I don’t talk enough, you get angry.
Translation, "I have something to hide and I just want to manipulate you". He doesn't want to hear what makes him happy, he wants to hear the facts. After this they really had no choice but to send her back, even if they were leaning the other way.
It's almost better to take as a cautionary tale about acknowledging your limits. Maybe asking for some rest and legal counsel could have helped. Maybe that would have angered them more.
And maybe her responses were very poorly considered and antagonistic. That, combined with the accidental violation of visa rules, seems like grounds for a brief delay and a fine. It doesn't seem like a good reason for a detention of many hours and deportation.
But violation of visa rules on entry results in being refused entry, anywhere you go.
I'm not saying that's good or right, I'm just saying that's how it works. You're asking permission to enter the country, and their job is to confirm that you're entering legally.
He plainly states that he is not defending anything. And is offering useful advice. Remember it the next time you need to cross a border.
I'm going to assume that the person in this article, after seemingly traveling around the world for conferences as part of her regular activities, has some basic understanding of what you should do at a border.
So here's what I see when I read the GP:
- Hah, bad luck. But it's on you.
- I wouldn't end up in this situation, because I know how the system works
- "The secret trick is to tell the truth." (Except that part of the interview goes wrong when she honestly cannot remember if she got paid 2 years ago and admits as much)
Getting back: What is wrong with that assessment? Basically everything, but mostly the tone and the attitude.
The point to take home is not how this person would perform so much better than the OP. Is which variables we can control to decrease the chance of such escalations. We can control some, but ultimately it's up to the immigration officers and host country laws.
As for the trick. It is not a trick, it is something you need to do. The actual trick is not volunteering more information than necessary.
"Hi officer. I'm mostly here for a vacation, but there will be a day where I'll speak at a conference, and another where I'll distribute resumés and meet employees from several companies to expand my network, in the hopes of getting a job with one that will sponsor a visa in the future, even though I know most will be there for the free labor. It's called a hackaton. Also, I think you'd look better without those glasses."
Not telling the truth can get you a trip back at a port of entry. Or handcuffs at a consulate or embassy. Doesn't mean you need to tell them everything going through your mind at the time.
1) "She didn't have the right visa and therefor wasn't allowed to enter/had to leave"
Fine. Bad for her. Her fault. Figure this out in 30-60min and help her to figure out a way to head back home.
2) "You should say … and not …" suggestions.
Awful. Especially combined with all the "Just state the truth. But try to avoid saying …" ideas. I really feel that these are out of place. Just look at this thread. You're trained to answer according to the protocol, instead of stating the truth.
3) _Anyone_ suggesting that the "detention" for hours at a time in a grimy place without any contact to the outside world and decent legal counsel is a valid reaction, whatever the potential immigrant failed to explain?
In that case, you are quite messed up in my world. I wonder what's wrong with you.
(the you in this case isn't addressed at the parent - it's the general "if the shoe fits" kind of thing)
That's just terrible and should be a human rights violation. AT THE VERY LEAST the emergency contact that you are required to provide should be informed of your whereabouts.
You're the better person.
The thing is: When you're in front of someone that is (my experience, matching the article) somewhere between unfriendly, annoyed and power-hungry and you KNOW that this person decides about your next couple of hours (or departure), rational advise by other people probably isn't the first thing to consider.
I know that I start to react differently in a car as soon as a police car is driving in my vincinity. I know that I personally felt like shit at most airport/border controls.
Yes, I could totally write a bot to answer with 'attend' vs 'speak' and 'vacation' vs 'work' for various answers. The rules of the game (it's a game. A terrible game) are easy enough. That doesn't change the fact that humans might get stuck, feel out of place, get anxious etc. etc..
The GP (and you in this kinder version) are flying across the sky here. Is it a plane? No, it's Captain Obvious.
You (both) are right. But the advise doesn't matter. The damage was done (for what benefit? Protecting the UK against .. what?) and I'd bet that the OP knows these guidelines as well.
Here's another thing: What good is a border control if all guidelines state that you should say basically nothing and fall back to "I'm on vacation" / "I'm visiting a conference" if pressed? If the .. helpful posts online try to explain how you might game the system or at least avoid suspicion? Look at all the threads here and you'll find people saying that you should just state this or that. That you shouldn't communicate something or another. Basically the tenor is that you should withhold information or (well, basically the same thing) lie to have it easy. It's messed up.
(Again: I think that you expressed the idea quite a bit less aggressive / accusatorily (if that's even a real word) though)
> The thing is: When you're in front of someone that is (my experience, matching the article) somewhere between unfriendly, annoyed and power-hungry and you KNOW that this person decides about your next couple of hours (or departure), rational advise by other people probably isn't the first thing to consider.
This is true. I avoided visiting my sister in the US for YEARS after my first contact with immigration authorities. And I wasn't even detained, just delayed for a couple of hours and had to wait in this room with other people. I've yet to visit Japan again, though. And it's been 16 years now.
> I know that I start to react differently in a car as soon as a police car is driving in my vincinity.
Yeap. The first time (and to this date, only) I was stopped by CHP, I was shaking. Not because I had done anything wrong, but it was precisely for the reason you describe. And I was treated in a very polite way, documentation checked, good to go have a nice day. I can imagine a less polite encounter wouldn't have gone so well.
It is all about power and how easily these people can screw up with you if they so desire. Thankfully, most people are just there for their jobs and have no intention of doing so.
In a sane system, we shouldn't have to rely on what someone's mood is in a specific day.
This is almost certainly not true (or he probably couldn't let anyone through according to protocol). They often just want to hear the right words spoken at the right times. See the top comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877590) as a blatant (but positive) example of this.
'Sorry ma'am you cannot have that visa, you'll have to get temporary visitor visa instead - please note you can't work, enjoy your HOLIDAY'. A civilised country wouldn't even need to interview her. They're not fit to control anything bigger than a cloakroom.
Potential international speakers should also be warned this is also true of the US - except for certain types of academic institution (INA 212(q)). The UK also allows it via https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa but again, only for arts or academia. A commercial conference doesn't count, annoyingly (or even a community conference that merely happened to offer honoraria). However, if you are being paid by your employer to attend a conference to speak, it is fine (big disclaimer: IANAL).
Related from a few years ago, Uncle Bob was turned away from the UK: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282583 - but I'm pretty sure he has been back since.
I try to follow the "say as little necessary to answer the question" advice. Out of numerous trips, I've only ever gotten to mentioning speaking once. Every other time, "why are you entering [country]?" gets "to attend an industry conference", and that's usually the end of it.
Thus applying for a tourist visa then overstaying is often the easiest way to illegally immigrate---especially in a country like the USA, where there are plenty of non-standard jobs available to do where no one is asking for ID or work status.
Some of the rich-country governments, when granting tourist visas to people from poor countries, also look for proof that the visitor has a strong reason to return to their country, which can include things like owning property there, having a family there, or having a hard-to-transfer professional license like a law license. People from poor countries who don't have these things often can't get tourist visas at all, even if they can prove they can support themselves for the duration of their visits, because the consular officers often assume intent to overstay the visa.
For example, I've heard this about Brazilians trying to get tourist visas for the U.S.: the main question is not so much "can you pay for this trip?" as "why will you come back to Brazil afterward?".
Edit: And I don't think the consular agents in these situations are satisfied by someone's having a round-trip ticket (that "proof of intent to exit").
There's a twist in the way US immigration law works:
> because the consular officers often assume intent to overstay the visa
They are required to by law and regulations. The burden is on you to prove you have enough ties to your home country to go back before your time is up.
Depending on how old you are, being enrolled in college and traveling during vacations is enough. A little older, having a decent job is a good sign. Being a software engineer, for instance, is better, no matter if the janitor who was denied before you had money in his account. I've never been asked to show any sort of financial proof whatsoever. For the US, at least.
They also look into your family. If one of them has overstayed a visa or otherwise done bad things in the eyes of the immigration authorities, you'll have a really hard time. Or an easier time, if they have done everything right.
Now, suppose you have a relative who has applied your permanent residence. And then you decide to visit them for vacation while that is ongoing (can take more than a decade). You now have intent to immigrate, the application itself is the proof. Good luck.
I've also heard this about the Philippines and Nigeria.
But maybe Brazil has the largest number of would-be tourists who experience this level of skepticism.
Clearly analogous situations such as performers coming in to play music on a stage, or actors to perform one-man shows, are supported by existing visas. Seems this is a case where the legislation needs adjusting.
Occasionally someone high-profile has a visa denied: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/28/musicnews.music
These acts and laws only give legitimacy to discriminate and harass travellers of certain backgrounds, yet failing to add any measure of security.
I and my family were traveling back home to Boston. Coincidentally, the Indian grandparents of close friends of ours were on the same flight to visit said friends. Like most old Indian ladies, the grandma was wearing traditional clothes (nothing fancy). They didn't speak much English.
They were detained at Logan. Fortunately, my mother (a US citizen) was allowed to be with them as a translator. They had them sit in this room for a long time, after which they asked arbitrary and silly questions.
That room was full of other old, non-white people wearing non-American clothing or "religious symbols" (e.g.a turban). Many didn't speak the language. Most were scared and confused. It was pretty clear that the officers just wanted to harass people.
If my mother hadn't been there the grandparents would have had a much more gruelling experience and would have probably been stuck there for a while.
It's possible they didn't have any motive, and the composition of that room was just a fluke. But I don't think it's likely.
Yes, dumb-ass, power hungry, bored border guards probably abuse this policy, but the alternative is to treat everyone the same and everyone gets quizzed, or not. It's a bind, what is the solution?
The author was right when she observed that we have done this to ourselves.
What my worry is, though, that all of the application processes are outsourced to VFS Global for both USA and UK, and I can't help but be skeptic about it.
At VFS Global, however, I see the "visa interviewer" struggling to handle the computers, and can't help but be worried about how they'll be transmitting and storing that data. My personal experience with Indian firms handling data hasn't been good and I certainly do not trust them.
 They're also Indians, and employed by the firm.
 I have only this anecdote -- I am not sure about how it is done elsewhere.
"Warning.... an alien that accepts unauthorized employment is subject to deportation"
Thanks guys, it's great to be back ^_^
I figure my fingerprints will be in the system decades after I die.
My favourite is a receipt I have for "Alien Flight Student", which required even more screening and fingerprinting. I'm still waiting for them to bring out the flying saucers...
I totally believe it, but now I'm wondering about in what cases this policy is applied.
The program used to be called US-VISIT, and has now been expanded into something called OBIM. There's much more information online under the former name.
Did you fly in? I imagine it only happens at airports, not at land borders
(I'm from the UK and I had my fingerprints taken at JFK)
All others, including ESTA or visa holders have to go through this every, single time. Souce: I was in the US 10+ times in the last 3 years and don't have a US nor Canadian passport.
To be fair: my best modern airport experience was US as well. Denver was just awesome, really surprisingly quick and amazingly effective (that's where I lost my key-tool with a 12mm blade I thought was legal and that went with me through several airports prior to Denver.)
Unfortunately this exact kind of treatment is common at the US border. Search for: denied port of entry nightmare.
I guess when you see scores of people trying to scam the system you get hard nosed about it in time.
It's human nature - if the people she faced deal with people who are trying to scam the system 90% of the time, they will be conditioned to deal with such individuals.
Then when the 1 out of 10 comes across who is genuinely NOT trying to pull a scam, it will be very hard for them to turn their attitude 180 degrees.
Ie I think the majority of the ordeal stems from this - not ill-handling on the part of staff who work there.
"..where a young man somberly asked me what brought me to the UK.
“I’m giving a talk at a conference then traveling to see a bit of England. I have a letter of invitation,” I replied, confidently handing over the requested documents."
Just say "A short vacation", whether it is or not. Don't give the agent any more information than they need. Throughout her entire encounter with the agents, she was giving way more information than she needed to, which was prompting further questions.
"Attending a conference" would have been true. The fact that she was a speaker as well is additional information that she could disclose if asked.
"A short vacation" could work, but beware. Depending on the country, this could get a flight back very quickly. Taking the US as an example: there's a "tourism" visa, and there's a "business", which includes attending conferences. For convenience, they have been issuing both at the same time if you ask for it on your application. However, if you only have the "tourism" visa, and it turns out that you are doing non-touristic activities at any time (such as going to a conference) and you don't have the required visa for that, you will be turned back.
As for the letter of invitation, if things are going smoothly, then it is not needed. If things start to look like they aren't going so well, then you pull out the letter of invitation.
Any information you volunteer opens new avenues for questioning. At some point you might be misinterpreted or be asked follow up questions that you don't recall. That never helps.
I don't wish this sort of experience to anyone. But the thing is, she's complaining as if the UK was an outlier. Her country does the same things, only worse.
Disclaimer: My views may be biased, but they are from experience.
Spent 4 hours to go through japanese immigration once - with my uncle, who is a citizen, in the next room(which I couldn't see) to check my answers. Were it not for him, I would have been sent back for sure.
Several US visas issued in the last few years, no rejections. No issues per se, other than navigating the amount of paperwork required (and double, triple, quadruple checking any information before submitting) and the required traveling. There's also the research required to make damn sure I was complying with all requirements.
Spent some time in a "yellow room" at the Atlanta port of entry. Consulate had messed up my fingerprints.
Went through immigration through Portugal a few times. No issues, even if they had to double check my info.
If you say "here for a quick vacation", then they search your belongings and find an agenda for a conference or business papers, you can be sure you'll be denied entry.
In Japan they did just that (after a few hours had passed already). They asked for some document (don't remember what), I pulled it from something similar to a file folder and handed to them. Was then asked to leave everything in the room and escorted back.
They found a list of phone numbers and addresses and asked what those were. They were for Prometric test centers. I was trying to get a Compaq certification at a time, Had already done two tests, was missing the third. I couldn't wait until after I came back from vacation due to a deadline, so had to take the third one there. Had to explain all this in Portuguese to a Spanish translator, to get that translated to Japanese.
I'm still amazed that they let me in. Took the test in Tokyo. Then HP bought Compaq. Poof the certification went.
I was even asked if I was religious. I had this postcard with a christian theme from my grandma to my aunt.
No one will check you visa at the conference. So, while not lying about it, there is no reason to be open about it either since you will never get "caught".
When you volunteer a lot of information you come across as nervous, and sketchy
Innocent people should not have to avoid being truthful or complete in their answers just to avoid arousing "suspicion". Innocent people should not have to know ahead-of-time that giving honest and complete answers to an official will lead to this kind of treatment. This kind of treatment should not be acceptable under any circumstances for people who are actually innocent and/or have not done anything that would cause suspicion in a reasonable person. Giving complete answers is not reasonable grounds for suspicion.
What you're saying may be good advice in practical terms, but implying it's a sensible default is basically surrendering to an insane, broken system.
I question your statement that she "certainly" was violating the law. She and the conference organizers had researched the situation beforehand and attempted to obtain the correct visa. The publicly available information about the visa programs did not specify that the nationality of the company sponsoring the conference made a difference. You state "the reason that she had for entering the UK did require a visa that she had to obtain before traveling" but according to her research after the fact the truth is that the reason that she had for entering the UK was not supported by any sort of visa.
And even if there would have been no appropriate visa to apply for that means the UK does not want those people in. Turning up at the border and requesting entry based on a reason not allowed on the visa-free program is not a solution no matter how wrong the situation feels.
Moral responsibility and causality are two different things.
The other thing about volunteering extra information is it can come back to bite you if you're not consistent next time, so I also try being as vague but still truthful as possible. If I was visiting anywhere else but Canada, though, I wouldn't have any problems skipping the whole drama with "I'm traveling for a vacation" and "nope, not meeting anyone I know" regardless of whether that is true or not.
Border crossing is basically a hazing ritual in a lot of places, and while I agree with GP's "this was her mistake" it really is dumb we all have to put up with the hazing. Kind of like not bribing a cop in [insert south american nation here] who is giving you trouble, or bribing him with way too much money. Some people just don't get that there are dumb, sucky customs where not following them (or trying to follow what they think is the most honest or rational process) is a mistake and complaining about the mistake after the fact won't solve anything.
Interestingly enough, me and my colleagues were pulled aside for additional questioning because two of us didn't own cars (we both live in Seattle and bus everywhere). For some reason the Canadian border agent simply didn't believe that people in the US don't own cars! We were able to go through after the manager of the team we were going to meet had been called to verify our story.
She would have a 0.1% chance of being denied future visits vs the 50% chance of going through the experience she faced.
He could have nodded along and said 'I hope you have a good opening joke' or he could go down the route it ultimately went.
Whoever is reading this: don't take advice you read on the Internet regarding these types of things. Just this thread alone contains a ton of misinformation that can get you in big trouble.
Border crossings are one of those utterly weird situations where not knowing what's up will put you at odds with people who have zero respect for your convenience or comfort and are perfectly willing to remove you from both. And you won't learn what's up the first, second, third, or even fourth time you go through. You have to first appreciate the gravity of the situation and then second learn what you have to in order to gain successful passage.
Borders are where ordinary people run right smack into geopolitics. Most of us have learned the lesson from others to not bring plants or currency across borders, and not to say you're working without a work visa, but there's lots of other things that can fuck you over.
I learn something every time I read a story like this. In this case it's about the necessity of not giving the appearance of tax avoidance. This particular situation had nothing to do with security, they weren't worried about her trying to attack the UK.
Does this sound realistic?
I certainly would not bring any documents. If I really needed hard copies, then beforehand I would scan them and upload them to Dropbox, then print them back out after I step off the plane.
I'd bring a cheap burner phone and keep my contacts in the cloud, with a short list of essential names / numbers in my wallet. If asked about the clean phone, I'd just say I'm worried about theft.
That way, when I tell them I'm just there for a vacation, they have no reason not to believe me, and even if they didn't, no inconsistency to start grilling me on.
For hotel booking, I'd simply tell them the name of the hotel I'm actually staying at. If they want to verify, they can call the hotel, I am not going to volunteer a booking printout.
If you were to look in my car at any given time, you would find nothing immediately visible. This is both to deter someone looking to break into my car to steal something, and law enforcement officials looking for something to mess with me over. I hold to the same principle when traveling. Stay clean and nondescript when moving through dangerous territory.
I would take these steps whether I'm actually going for a vacation or not. I would never travel to another country willingly unless I could follow this protocol. It's just too dangerous.
Edit: can't add a reply to the followup question anymore. So I add it here. Google, all your 007 travel style will break down if the find your name via Google on the speaker list.
They'd first need me to give them a reason to Google my name.
If you're nondescript, then you don't arouse this kind of suspicion in the first place.
Whether or not it "just works", or how often people do it, that is just insane.
But that's not the question. The question is whether or not it's better to lie about why you're travelling. Now, for some percentage of the time it probably is better in practice. But it's a trade with a fairly large downside. Border agents have lots of reasons to carry out checks so you'll need to be very sure that everything else is completely fine and be lucky you don't hit a random check.
And they do check. I've had to vouch for people at airports and they've checked social media, Google etc. For the lady in the article, it sounds like what she went through was solely for flouting work laws (and being rude but that would have just affected the degree of surliness). You get caught for directly lying and they'll be all over you for illegal immigration/terrorism. I would expect that to be more lengthy and more unpleasant than the unfortunate lady experienced.
My advice? If you want to earn money in a foreign country do it legally. At the very least check with the consulate/embassy and get their answer in writing if possible.
It hit home to me a few years ago when I was travelling between the US and UK a fair amount. One time I arrived in JFK and realised that all the ATMs were down. I also realised that I had travelled thousands of miles and hadn't bothered to carry any local currency. It hadn't occurred to me that this was a bit stupid because, well, it hadn't been a problem before. Was a bit of a wake up call to think a bit more in future.
I think the important part is that she visited for a second time. They already had her in the database and flagged her for some reason.
Imagine how fast things would change if the president had to go through the TSA.
I don't think they would change at all.
30 minutes or an hour of time is inconsequential compared to the political (and non-political...) calculations that are made by someone in an office like that. People tend to be far more conservative when given actual decision-making power, and care much more about the big picture calculations than about their personal annoyances.
More-over, lots of congress people do fly commercial and yet support the TSA (either politically or actually).
Because they use pre-check. And congresspeople get access to the top of the tiered justice system in America so they don't care about the liberty implications of Pre-Check.
> When I was finally able to talk to my husband again, one of the very first things he told me was, “Don’t blame yourself for being truthful.”
Very true. Your response goes into a "bin" (or a checkmark on a form). There are only so many bins there. One for terrorists, one for migrant workers, one for tourists. Self employed web developers, who are paid by a German company, do not fit in any of the bins. But they'll still try to pick one.
The lesson bureaucracy is teaching people is to lie. Even though officially on paper they warn people to tell the truth. To put it another way. Consider who you are talking to and decide if they can handle the truth. A bureaucracy and its minions cannot handle it. Or rather, they'll handle it at your detriment.
If she had bothered to apply for the correct VISA there wouldn't have been an issue, but they clearly feel they are a special little snowflake because animation API is more important than a standardised work VISA system.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your assertion. Honesty and preparation IS the best policy. Imagine if I'd lied when I was detained in Tampa because of some missing clearance the US Embassy in London had forgotten to do. I had to wait hours in a holding area. I'd paid $200 USD for that. One little lie and the situation would have been far worse.
Secondly, her intent was to do something beneficial in the country. Whatever your views on on web animation, she was part of an event that brought visitors, economic activity, and tax revenues to the country. Conceivably, the border control agency could have satisfied their rules and not denied their country the benefits of her visit -- by simply charging her a fee for last-minute changes to her visa terms. That would serve as a lesson and deterrent, without subjecting a person who didn't have any malicious intent to a long detention.
And don't kid yourself about lying. Lying here doesn't mean "would a fair court judge your statements as true", it means "did the particular agent who interviewed you think you might be lying". There is tremendous discretion for the officers involved, and they get it wrong sometimes. If you think that never happens, you'll support naive systems that have pretty high rates of injustice.
Sure, its a travesty that some passports have this privilege over others, but you can't blame her for underpreperation.
Her point about the animation api is relevant, because visa criteria involve whether or not someone local can provide the same workshop.
There's no evidence presented in this article to support the author's many claims that the UK immigration system discriminates on a racial "people who look like us" basis. ("It seems to me..." does not count as evidence.)
Yes, the immigration bureaucracy is badly broken. Yes, the laws are in many cases stupid and ought to be changed. No, latent racism, sexism, or classism are not in any way factors -- at least based on the events described in this article. The very basis of the article -- a middle class professional white woman from the US was deported because she broke the rules, despite her "looks like us" appearance -- is evidence to the contrary.
The one time in the article when she meets someone who might possibly be a racist (which is not even clear), the possible-racist even says that "the rules" always prevent her from ever acting on any of her possibly-racist impulses. Doesn't that mean the system is actually working pretty well in terms of preventing racist factors from entering into its operation?
That whole "people who look like us" theme is fearmongering, pandering to those who both love to speculate wildly about others' motives without evidence, and who are also consumed by liberal guilt. (The only thing missing is a "glance of solidarity" somewhere.)
She is understandably angry that she was deported, and feels like publicly shaming the system that deported her, so she picks a favorite pet issue (hidden racism) that has cachet in society and projects it onto that system, without any supporting evidence at all.
Now, if there is actual evidence of racism in some system, that's another matter entirely. But "it seems to me.." is not, in itself, evidence, it's just unfounded guessing and speculation designed to rile people up into a fit of righteous indignation, on an emotional rather than rational basis.
As an immigrant to the UK (and now citizen), the single-mindedness in which "The Rules" are applied have been extremely frustrating. But at no point have I thought that it wasn't fair. I've had a visa application rejected and lost £350 in the process. I didn't follow the rules to the letter and I literally paid for it. Since then I've always followed the guidelines and not had an issue since.
> The very basis of the article -- a middle class professional white woman from the US was deported because she broke the rules, despite her "looks like us" appearance -- is evidence to the contrary.
The fact that she can't see the irony just reeks of privilege.
One thing for sure is: you have to know the visa requirements and you have to answer what they want to hear. That's true everywhere - USA included - so you're just lucky as a USA citizen to never go through the USA interview process.
Unfortunately, the majority likely doesn't care at all when some 'snotty' designer gets held up at the airport and sent back to her home country. "Probably deserves it anyway in some way, doesn't she?" In fact, resentfulness towards people who get to 'live the life' and travel for 'work' might play a role here, too.
The aspect of a German company paying her in British pounds. shouldn't be a problem at all. After all, that's what the EU single market should be about. Theoretically, that is ... It seems as if the EU can't get anything right anymore these days, though.
Just claiming VAT you payed in another EU country has become so ridiculously complex I have given up on it. Fortunately, in my case it's just things like the occasional conference fee so the loss is minimal but I can't imagine how anyone could run say an eCommerce business in Europe and sell in more than one EU country these days without having to resort to founding a company in each of those countries.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with visa classifications, and the skittishness of countries about people visiting (or, the concern is, immigrating) to do work.
As far as I know in Germany the same rule applies as in Austria: you need to have the amount in EUR on the invoice at least in addition of another currency with an exchange rate.
I wish more sites/people would follow this author's lead.
> The room’s only other occupants were men. I do not feel comfortable in rooms full of men I do not know with the door closed.
Why? This doesn't make sense. What does she think is going to happen? Are most men really presumed to be rapists or something?
With regards to the rest of your question; I don't think most men are presumed to be rapists and I don't think that is what the author means. There are also many other forms or perceived threats of violence that can make people uncomfortable.
There are multiple studies on the topic of male/female group dynamics that you might find interesting to read on this topic.
It's just a probabilistic calculation based on experience. A lot of guys won't step up if another guy starts harassing you, because they'll be bowing to the pressure of the crowd and out of "politeness" to their male compatriots won't say anything. If there were several women in there to start with, it would be less likely that harassment would start and more likely that someone would intervene, although it's by no means guaranteed.
We're not talking about rape, here. It's as simple as the creepy conversations that start, "Hey, honey, why're you in here? What's your name?" and proceed to boundary-pushing that you physically can't escape from in a small room like that. And none of the other guys are going to intervene with that, because they're not going to see it as boundary-pushing and harassment. (Hell, my own husband has said, "What's wrong with that, he's just trying to make conversation!" when there's been that sliding a little closer, trying to get personal details, what's your name where do you live what did you come here for do you have a boyfriend.) Another woman might notice and deflect. I certainly have.
Many guys would say, what's wrong with being forced into a conversation in a locked room? It's the lack of choice, the lack of escape. Being forced to deal with monitoring whether you'll be safe, whether the interaction is innocuous or not, what you're revealing, again how it could be used against you, the cajoling if you don't want to talk ("smile! it can't be that bad! I just want to talk! at least you're getting out soon... where are you going?") at 30 hours without sleep -- just not fun.
American businessmen I stood next to in line at immigration? Perhaps they had companies like IBM and Microsoft backing them, legitimizing their travel and threatening big trouble for anyone interfering. Two women
I honestly do not think that gender had anything to do with this, and it's a little weird to shoehorn it in.
She can't talk about her experience with USA treatment of non-citizens because she didn't experience it. Though she did call it out in the article: And it goes both ways: a colleague I immensely respect will no longer speak or hold workshops in the USA because he was denied entry at our border in a similar process.
Also, although I've never been detained or turned away, I can say that every time I've been to the UK, the border guards and security agents have uniformly been very, very rude.
Why do you assume the US is worse than the UK? Do you have a source?
Experienced this at US border a few months ago. Officers repeatedly referred to my wife and another man's wife (both Chinese) as "bitches". After flying 12 hours from Hong Kong and not wanting to be put back on a plane, the best you can do is shut up and play their games until they let you through.
I was also told by the officer that I was stupid for having shown my visa and "nobody does that" (I'm a Canadian who works in the US, I was under the impression I had to show it each time I re-entered... still confused about what he meant).
Was there a thought that foreign speakers who were subsidized by foreign governments were inciting rebellion?
Are there tax issues?
Was this some big money laundering loophole or something?
Is there a concern that people were using this as figleaf to immigrate illegally?
This is, sadly, not a new problem. It's been a problem for touring musicians for decades.
She was travelling for work. She, and the conference, failed to get good enough legal advice about the travel requirements.
Here' the page she links to: https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/usa/work/six_months_or_le...
Read that and tell me you'd travel how she did without getting more advice.
> If you’re invited as an expert
> You can stay in the UK for up to 1 month without a visa, but you can only be paid to do certain things, eg:
> give guest lectures at a higher education institution
> provide advocacy in legal proceedings
> take part in arts, entertainment or sporting activities
> Check the full list of what you can be paid to do - it’s the same as what you can do on a Permitted Paid Engagement visa.
Think about it, if you're in the UK but being "paid" by a German company, are you really paying the right kind of taxes? What's to stop every major corp from having the Cayman Islands branch hire you.
Usually people working for foreign corps end up actually being contractors (and paying self-employment taxes or whatnot).
They can't actually do that, any refusal has to be signed off by the duty head of the port (IIRC; I presume each terminal at LHR has a separate one!), as far as I'm aware.
Curiously, the US prefers this for temporary visitors. If you are being paid by a company outside the US to speak at a US conference, it's fine, but you are not allowed to be paid by a "US source". I guess the theory is being paid by a non-US source means you're "on business" rather than "working in the US".
so ingrained that people from all over the world live in the UK.
Depending on where you're flying, that could include multiple baggage searches and multiple biometric photos (flying OUT of the UK, I counted three - security, a secondary queue before entering the terminal concourse, and at the gate). Questioning why you're being photographed (let alone asking about data retention policies) just invites further scrutiny and questioning.
Recently I had my bag emptied (I wasn't allowed to unpack it carefully) and was questioned very rigorously as to why I was carrying so many cables (I had a micro-USB cable to charge my phone, a laptop charger, and an HDMI cable to watch some Netflix at the hotel). I had to justify each item in my bag.
The attitude is the worst part. I feel like I'm being treated like a criminal and have to prove that I'm not. Every time I travel in or out, I feel the anxiety rise. It's difficult to explain.
That's not to suggest Glasgow Intl Airport is much better. Flying to the US last month, I check-in queues for AA were enormous. Some staff (I assumed they were customer service agents trying to keep the queuing travellers happy) were walking up and down, chatting with people.
They cheerily asked "Where are you going?". "Oh that's exciting. Have you been before? I love that city! Did you have to save up much spending money for an 8 day trip? What are you planning to do when you're there?"
As the questions went on, I got more suspicious.
"What do you do for a living? Oh that sounds exciting. Did you grow up in Glasgow? What about your fiancée, what does she do? Oh, you got engaged in the US? How long was that trip and what did you see when you were there?"
At the end, the guy asked for my passport and attached a "Security cleared" sticker to it.
I'd been surreptitiously interviewed and subject to behavioural profiling by staff from a contractor named ICTS . It wasn't a good feeling. I felt deceived. It felt like they were putting a friendly face on trying to catch me out.
This only seemed to be happening in the AA line, and I've never been subject to this sort of interview in the past.
Does this actually work? I'd assume that any determined terrorist or trouble-maker would have a big smile and a well-rehearsed story.
(After clicking the link I noticed that it's actually founded by former Israeli intelligence workers.)
I can understand the need for more compromise somewhere like Israel where there's a very visible and real terror threat. It's perhaps a more applicable system in that environment. We don't have that here - I don't think it's particularly useful given the threat landscape in the UK.
Perhaps at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland, where there was a tangible threat of terrorism.
If we're to be interviewed in line by security officers, I'd prefer that they identify themselves as such and make it clear that this is a security screening and not just a friendly chat from a genuinely interested CS agent. To do otherwise just seems deceitful.
Edit: To add, while I don't necessarily agree with your assessment, I did upvote your comment - I think it adds to the discussion and provides some valuable perspective.
FWIW, Virgin has slapped tons of these on my passport without such an interview. They appear to be applied once you have answered the mandatory questions around your baggage (i.e. did you pack it yourself? are there any prohibited items?)
We were asked the standard baggage questions by the check-in agent. The ICTS thing was something completely different and new to us.
When we got to the gate, the same group of covert screeners were there waiting for us and doing additional screening.
I showed my passport to the gate agent, took three steps (past the desk, onto the jet bridge, and had to show it again to ICTS contractor. It seemed ridiculous and redundant. By this point, I'd shown my passport at least five times (ICTS queue interview, check-in desk, security, gate, ICTS again).
We weren't asked anything about completion of an ESTA or API. It definitely felt like more of a security/behavioural screening - not a check on visa or travel eligibility.
If this was the case, they'd have made their intentions clear and wouldn't have been at the gate waiting to re-check passengers. Or that check would have been performed at the check-in desk, where they check your eligibility to travel (correct documentation, tickets, etc).
I do suspect, however, that they're contracted by the airline. They weren't in any other airline's check-in queue and we've never seen them in the past (this was our first time flying AA).
Depending on airline, I've had them do the standard "did you pack everything yourself?" questions and attempt to determine my eligibility to enter the destination country. I haven't yet encountered them in the behaviour screening role, though.
I believe the Israel uses this technique as well.
Here's the "do you need a visa" website. https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa
Walk through it. She's from the USA. She's travelling for work, academic or business. She's planning to stay less than six months.
Here's the result:https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/usa/work/six_months_or_le...
You don't need a visa for some business and academic visits, but you must get a visa to work in the UK.
You may be able to come to the UK without a visa if you:
are invited as an expert in your profession
come for other business or academic activities
If you’re invited as an expert
You can stay in the UK for up to 1 month without a visa, but you can only be paid to do certain things, eg:
give guest lectures at a higher education institution
provide advocacy in legal proceedings
take part in arts, entertainment or sporting activities
Check the full list of what you can be paid to do - it’s the same as what you can do on a Permitted Paid Engagement visa.
If you come for other business or academic activities
You can stay in the UK for up to 6 months without a visa, but you can only do certain academic or business-related activities, eg:
go to a conference, meeting or training
take part in a specific sports-related event
perform as an artist, entertainer or musician
do academic research or accompany students on a study abroad programme
Check the full list of what you can do - it’s the same as what you can do on a Standard Visitor visa.
Here's the standard visa: https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa
"An expert may give lectures in their subject area, if they have been invited by a UK Higher Education Institution; or a UK based research or arts organisation provided this does not amount to filling a teaching position for the host organisation."
"A professional artist, entertainer, musician or sports person may carry out an activity directly relating to their profession, if they have been invited by a creative (arts or entertainment) or sports organisation, agent or broadcaster based in the UK."
She doesn't qualify for either. The former because she wasn't invited by any UK institution, nor a Higher Education, Research, or Arts organisation. The latter because she is not a professional artist or entertainer, nor invited by arts or entertainment organisation, agent, or broadcaster based in the UK.
I have to say, the rules are fairly straightforward. I followed the application process online as if I was her, and it's really quite obvious that she'd need to apply for a visa. It tells you to check the list of what you're allowed to be paid for, and what I quoted above is what it says.
Her blog post can be summed up as:
1. Was refused entry to UK because I didn't have the right docs. Will make damn sure I have the right documentation next time!
2. Go back. Oh shoot, I didn't have the right docs this time either.
3. British border control doesn't treat you too nicely when you show up again without the proper visa. Poor me.
4. Well then, I'm never going back. huff
The requirements don't make a lot of sense to me, but it is clear enough that obtaining the visa beforehand, just to be sure, is the path of least resistance (and the conference should probably take the lead in figuring it out).
It seemed to be less informative. Are there two conflicting sites maintained by the government?
It's not that different, and it's still pretty clear that she needs to investigate whether she needs a visa.
UK Border Control: a uniformly hostile and spiteful organisation.
That said people shouldn't be subjected to such unnecessary unpleastantness.
Yes, there are potentially waivers available, but lying to border agents -- and getting caught -- can make your future travel plans range from very difficult to impossible.