I wonder if those stories that started appearing in the media since the Trump ban order are really showing a true change in US border control actions, or are they just a hot topic so both travelers and media are more eager to report on that.
It is likely that those kind of detentions were happening for years, but they didn't got much news coverage.
After all if you don't like Trumps policies you will happily read about related stories as it confirms what you already believe in.
I think it's best to not get carried away just because a few people got detained. It seems a bit too little to call it policy shift for border control officers, at least as long it stays just incidental issue. FUD is always quick to spread and hard to fight against.
We lack quantitative data, but the article has an expert practitioner's impression:
[Immigration attorney Jason] Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.
"Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit," he said.
If the stories of deplorable and pointless detentions are true, and there are no concomitant stories of terrorists being stopped at the border or whatever (something one assumes the government would be highly motivated to report), does it actually matter that the stories were under-reported previously in the press? The important thing is that the issue gets attention and is resolved.
This was done under previous administrations just the same. Telling a CBP officer that you're come to be "paid to lecture" is usually the kind of honesty that doesn't pay off.
CBPs are triggered by the word "work" and "get paid". For example, when you come to volunteer on a WOOOFing farm, you're advised to say you've come for a learning experience rather than "to volunteer" (= CBP hears this as "to work"):
https://wwoofusa.org/how-it-works/#will-wwoof-help-me-get-a-...
This is absolutely not the norm. If this thing was resolved in a 20 mins after the mix-up we could agree. But 10 hrs for a business visa is not the norm. As someone who has traveled at least 50 times in pre-Trump era on immigration purposes, I have extensive experience with border agents. In fact, once coming back from my trip to Mexico, I had forgotten to get my I-20 stamped from my school. The border agents where phenomenal to deal with this, they produced a new I-20 with current dates and requested me to get it stamped with my school in the next 48 hrs and fax USCIS a copy. This was done within an hour. I shudder to think what will happen with a situation like this today.
I disagree, and I too have extensive experience over many decades with border agents. I have both a Permanent Resident "green" card and a Global Entry card, yet 4 times in the past 12 months (and many times prior) I was extracted for Secondary Processing at the border, held waiting for hours without being allowed to use my cell phone, missing my connecting flights yet ultimately admitted into the U.S.. Every time it costs the U.S. tax payer an unnecessary fortune (I have Global Entry! - which itself took many many hours and dozens of pieces of paper and extreme vetting). The last time I was allowed directly into the U.S. without Secondary Processing was in the 90's. I don't find his story at all unusual.
So an academic came on a tourist visa, but was giving a talk related to his work and accepting money. Under US visa rules this is allowed, but is not being classified as "work", so a tourist visa is sufficient.
Except the Agent (who has probably never met an academic) didn't realise this and incorrectly (although understandably) concluded that the Mr. Rousso was working while on a tourist visa. Especially since Mr. Roussos speaking fee is probably the equivalent of a few days work for the customs agent
This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).
> This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).
Twenty minutes would be indicative of a simple mix-up. 10 hours is honestly just kind of strange (think of how many people in the escalation process didn't understand the rules or didn't care) and IMO indicates a pretty serious problem.
In fact, the UK appears to require a different visa for this purpose. (And it's not clear to me from a couple of things I've read that the Tourist Waiver Program covers paid engagements in the US arranged in advance--though there is a Business Waiver Program.)
Getting paid to speak at a conference can definitely raise issues if you're used to just getting a standard visa for tourism or just attending a conference.
Even as an American citizen but an Australian resident - these stories make me afraid to travel to the US. Might the border agents find me to be unacceptably foreign?
As the article says, agents feel empowered to find ways to deny.
Be prepared to have all your devices searched too. I'm talking about your photos, your online banking app, your emails, your Whatsapp logs, etc (just happened to an Australian I know) if they suspect you may be violating the terms of your visa. You can decline, but do you really want to cancel your trip, wait 12 hours for the next 15 hour flight back home?
(Edit: this is for non US citizens. US citizens don't need to answer any questions at entry, but be prepared to be taken aside for screening. You'll be asked to unlock your phone most likely, and if you refuse, they will confiscate it, but then you can enter.)
Today, my wife, who is an American citizen of Indian origin, told me she is afraid to travel around town without her passport. We read stories like this and about broad ICE raids and the shooting in Kansas and it begins to take a toll.
My partner and I are visiting Europe shortly (from NZ). We were going to transit the US on the way back, stopping for a few days. Luckily we hadn't booked return flights yet, and have since decided to visit Canada instead (luckily, Air NZ runs direct flights from Vancouver to Auckland now).
We're pretty boring pakeha, and I doubt we'd have trouble at the border. But... given a few months more until we'd be visiting, we're uncertain enough about what other legal requirements might get rammed through (and the ETSA is already enough of a hassle) that it just doesn't seem worthwhile.
This is just an anecdote, and I'm sure I'm being overly paranoid. But I don't really want to tack on a potentially very stressful end to a holiday. It makes me sad to think of how trivial an inconvenience this is for me, compared to friends I have who are much more strongly affected by the ban.
And as an Australian resident, you are used to difficult bureaucracies, amirite?
As an American with Australian family, they always tell me how much easier dealing with the G is here when they visit and drive their massive rented RV around.
There were plenty of other reasons to be afraid before, the random gun crime, police state, lack of healthcare and the TSA cancer machines / groping being the main ones. Being legally disinvited is only a fear if it's financially a hit to have to fly back from their airport.
While I'm sure many will jump on this as a symptom of the current political climate, I'm more inclined to trust the statement from border control regarding an inexperienced agent. Everybody chill.
For a foreign scholar performing a substantial lecture (like teaching a course), a J-1 visa is required. For a simple conference presentation, you should absolutely be able to get by on a B visa. Some new guy got confused. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Before Trump took office, customs was a pain in the ass for _citizens_ of this country. It will continue to be a pain in the ass for a long, long time.
You mean, you don't find anything wrong with that fact that someone was detained for 10 hours, due to a single, "inexperience" agent? And he was a well-connected individual. Others would likely endure far worse.
I am seriously considering changing my vacation destination this year from New York to someplace else.
We love New York and want very much to visit some places we haven't had the chance in other trips, but my girlfriend doesn't speak english and something like that would be tremendously traumatic for us.
I know at least a friend who cancelled a trip to the USA fearing immigration problems.
We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country. We don't need barbarians running our borders that answer to no law or the Constitution. If they have no covenant with the people like the law or the Constitution, what right do they have to any authority. It makes no sense that any such group of people should have all of this authority for which they are not held to account... and can't be held to account by the people who they are harassing and diminishing.
It's nothing more than an analogue of a protection racket.
Borders are under control of the legal system and policing them is a right that's granted to the Federal government by the constitution. It makes complete sense that the Federal government, which is elected by US citizens would be able to policy foreigners entering the country without being held accountable to them. That's how every country in the world works. You may not like this system now that "the wrong people" have been elected to run the federal government but that's the way the system works and it's incredibly reasonable.
I can't see how you draw the analogue of to a protection racket, they're not collecting money from anyone here.
> We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country.
They are subject to the legal system of the US. It's just that, within 100 miles of any border, Constitutional rights are limited, and non-citizens have fewer rights at border crossings.
I've read similar stories before the current administration. Telling a CBP officer that you're going to be "paid to lecture" is not recommended. This is a kind of honesty that doesn't return a favor.
[+] [-] prymitive|9 years ago|reply
Googling for some data yields some results, but those seem to be big immigration numbers, rather than incidental short detentions for random travelers, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusion. Examples: http://cmsny.org/immigration-detention-behind-the-record-num... https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016
I think it's best to not get carried away just because a few people got detained. It seems a bit too little to call it policy shift for border control officers, at least as long it stays just incidental issue. FUD is always quick to spread and hard to fight against.
[+] [-] hackuser|9 years ago|reply
[Immigration attorney Jason] Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.
"Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit," he said.
[+] [-] justin66|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikonst|9 years ago|reply
CBPs are triggered by the word "work" and "get paid". For example, when you come to volunteer on a WOOOFing farm, you're advised to say you've come for a learning experience rather than "to volunteer" (= CBP hears this as "to work"): https://wwoofusa.org/how-it-works/#will-wwoof-help-me-get-a-...
[+] [-] dmode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevenjgarner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legostormtroopr|9 years ago|reply
Except the Agent (who has probably never met an academic) didn't realise this and incorrectly (although understandably) concluded that the Mr. Rousso was working while on a tourist visa. Especially since Mr. Roussos speaking fee is probably the equivalent of a few days work for the customs agent
This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).
[+] [-] justin66|9 years ago|reply
Twenty minutes would be indicative of a simple mix-up. 10 hours is honestly just kind of strange (think of how many people in the escalation process didn't understand the rules or didn't care) and IMO indicates a pretty serious problem.
[+] [-] ghaff|9 years ago|reply
See this story related to the UK for example: https://webdevlaw.uk/2016/08/22/uk-conference-speaker-visa/
In fact, the UK appears to require a different visa for this purpose. (And it's not clear to me from a couple of things I've read that the Tourist Waiver Program covers paid engagements in the US arranged in advance--though there is a Business Waiver Program.)
Getting paid to speak at a conference can definitely raise issues if you're used to just getting a standard visa for tourism or just attending a conference.
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
If people are loudly concerned about competition for jobs, address it with employment taxes on workers that are not residents.
[+] [-] polotics|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|9 years ago|reply
What basis is there for concluding that?
Also, apparently Rousso has been traveling to the US for years, presumable sometimes in the same circumstances, without a problem.
[+] [-] tomlock|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cylinder|9 years ago|reply
Be prepared to have all your devices searched too. I'm talking about your photos, your online banking app, your emails, your Whatsapp logs, etc (just happened to an Australian I know) if they suspect you may be violating the terms of your visa. You can decline, but do you really want to cancel your trip, wait 12 hours for the next 15 hour flight back home?
(Edit: this is for non US citizens. US citizens don't need to answer any questions at entry, but be prepared to be taken aside for screening. You'll be asked to unlock your phone most likely, and if you refuse, they will confiscate it, but then you can enter.)
[+] [-] nngrey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frio|9 years ago|reply
We're pretty boring pakeha, and I doubt we'd have trouble at the border. But... given a few months more until we'd be visiting, we're uncertain enough about what other legal requirements might get rammed through (and the ETSA is already enough of a hassle) that it just doesn't seem worthwhile.
This is just an anecdote, and I'm sure I'm being overly paranoid. But I don't really want to tack on a potentially very stressful end to a holiday. It makes me sad to think of how trivial an inconvenience this is for me, compared to friends I have who are much more strongly affected by the ban.
[+] [-] fixxer|9 years ago|reply
As an American with Australian family, they always tell me how much easier dealing with the G is here when they visit and drive their massive rented RV around.
[+] [-] hubert123|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixxer|9 years ago|reply
For a foreign scholar performing a substantial lecture (like teaching a course), a J-1 visa is required. For a simple conference presentation, you should absolutely be able to get by on a B visa. Some new guy got confused. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Before Trump took office, customs was a pain in the ass for _citizens_ of this country. It will continue to be a pain in the ass for a long, long time.
[+] [-] outworlder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drpgq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhfhduk|9 years ago|reply
http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seek-foreign-flights-nyc...
[+] [-] motoboi|9 years ago|reply
We love New York and want very much to visit some places we haven't had the chance in other trips, but my girlfriend doesn't speak english and something like that would be tremendously traumatic for us.
I know at least a friend who cancelled a trip to the USA fearing immigration problems.
[+] [-] fixxer|9 years ago|reply
Dude, seriously: customs needs no help to suck more at their job. This shit has always happened.
[+] [-] devoply|9 years ago|reply
It's nothing more than an analogue of a protection racket.
[+] [-] jdoliner|9 years ago|reply
I can't see how you draw the analogue of to a protection racket, they're not collecting money from anyone here.
[+] [-] chimeracoder|9 years ago|reply
They are subject to the legal system of the US. It's just that, within 100 miles of any border, Constitutional rights are limited, and non-citizens have fewer rights at border crossings.
[+] [-] m0llusk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aniro|9 years ago|reply
This myopic view is foolish and needs to die.
[+] [-] clamprecht|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
Mr. Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.
“Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit,” he said.
[+] [-] ikonst|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]