The reliably thoughtful Andrew Sullivan delivers his perspective on the awful story of a Nordic would-be tourist:
A young, blonde Icelandic woman writes about her recent trip to America:
During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.
...Her treatment reads like a passage from Eastern European police states in the 1970s. Apparently, she had overstayed a visa in 1995 for three weeks. Leg chains? I guess we're lucky she wasn't hooded. This is Cheney's America, after all.
Matt Yglesias joins in:
What this woman describes is, clearly, well-beyond asking people to take off their shoes, but it's all on a continuum of panic and sheep-like submission to a culture of fear.
So, this incident from Cheney's America reads like an Eastern European country in the 70's? Andrew has only scratched the tip of the iceberg:
Sharon McKnight, a U.S. citizen, was deported to Jamaica... after INS inspectors at the airport wrongly questioned the authenticity of her U.S. passport and dismissed as fake the birth certificate presented by her waiting relatives as proof of her birth on Long Island. Ms. McKnight, who is 35 years old but has the mental capacity of a young child, was held overnight, in shackles and handcuffs, at JFK International Airport, before being sent back to Kingston, Jamaica, where there was no one to meet her. During her time at the airport Ms. McKnight was given nothing to eat and was not allowed to use the restroom, forcing her to soil herself.
...Liu Nianchun, a prominent Chinese democracy and labor rights activist who had been repeatedly tortured and arrested in China over a period of 17 years, was detained by
the INS as he was returning from addressing a meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission.... He was held at JFK International Airport for 18 hours, shackled to a bench and kicked by an INS officer when he fell asleep.
...A young woman who fled Haiti after being raped by armed men in a politically motivated attack arrived at JFK International Airport... As she tried, in a crowded room, to describe to male INS inspectors what had happened to her, the INS officer who was acting as interpreter told his colleagues that the woman
was lying and that "everything is fine in Haiti." After this interview
the young woman was shackled overnight to a bench at the airport. She was also strip-searched, compounding her humiliation.
...INS inspectors at Oregon's Portland International Airport strip-searched
and jailed a Chinese businesswoman, Guo Liming, because they wrongly suspected that her passport had been altered. INS officials later explained that Ms. Guo "fit the profile" of an illegal immigrant because she was from China and was traveling with another person-her
fiancé and business partner. She was not subjected to expedited removal, but she was nevertheless treated abusively by INS inspections. INS officers handcuffed Ms. Guo for the two-hour drive to a local jail and refused to tell her fiancé where she was taken, why she was being detained or how long she would be held. He had to hire a lawyer in order to find out where she had been taken. Ms. Guo spent two nights in jail before
forensics experts determined that her passport was indeed valid.
...A Swiss citizen-employed as an overseas marketing consultant to American film companies -flew to Los Angeles... for meetings to explore possible long-term film production projects. He carried
a valid visitor's visa in his valid Swiss passport. When he arrived at Los Angeles International Airport, the INS inspector insisted
that he must be coming to live in the United States, even though
he had never been employed or earned money here and even though
his assets and the large home where he lived with his mother were in Europe. "You're 35 and you reside with your mother?" the INS
inspector said. "That's bullshit." The INS inspectors denied him water, food, access to the restroom and permission to make any telephone calls, until he had signed some documents. When he requested his gastritis medication, INS inspectors told him to "shut up."
Finally, exhausted, dehydrated, ill, and in need of his medicine, he signed the documents INS presented to him agreeing to withdraw his application for admission to the United States.
... John Psaropoulos, a British television journalist who worked for CNN in Atlanta, was
informed by INS inspectors at Atlanta International Airport... that he was ineligible to enter the United States because the INS had not yet approved an application filed by CNN to extend his work visa. Although he was not detained at that time, when he returned for a deferred inspection on May 7, he was handcuffed, ordered deported under expedited removal, held in detention overnight and deported the next day.
... A legal permanent resident of Jamaican origin, an 18-year-old freshman at a well-known American university, was stopped by INS inspectors at JFK International Airport upon his return to the United States in January 1998 to take his final exams. He was shackled and detained overnight by INS officers who told him that the only way Jamaicans could get
green cards was if they "jerked chicken well" or "mopped the floor well." Even though he had proof of his permanent resident status, the INS inspectors ignored it. "This is not America," they told him. "We're your judge and jury.
And continuing:
Six Iranian scholars invited to a conference in Georgetown University have canceled their participation, saying they were harassed and humiliated by immigration officials on arriving at Kennedy International Airport, the organizer of the event said today.
The organizer, John L. Esposito, director of the Center of Muslim-Christian Understanding at the university, said the Iranians described being fingerprinted and then ridiculed by officials who detained them at the airport for several hours on Wednesday.
And more diplomatic outreach:
Immigration officials at Kennedy International Airport detained a prominent moderate Islamist political leader from Jordan for a long interrogation and sent him home on the next flight, he said, prompting high-level protests to embarrassed American diplomats here today.
The traveler, Ishaq Farhan, 67, a senator and university president, arrived on Tuesday in New York on a Royal Jordanian Airways flight from Amman. He had planned to visit a son and daughter who live in the United States and to give talks to American Islamic groups. Mr. Farhan's Jordanian diplomatic passport was stamped with a five-year multiple-entry visa valid until December 2003, the latest in a series of United States visas that he had since graduating with a doctorate from Columbia University four decades ago.
On presenting his passport, Mr. Farhan said, he was taken to a room where officers from the Immigration and Naturalization Service told him that the State Department had revoked his visa and requested that he be interrogated. He recounted:
''They asked me: 'Do you belong to a terrorist organization? Do you believe in terrorism?' I said, 'No,' and, 'No, that I believed in democracy and that I learned about democracy studying in the United States.' ''
After six hours of questioning, he said, he was ordered to buy a $2,000 one-way ticket on KLM flights back to Amman, double the cost, he said, of his original round-trip excursion fare. ''Financially speaking, morally speaking,'' Mr. Farhan said, ''it was a bad experience. This shouldn't happen between two countries that respect one another.''
Shameful- one might well ask, Is This America? And, my bad, that is exactly what the report citing the first group of incidents was titled; it was released in Oct 2000 and highlighted INS abuses that occurred, presumably, in eerie anticipation of Dick Cheney's America.
The Iranian scholars were humiliated in Dec 1999, perhaps in anticipation of the Florida recount.
And the moderate Jordanian was pre-emptively punished in May 2000.
Well. I have no doubt that once a Democrat reclaims the White House Mr. Yglesias will remember that sometimes bad things happen even if Bush is not to blame. And let's give a nod to the Praire Weatherman for this:
So you thought it was only smallish, darkish, non-Christianish people that real Americans (you know, Americans like Bush and Cheney) have trouble with?
Good point - Bush has introduced some welcome diversity here, since it appears from these non-random examples that the Clinton era was not particularly welcoming to non-whites.
SNAP, INDEED:
That's the difference between fascism and stupid, mindless bureaucracy. In fascism, the higher up the chain you go, the meaner it gets. In this case, the apologies came from high up. In fascism, you're persecuted because of who you are and who your parents were. In an American airport, you're persecuted because you're there.
Chilling reminders of the Clinton Oppression. TM, I hope you were able to communicate those items to the hysterical Messrs. Sullivan and Yglesias.
Posted by: Other Tom | December 20, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Whole lot of this temporal rift stuff going on lately. Or is it lately?
Maybe he's got that new tachyon keyboard, 'cause it couldn't be laziness, stupidity or dishonesty. Not from a respected fellow like Matt.
Posted by: Uncle Pinky | December 20, 2007 at 08:47 PM
Clinton hates brown people?
I'm sure both Sullivan and Yglesias will pretzel twist their logic and find all kinds of Clinton defenses and justifications.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 20, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Aaaarrrgh! Mistook your cites for Matt's article and didn't click through the tabbed link. First self-beclowning of the day, probably not the last. Please disregard the above.
Posted by: Uncle Pinky | December 20, 2007 at 08:53 PM
Of all of the silliness undertaken by bloggers, this type of abuse of anecdotes to try and prove some larger point is at the top of my complaint list.
Nothing more than intellectually lazy amateur sociology. Those who practice it are frankly pathetic.
And it's done by folks on both side of the aisle.
Posted by: SteveMG | December 20, 2007 at 09:27 PM
In completely unrelated news, Germany(!) and Poland(!!) have agreed to dismantle their border posts.
Not that the Germans were good about always stopping and waiting for visa approval, but still ...
I'm certain that we can expect to see education quality decline, crime rise (the story quotes German police union officials to that effect), and wages fall. Maybe even in both countries. Better them than us.
Posted by: Walter | December 20, 2007 at 09:33 PM
TO: All Employees
DATE: 4th November
RE: Christmas Party
I'm happy to inform you that the company Christmas Party will
take place December 23rd, starting at noon in the private function room
at the Grill House. There will be a cash bar and plenty of drinks!
We'll have a small band playing traditional carols...please feel free to
sing along.
And don't be surprised if the Managing Director shows up
dressed as Santa Claus! A Christmas tree will be lit at 1.00 p.m.
Exchange of gifts among employees can be done at that time;
however, no gift should be over $10.00 to make the giving of gifts easy
for everyone's pockets.
This gathering is only for employees! The Managing Director
will make a special announcement at the Party.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Pauline
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM: Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All Employees
DATE: 5th November
RE: Holiday Party
In no way was yesterday's memo intended to exclude our Jewish
employees. We recognize that Chanukah is an important holiday, which
often coincides with Christmas, though unfortunately not this year.
However, from now on
we're calling it our 'Holiday Party.' The same policy applies
to any other employees who are not Christians. There will be no
Christmas tree or Christmas carols sung. We will have other types of
music for your enjoyment.
Happy now?
Happy Holidays to you and your family,
Pauline.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM; Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All Employees
DATE: 6th November
RE: Holiday Party
Regarding the note I received from a member of Alcoholics
Anonymous requesting a non-drinking table...you didn't sign your name.
I'm happy to accommodate this request, but if I put a sign on a table
that reads, "AA Only," you wouldn't be anonymous anymore!!!! How am I
supposed to handle this? Somebody?
Forget about the gift exchange, no gift exchange allowed now
since the Union Officials feel that $10.00 is too much money and
Management believe $10.00 is a little cheap.
NO GIFT EXCHANGE WILL BE ALLOWED.
Pauline.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM: Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All Employees
DATE: 7th November
RE: Holiday Party
What a diverse group we are! I had no idea that December 20th
begins the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which forbids eating and
drinking during daylight hours. There goes the party! Seriously, we can
appreciate how a luncheon at this time of year does not accommodate our
Muslim employees' beliefs, perhaps the Grill House can hold off on
serving your meal until the end of the party - or else package
everything up for you to take home in a little foil doggy bag. Will that
work?
Meanwhile, I've arranged for members of Weight Watchers to sit
farthest from the dessert buffet and pregnant women will get the table
closest to the toilets, Gays are allowed to sit with each other,
Lesbians do not have to sit with gay men, each will have their own
table.
Yes, there will be flower arrangements for the gay men's
table, too.
To the person asking permission to cross dress - no cross
dressing allowed.
And no, no blow-up sheep.
We will have booster seats for short people. Low fat food will
be available for those on a diet. We cannot control the salt used in the
food. We suggest those people with high blood pressure taste the food
first. There will be fresh fruits as dessert for diabetics, the
restaurant cannot supply "No Sugar" desserts. Sorry!
Did I miss anything?!?!?!?!?!
Pauline.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM: Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All F****** Employees
DATE: 8 November
RE: The ******** Holiday Party.
Vegetarian pricks I've had it with you people!!! We're going
to keep this party at the Grill House whether you like it or not, so you
can sit quietly at the table furthest from the "grill of death", as you
so quaintly put it.
You'll get your f****** salad bar, including organic tomatoes,
but you know tomatoes have feeling, too. They scream when you slice
them. I've heard them scream. I'm hearing them scream right NOW!!
Hope you all have a rotten holiday * drink, drive, and die!
The Bitch from HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM: John Bishop - Acting Human Resources Director
DATE: 9th November
RE: Pauline Lewis and Holiday Party
I'm sure I speak for all of us in wishing Pauline Lewis a
speedy recovery, and I'll continue to forward your cards to her.
In the meantime, Management has decided to cancel our Holiday
Party and instead, give everyone the afternoon of the 23rd December off
with full pay.
Posted by: JustADude | December 20, 2007 at 09:34 PM
The US does not put people through immigration on the way out of the country, so the only way they would have known she overstayed a Visa by 3 days is if they somehow had her travel records available to them, which they wouldn't.
Furthermore, I wonder how long an Icelandic passport is valid. In the US, you would no longer have a 1995 Visa in your passport, because passports are only good for 10 years.
Citizens of Iceland may enter the US for up to 90 days without a visa.
In short, I don't believe her.
Posted by: MayBee | December 20, 2007 at 09:56 PM
The US does not put people through immigration on the way out of the country, so the only way they would have known she overstayed a Visa by 3 days is if they somehow had her travel records available to them, which they wouldn't.
Furthermore, I wonder how long an Icelandic passport is valid. In the US, you would no longer have a 1995 Visa in your passport, because passports are only good for 10 years.
Citizens of Iceland may enter the US for up to 90 days without a visa.
In short, I don't believe her.
Posted by: MayBee | December 20, 2007 at 09:57 PM
I don't buy any of this & in addition, I just don't give a #$%#.
Has anyone heard of BS Bingo?
Posted by: PMII | December 20, 2007 at 10:14 PM
But I do wish Pauline well.
Posted by: PMII | December 20, 2007 at 10:17 PM
I should say, I don't find it impossible that she was treated as she says. I just don't believe the reason is that she overstayed a 1995 visa by 3 weeks. I don't know if that is her lie or the INS's lie, but she would know that she overstayed her Visa previously. They wouldn't, unless she'd gotten into trouble during her overstay.
Posted by: MayBee | December 20, 2007 at 10:22 PM
MayBee,
Did you notice that the site on which her account is posted is a Truther site?
Inspires confidence, that does.
Posted by: Walter | December 20, 2007 at 10:22 PM
JustADude
Nice one!
Posted by: Peter England | December 20, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Immigration officials the world over are usually *ssholes.
I had to wait 4 hours while a Taiwanese co-worker was questioned by the INS. Oh wait, actually, they red-flagged him, then he waited 4 hours in three different offices for one woman to ask him a 30 second question and he was released.
This is of course on top of the time he spent getting the visa from the US government. Hey, USG, if you had questions about him, why wait till the plane arrives? ASK WHEN YOU HAVE THE FACE TO FACE INTERVIEW FOR THE VISA.
My attempts to assist were not met kindly.
Posted by: Aaron | December 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Walter- I had not noticed. Heh. I have confidence galore.
Posted by: MayBee | December 20, 2007 at 11:14 PM
@MayBee
Visitors to the US (either with visas or visa waivers) fill out two-part landing cards. One half is kept by the INS, the other stapled to the passport and surrendered on leaving the US. So, in short, the INS will know if you have overstayed - it is just a question of seeing which landing cards were surrendered after the 90 day period.
You don't need to put people through human-staffed immigration on their way out to check for overstayers. Why bother? You can do it in an office any time after they leave.
Posted by: SteveJ | December 20, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Of course, sometimes cases like these are highlighted by ImmigrationLawyers and the ProIllegalImmigration press as way of weakening our resolve to do any sort of ImmigrationEnforcement.
"young, blonde Icelandic woman" ====> "let's just have lax enforcement everywhere and let the cheap labor keep on flowing".
But, don't worry about being useful idiots or anything, it might make your head hurt.
Posted by: TLB | December 20, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Why does "young, blonde, Icelandic" matter? Unless Matt is one of those few liberals who accept profiling? She overstayed her visa by three weeks, not three days. And yes, it's a thorough nutbar site; Laura Knight-Jadczyk posts there. Google her sometime if you want a laugh.
Posted by: Pat Curley | December 20, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Oh, man, it's Jadczyk's own site. This is too freaking funny! Jadczyk runs a doomsday cult called the Cassiopeans based on messages she gets from reptilian space aliens via a Ouija board. Nope, I'm not kidding:
http://cassiopaeacult.com/
Great stuff!
Posted by: Pat Curley | December 21, 2007 at 12:20 AM
These things probably all happened and I am sure that the agents in charge were under the assumption that they were protecting there countries. What we must all remember is that it is all smoke and mirrors. While they abuse the lady from Iceland at the airport. They allow the clean shaven Arab aboard without scrutiny because it would be profiling. They allow thousands across our borders at night because the rich and powerful Democrats and Republicans need maids and gardeners that wont cry foul when their bosses break federal labor laws. It is time to cry foul our country is being lost piece by piece. Trust me the rich have there kids in private schools and don't give a rats ass if yours have to compete the rest of their lives for the scraps left over after their cheap labor gets its ration.
Posted by: Sheriff | December 21, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Ah yes, SteveJ, I had not considered arrival/departure cards as I'd never filled one out for the US. Good point, and thanks. I still have a hard time believing that a 12-year old infraction would suddenly show up with no other provocation, but oh well.
On searching for it just now, I see there are stern warnings that entering the US if you've previously overstayed or broken laws may be very difficult. I know that could be true. No country makes that easy or pleasant. I've had several friends that dread crossing the Canadian border due to prior DUI records.
As for why have immigration personnel handle such things rather than airline personnel-- I'm not sad there is another line lacking in US airports. Of course, one more person handling forms is one more chance for error, and time delays are generally not beneficial. It also does not allow immediate discussion with someone who has violated his Visa. Perhaps had she been held by Clinton's INS on the way out of the country at the time of the infraction, she would not have been confronted with Cheney's INS.
Posted by: MayBee | December 21, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Read all about it at
ADVISECENTER.com Your owners manual for life
Posted by: Sheriff | December 21, 2007 at 12:27 AM
There was the other little incident, maybe you heard of it; where a child was kidnapped
out of his loving family's home by a full paramilitary contingent including swat teams
and tear gas and he was held in a secure conpound, until he was transferred like chattel to the waiting arms of Big Brother. Now after a few years of conditioning; like
Winston Smith he "loves Big Brother"
Posted by: narciso | December 21, 2007 at 12:28 AM
I will have you know that I was once turned away from the China border. You used to be able to buy a visa on site, then for a while all the sudden you couldn't. I got there, told them I wanted to go upstairs for the special visa, but they wouldn't let me in the country. Luckilly, I wasn't treated to the leg chain extravaganza, but I did have to take the next train back out.
I do wonder if this Iceland woman would have liked it any more if she had simply been denied entry, held politely, and then sent back to Iceland. I have to say, I would still be quite preturbed with that, even though it would be entirely proper.
Posted by: MayBee | December 21, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Regarding the Icelandic woman:
There are two things.
1. If she overstayed her visa - ever - she is no longer eligible to use the visa waiver program and had to apply for an actual tourist visa from the US embassy or consulate in her country. What that means, I think, is that she is not "admissible" if she used the visa waiver.
2. Coming in as a tourist, she would have had to fill up an I-94 or I-94W; it's that record that immigration keeps. If she lied any where in that form (e.g. there's a specific question on whether or not she ever overstayed her visa and, presumably, she must have answered no), then she's going to be banned for another 10 years (if I'm remembering the rules correctly).
In any case, the immigration folks were following the rules. They do tend to overdo things (leg chains??) when they could have been "nicer." And people who have never dealt with immigration find it difficult to understand what exactly is going on.
And just for the record, the INS no longer exists. At the border, we have the Border Patrol in charge of immigration admissions. USCIS is in charge of immigration and citizenship issues after you've entered the country. ICE is in charge of enforcing the rules.
Posted by: CJ | December 21, 2007 at 01:30 AM
For what its worth, starting about 1 month ago Japan instituted a new policy; every foreign person arriving has to step up to a machine where a photograph is taken, along with fingerprints of your 2 index fingers, all while the Customs guy is examining your Passport. A very quick, easy and painless process.
Posted by: Daddy | December 21, 2007 at 04:20 AM
thanks your information. http://profesional-bis.blogspot.com
Posted by: zainul | December 21, 2007 at 05:16 AM
The Japanese policy was adopted in response to the US policy.
Posted by: davod | December 21, 2007 at 05:41 AM
From the Icelandic lady's account:
I saw the officials in this section handle other cases and it was clear that these were men anxious to demonstrate their power. Small kings with megalomania. I was careful to remain completely cooperative, for I did not yet believe that they planned to deport me because of my "crime".
This rings true to me, and the whole story is disgusting. The border control people are little would-be fascists. Yes, she broke a rule. Don't use that as an opportunity to live out your little power fantasy. Spend those resources trying to find the really dangerous bad guys rather than abusing a lady who wants to come here and shop.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 21, 2007 at 06:47 AM
Since the USA is a racist nation, why are they picking on this Nordic woman?
/s
Posted by: Perfect Sense | December 21, 2007 at 07:16 AM
How could picking on a blonde possibly be considered racist?
=====================================
Posted by: kim | December 21, 2007 at 07:18 AM
I agree with Maybee that you used to be held and returned on the next flight. Just maybe there is a little more to the tale than we have heard.
Posted by: davod | December 21, 2007 at 07:19 AM
No women on the staff. So they are sexist as well.
Posted by: davod | December 21, 2007 at 07:21 AM
A relibaly thought Anbrew Sulivan? Methinks you jest.
Did you check out the site Sullivan links to (I will not link to it here -see above).
Even the comments read like a hit job.
Under the special reports section we have - Evidence that a frozen fish did not impact the Pentagon, Neither did a 757.
Top Secret. Clear evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon - A Parody.
Posted by: davod | December 21, 2007 at 07:47 AM
The nutty people at that Icelandic woman's site seem to think that this is all Bushitler's fault and that all will be sweetness and light if a Democrat is elected president. Only one problem: The power-drunk petty bureaucrats running security at the airports will still be there, no matter who is president. It's the same problem we have with the State Department and the CIA: The president's name and policies may change, but the bureaucrats and their policies will not. They're as eternal as cockroaches.
Posted by: Clyde | December 21, 2007 at 07:48 AM
Some people are willing to pay good money for this type of treatment.Has the government gone into competition with commercial dungeons? Happy Holidays
Posted by: Mistress Elle | December 21, 2007 at 07:56 AM
Mistress Elle explains where Santa Claus blows the holiday profits.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | December 21, 2007 at 07:59 AM
"For what its worth, starting about 1 month ago Japan instituted a new policy; every foreign person arriving has to step up to a machine where a photograph is taken, along with fingerprints of your 2 index fingers, all while the Customs guy is examining your Passport. A very quick, easy and painless process."
What is their policy on veiled women? Even painless processes sometimes turn out to be non-painless.
Posted by: kcom | December 21, 2007 at 09:15 AM
I am a Michigan born and raised American who has traveled overseas over the years for school, business and fun.
Bar none, American border officials are the worst of any nation I have ever seen. They are rude and nasty, even when there is zero reason for it. I have been threatened with imprisonment in some situations simply for politely asking them to do things like repeat questions.
Mind you, I traveled in some really backwater countries! Imagine that. Ratholes have more polite and professional border personnel than I encountered at the border in Windsor/Detroit.
Posted by: Spartee | December 21, 2007 at 09:18 AM
I've had some experiences with US Immigration as a non-US citizen visiting prior to 9/11.
The vast majority where professional, and mainly quite friendly and helpful.
One time though in LA, I had problems with someone who should never have been put in any position of authority. Fortunately, I had a few days before my connecting flight, and after a mere 6 hours, her supervisor intervened, assessed the situation, and let me through.
I can believe the various stories about unreasonable officials, as calm co-operation merely provokes them.
My crime? Having previously entered the country on a multiple entry B1 (business) visa that was still valid, when this time I needed no visa for tourism under the visa waiver program. She'd decided that since my B1 visa was still current, I was forced to use that, despite my protestations to the contrary. As the purpose of my visit was tourism, it was a violation, and so cause for refusal of entry.
Posted by: Zoe Brain | December 21, 2007 at 09:42 AM
I've had troubles with US immigration on more than one occasion, usually in Pearson airport in Toronto. One notable time I was asked repeatedly what my destination was (Durham, NC), how long I planned to stay (forever, it's where I lived), what I planned to do there (feed the cats, go to the office, what you normally do in your own home) when I planned to leave again (I didn't know, it was my permanent place of residence), where I was born (Alamosa CO), ... finally I asked to see a supervisor and told her "Look, lady, not only am I a native born US citizen returning home, but I'm a Choctaw Indian. I'm a Native American native American. I'm going home! What's the problem?"
They waved me through.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 21, 2007 at 09:56 AM
I think we should start a fund to help pay for Pauline's recovery.
::grin::
Posted by: Sue | December 21, 2007 at 09:59 AM
A relibaly thought Anbrew Sulivan? Methinks you jest.
Uh, Tom, I think we need to get one of those new sarcasm fonts. Mere tone of voice doesn't apparently do it on the Internet.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 21, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Pre Bush, pre 9/11, same old stuff. My wife and I went to Canada by car. On the way back, it's the usual where are you born? Rochester, Hiroshima, Syracuse, Syracuse, Syracuse. My wife has her US Passport with her and shows it to Immigration. We know the drill.
No problem? Not quite. Can you prove these are your kids? I bit my tongue before I could blurt out the fact that it was unlikely that we had kidnapped the three happy Amerasian kids in the back of my car. How many two, six and eight year olds do you know with photo ID? Even he realized how stupid this was and waved us through after a stern warning to bring ID next time.
Next time, we brought all our passports. Nobody asked to see them.
Bureaucrats and petty officials will outlast the cockroach on this planet.
Posted by: MarkD | December 21, 2007 at 10:07 AM
'reliably thoughtful' is the phrase juste; he doesn't claim that the thinking is reliable.
===========================
Posted by: kim | December 21, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Le duane des Etats Unis is worse than Wolf Creek in Winter.
===================================
Posted by: kim | December 21, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Sullivan and Yglesias - two poofs in a pod, namely, The Atlantic.
Posted by: Glenn | December 21, 2007 at 10:36 AM
"Oh, man, it's Jadczyk's own site. This is too freaking funny! Jadczyk runs a doomsday cult called the Cassiopeans based on messages she gets from reptilian space aliens via a Ouija board."
Is this where global warming came from?
Posted by: PMII | December 21, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Andrew and Matthew just want their country back!
Posted by: MayBee | December 21, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Civil-service bureaucrats with untrammeled power, not subject to any market discipline. A universal prescription for bullying and abuse.
Posted by: Other Tom | December 21, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Mark, they are a bit fussy about kids because there have been so many kidnapped by one parent and taken abroad--especially to Mexico. Years ago I learned that when I took a friend of my son's and his mom with us to Cancun.
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 11:35 AM
clarice is right. I had a friend that used to travel to Mexico alone with her infant (pre-911), and she used to get a notarized letter from her husband giving her permission to do so.
It becomes difficult, as MarkD points out, because the rules are enforced unevenly. You think because you've been able to do things once that you won't be held to the proper standard the next time. I suspect that's why Icelandic girl was so surprised. She shouldn't have been treated as she was, but she also should probably not have been allowed into the country with no problems previously.
It's a good idea for everyone to get a passport for their child. It is a picture ID available for any age.
Posted by: MayBee | December 21, 2007 at 11:54 AM
The president's name and policies may change, but the bureaucrats and their policies will not. They're as eternal as cockroaches.
There's a solution to this: Term limits for bureaucrats. Nobody works for the government for more than ten years; they have to learn a trade or acquire a skill and do work that actually produces something. Nobody in Congress has the courage to implement this any more than they do term limits on themselves, but it would definitely work.
Posted by: Kev | December 21, 2007 at 12:55 PM
they are a bit fussy about kids because there have been so many kidnapped by one parent
Yes, that's correct, but this was a case where both parents were present. Just another case of someone arbitrarily acting out some power fantasy.
It is true that rules have changed over the past five years, and people need to be aware. For most international travel I believe that kids now need a birth certificate or passport. I'm not sure about travel to Canada.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 21, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Yes, that's correct, but this was a case where both parents were present.
The border guard doesn't know if it is one parent and a step parent, taking the children out of the country without the other parent's permission. Asking for ID isn't unreasonable, but things get complicated when travelers don't know what to expect.
In this case, it isn't 911 that changed things. It's parents taking their children out of the country against the other parent's wishes. It is for this same reason that both parents must give permission for a child under 14 to get a passport.
Posted by: MayBee | December 21, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Exactly, Maybee. I do think the problem is worse in Mexico and South America than it is in Canada,but the issue has nothing to do with 911 and everything to do with custody fights and difficulties in getting kids back from overseas..
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 01:27 PM
but the issue has nothing to do with 911 and everything to do with custody fights and difficulties in getting kids back from overseas..
Yes. I'm certain the problem is worse with Mexico and South America, partially because of the implications of what can happen to a child there, and how much easier it may be to get lost there as opposed to Canada.
You don't just see the complications in travel out of the country, either. In my last US school district, we had to fill out paperwork about what family members were not allowed to pick up the kids from school. At the Doctor's office, there are lines on the from to indicate family members that are not allowed access to minors' records. There are whole levels of security/bureaucracy that have sprung up as the divorce rate/single parenthood rates have gone up.
Posted by: MayBee | December 21, 2007 at 01:42 PM
My cousin was worried about her husband abducting their daughter during a very contentious divorce. Since he traveled to both Europe and Hong Kong on business on a regular basis, her attorney advised her to have a warning put on her daughter's passport and in the computer that no one could take the child out of the country without court approval. I'm not sure how she did this or with what agency, but I know that it red-flagged her child anytime she might travel by air and especially at borders, check-in, or customs. This order stayed in place until the child was 12. In her state, children of 12 are considered old enough to choose which parent they want to be with and is figured to be old enough to speak up if they are being forced to do something against their will.
Posted by: Sara | December 21, 2007 at 01:56 PM
The border guard doesn't know if it is one parent and a step parent, taking the children out of the country without the other parent's permission.
Most countries' requirements that I'm aware of pertain to a child travelling with only one parent, or, in some cases with parents that have different surnames. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but agents shouldn't go beyond the official rules unless they have some reason to be suspicious.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 21, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Most countries' requirements that I'm aware of pertain to a child travelling with only one parent, or, in some cases with parents that have different surnames. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but agents shouldn't go beyond the official rules unless they have some reason to be suspicious.
Well, you were the one stating that "both" parents were in the vehicle. I'm just saying the border guard didn't know that to be true.
In this case, he did not go beyond the official rules. He just asked for the kid's ID. MarkD didn't have it, and the nice border guard let him through.
Posted by: MayBee | December 21, 2007 at 02:03 PM
I've been counsel in two cases involving removing kids from one country and taking them to another. It's a very difficult, expensive and problematic thing to get them back. I can't blame the border guard. If those kids were removed in violation of a custory agreement, his ass would have been on the line .
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 02:06 PM
I've been counsel in two cases involving removing kids from one country and taking them to another. It's a very difficult, expensive and problematic thing to get them back. I can't blame the border guard. If those kids were removed in violation of a custody agreement or court order, his ass would have been on the line .
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 02:07 PM
A young, blonde, icelandic woman handcuffed and chained in leg irons?
That's totally hot.
Posted by: luagha | December 21, 2007 at 02:38 PM
"Jadczyk runs a doomsday cult called the Cassiopeans based on messages she gets from reptilian space aliens via a Ouija board."
I thought you had Al Gore to do that,we have Brussels.
Posted by: Peter England | December 21, 2007 at 03:19 PM
Bar none, American border officials are the worst of any nation I have ever seen. They are rude and nasty, even when there is zero reason for it. I have been threatened with imprisonment in some situations simply for politely asking them to do things like repeat questions.
Mind you, I traveled in some really backwater countries! Imagine that. Ratholes have more polite and professional border personnel than I encountered at the border in Windsor/Detroit.
Oh boo hoo. Funny how they just keep coming to this terrible place called America.
Posted by: Sara | December 21, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Mere tone of voice doesn't apparently do it on the Internet.
I read it out loud to myself and my meaning was clear, especially when I threw in a raised eyebrow.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | December 21, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Interesting--on that chart only McCain and Thompson are trending up.
And the McCain NYT story is still largely under wraps.
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 03:37 PM
In Europe the borders came down tonight Due to the Schengen Agreement,it is now possible to have a clear run from the Polish border to the English Channel.How bad can that be? No don't tell me.
Posted by: Peter England | December 21, 2007 at 07:07 PM
I remember the last time that happened.
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Club for Growth on the latest mcCain nonsense:
"According to the Detroit Free Press, Senator McCain announced yesterday a plan to use federal dollars to make up the salary difference for workers who lose manufacturing jobs and are forced to accept lower-paying jobs until they find new careers.
“This is exactly the kind of plan you expect to hear from the Democratic candidates, not an alleged economic conservative,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “The government should not be in the business of guaranteeing wages. In a dynamic economy, wage and employment changes are inevitable and part of the normal process of economic growth and technological innovation.”
“In addition, McCain’s welfare program has the potential to unleash a series of perverse incentives, the worst of which is the disincentive to learn new skills and assume challenging new career paths. Why make an effort to learn new skills and take on a challenge when John McCain will make taxpayers pay your former wage for even a minimum wage job? The program also has the potential to be exorbitantly expensive as many workers opt to settle for low-paying jobs so long as McCain doles out taxpayer subsidies.”
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Clarice,
Unfortunately,they don't.
Posted by: Peter England | December 21, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Posted by: clarice | December 21, 2007 at 07:28 PM
******************************
Is this a joke?
Posted by: SunnyDay | December 22, 2007 at 10:54 AM
No, it is not Sunny.
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I'm going to be sick.
Posted by: SunnyDay | December 22, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Let's face it, folks: the U.S. is a genuine fascist police state. By some mysterious means it has become the only fascist police state in history with a serious illegal immigration problem.
Your correspondent is posting from lovely Marin County this weekend. Plenty o' them Commies up here, by God.
Posted by: other tom | December 22, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Oh boo hoo. Funny how they just keep coming to this terrible place called America.
Sara, don't be an idiot: read my story. It's NOT about an immigrant or foreign resident.
When I lived in Germany I could go most anywhere in Europe with a wave-through.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 22, 2007 at 02:21 PM
Charlie:
I've had troubles with US immigration on more than one occasion, usually in Pearson airport in Toronto.
In Toronto, that would be Canadian immigration giving you the trouble.
Posted by: MayBee | December 22, 2007 at 03:33 PM
MayBee,
Pearson and other Canadian airports have U.S. Customs and Immigration checkpoints that you go through before boarding your flight to the U.S.
Posted by: Elliott | December 22, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Really?
My mistake, then. Thanks for clarifying, Elliott.
Posted by: MayBee | December 22, 2007 at 04:04 PM
I'm still not sure why I should believe her, or why I should care if I did. If she in fact overstayed her previous visa (as she admits), she should've been turned away at immigration. And her telephone convenience isn't a top priority either. Too bad, so sad. If they in fact mistreated her, they ought not to've. But that story sounded an awful lot like someone who had an ax to grind . . . and the genre isn't notable for its accuracy.
Bureaucrats and petty officials will outlast the cockroach on this planet.
That's probably the bottom line. But I'd note that I travel internationally regularly, and have had exactly zero problems anywhere (if you don't count obnoxious overofficiousness). And in most of the cases cited, the problem starts with an admitted violation (or at least an arguable case of a violation), and goes downhill from there. And I've seen a couple of people "standing up for their rights" in cases where they didn't have any rights (like, for example, their "right" to be let into a country for a shopping trip) . . . and whining over the predictable conclusion. Getting a one-sided verson of the event after the fact doesn't impress.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 22, 2007 at 04:33 PM
She was probably held overnight because Icelandic Air only has two fights a day to JFK (or at least the used to only have two a day could be more could be less now)
Posted by: chad | December 26, 2007 at 09:12 AM