Slashdot Mirror


US Stops British Muslim Family From Boarding Flight To Visit Disneyland (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: U.S. authorities blocked a British Muslim family from boarding a plane at London's Gatwick airport. They were flying to Los Angeles on a trip to visit Disneyworld. "U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials provided no explanation for why the country refused to allow the family of 11 to board the plane, even though they had been granted travel authorization online ahead of their planned 15 December flight." This comes at a time when prominent groups and individuals within the U.S. are arguing in favor of blocking entrance for all Muslims. The refusal, and the U.S.'s unwillingness to explain, is raising concern within the UK government. The family is out $13,340 for their plane tickets.

704 comments

  1. There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FTFA

    A British Muslim family heading for Disneyland was barred from boarding a flight to Los Angeles by US authorities at London’s Gatwick airport...

    Wow, is it true? The US "authorities" have pretty long arms.

    1. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Britain will do whatever the US wants them to do and more.

    2. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      US bound airlines submit lists of passengers to US authorities before departure. Anybody the US won't accept is not allowed to board though the strange thing here is that these people had all applied for visas in advance, and had them approved.

    3. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 5, Informative

      The screening is done at boarding time not because US authorities have long arms. US authorities have no jurisdiction over who does or doesn't board in the UK. What they are saying is "we won't admit this passenger if he shows up at the US border", Since the airline doesn't want to be stuck with passengers with no place to go once they arrive at the US border, they won't even let you board the flight if you wouldn't be admitted.

    4. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That doesn't ring true. The UK does not need visa approval for US travel. Anyone with a British passport is part of the visa waiver programme, allowing entry to the US for up to three months (plus another three with an extension if you're rich enough), per year. The exception to this are those on the banned list, i.e. criminals and those with suspect pasts from other countries.

      There's far more to this story that the click-bait summary.

    5. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by ledow · · Score: 2

      Not really.

      The US - and any other country in the world - has the power to stop people entering official flights into their country. It's quite a basic right. We're actually considering it now for Donald Trump.

      It's not that the UK "cooperated" with this or anything. The US refused them entry to a flight to the US. I've seen similar things done because the guy in question was someone who didn't have an official visa who they suspected of working illicitly, so they threw him out of the US before and we wasn't able to even book a flight to the US without the airline refusing / refunding his money a few days later. No matter what airline.

      Give it a few more months and a few more gaffes and Donald Trump will be in the same position. The UK flights will deny him boarding even if the US airports let him through security right to the gate, etc.

    6. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The UK does not need visa approval for US travel.

      This is not about visa travel. This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's not really the DHS guys who is hypothetically posted in London that stopped them, but the airport/airline/security informed by DHS of said passengers' non-admissible status. Makes sense, but I still blame the Grauniad for the ambiguity.

    8. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, is it true? The US "authorities" have pretty long arms.

      I haven't been through Gatwick in years so I don't know if they do this there, but in Dublin there is "preclearance": essentially a section of the airport just for US flights which is staffed by US personnel. You go through security and immigration there, so that when you land in the USA you can just pick up your baggage and leave without going through whatever hellishly long customs and immigration queue there is at JFK or wherever you land.

      Maybe they were stopped there?

    9. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The UK does not need visa approval for US travel. Anyone with a British passport is part of the visa waiver programme.

      We Brits don't need visa's, but do need to apply for ESTA (Electronic System for travel Authorisation) from the US in advance, even if we are using the Visa Waiver. This is what the family had done, and been granted travel approval.

    10. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain will do whatever the US wants them to do and more.

      (after a brief 250-year intermission)

      Well, now...how the tides have turned.

    11. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by starless · · Score: 4, Informative

      That doesn't ring true. The UK does not need visa approval for US travel. Anyone with a British passport is part of the visa waiver programme, allowing entry to the US for up to three months (plus another three with an extension if you're rich enough), per year. The exception to this are those on the banned list, i.e. criminals and those with suspect pasts from other countries.

      Yes, but those on the visa waiver program do need to apply for this in advance of travel via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)
      https://travel.state.gov/conte...

    12. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.

      Heh. But it's abroad, so the US constitution doesn't apply, right? As in Guantanamo?

      Folks -- the situation is so fucked up that there are no words to describe it. And it's deteriorating at a vertiginous pace. And we are all happily working on making it worse.

    13. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please, please don't deny Trump access to international flights. We in the US do not want to be stuck with him either.

    14. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by swb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Give it a few more months and a few more gaffes and Donald Trump will be in the same position. The UK flights will deny him boarding even if the US airports let him through security right to the gate, etc.

      Donald Trump doesn't fly commercial. He owns a 757-200.

    15. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Folks -- the situation is so fucked up that there are no words to describe it. And it's deteriorating at a vertiginous pace. And we are all happily working on making it worse.

      Certainly whoever is currently moderating me is voicing their support for the status quo. It's useful idiots all the way down.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Tx · · Score: 4, Informative

      The visa waiver is not automatic, you have to apply to travel via ESTA. That can be denied, in which case you have to apply for a visa. It's not just "criminals and those with suspect pasts" that are denied authorisation via ESTA, there is little transparency about why the DHS flag people, and sometimes it seems almost random. Don't forget that Ted Kennedy got put on the no-fly list by the DHS, and there was never any explanation other than that it was a "mistake". You can bet there are a lot more such "mistakes" for people with arabic-sounding names though, and for people who aren't US senators, the chances of the mistake ever being corrected are low.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    17. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      I thought the US Constitution said something about all men being equal. Does it say it doesn't apply to foreigners?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by PsyMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dont think you can land anywhere else, JFK is the only international airport in the USA, I believe there are buses from that airport to the surrounding states but you are lucky to get a space on the roof of those.

    19. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by JoelKatz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If that's true, and it's the airline that denied them boarding, the airline should refund their money.

    20. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      All the overseas airports I've seen recently have a dhs station before you board. Us imperialism ftw. Also, the summary mixed up Disneyland and disneyworld. Get it right!

    21. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," So no, not the Constitution. But nice try.

    22. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then he'll get to arrive before being turned away, at greater personal expense.

    23. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Please recheck your assumptions. There are many international airports in the USA: most large airports near US borders have international flights.

    24. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont think you can land anywhere else, JFK is the only international airport in the USA

      Eh? I've flown Dublin to Washington before, and I'm flying London to Arizona in the new year. Pretty sure one airline is starting a route from Dublin to LA sometime soon as well, and I could swear my parents have flown into Boston too, all direct from outside the USA. It would be crazy for all international flights to go through one airport for a country the size of the USA.

    25. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pretty standard practice. Most countries aren't going to have representatives physically present, but airlines have to submit passenger names and other info to the destination country, which can then refuse entry. If the airline brings someone they weren't supposed to, they get fined and would presumably incur civil liability for any negative consequences. If they don't like a country's requirements, then they don't get to fly there.

    26. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by tlambert · · Score: 1, Informative

      I dont think you can land anywhere else, JFK is the only international airport in the USA, I believe there are buses from that airport to the surrounding states but you are lucky to get a space on the roof of those.

      There are over 160 international airports in the United States, and two each in Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

      There are 10 non-stop flights from San Francisco to Heathrow on 12 Jan 2016 alone. That's a Tuesday; there are more on other days.

    27. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      ESTA seems like a pretty lightweight check. Also, if I remember correctly it's valid for 1-2 years or so and it can be used for multiple entries, unless they've changed that. Given the level of paranoia, I can imagine that they want to perform an additional check against the passenger list. What I really wonder is against what data and which criteria this check is performed. The ESTA form and any additional data provided by the airlines do not exactly give detailed insight. Maybe it's just about having the wrong surname.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    28. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > The US - and any other country in the world - has the power to stop people entering official flights into their country.

      Except for the United Nations, which is HQ-ed in N.Y. city but extra-territorial. In theory, the USA cannot even deny Kim-Jong-Whoever from flying into the USA to officially speak at the UN human rights summit at the New York UN HQ. In practice, the USA tries to abuse such rules every now and then.

      There are more and more voices demanding the UN move its HQ to some more neutral place, like Austria, Sweden or Switzerland. Maybe with global climate change, Antartica will become a suitable site in 25 years' time. The penguins of Madagascar will get a permanents seat in the Security Council as a courtesy.

    29. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Xest · · Score: 1

      "A British Muslim family heading for Disneyland was barred from boarding a flight to Los Angeles by US authorities at Londonâ(TM)s Gatwick airport...

      Wow, is it true? The US "authorities" have pretty long arms."

      It wouldn't be unusual, I cleared US security at Canada's Ottawa airport once. I cleared British security in Prague and in Narvik, Norway some years ago, closer to 9/11.

      Many of the security-paranoid states in the world have security positioned outside of their own territory in foreign airports that you must clear before boarding. Countries accept it because it's far easier and cheaper than being denied or restricted access to some of the busiest airports and hence global connections in the world.

    30. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Xest · · Score: 1

      What the fuck? How did I get from Manchester, England to Chicago O'Hare, or London, England to Phoenix, Arizona, or Manchester, England to Philadelphia all by plane if JFK was the only international airport which I most definitely have never ever been to?

      The US has a metric fuckton of international airports, these are just some of the ones I've been through, and that's before you include giants elsewhere in the US, like LAX.

    31. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

      The US - and any other country in the world - has the power to stop people entering official flights into their country. It's quite a basic right. We're actually considering it now for Donald Trump.

      So you're thinking about denying entry to someone for political reasons?

      You've nothing to complain about if another country denies entry to any of your citizens for any reason, then.

      Because when you say "We don't want you here because of your beliefs" - and you're clearly saying that for Trump - you've abandoned any right to complain about exclusion for for any reason, because you practice exclusion for exercising a fundamental human right in a way you don't like.

      So sod off.

    32. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The largest words written in the constitution are "WE THE PEOPLE" followed by the words, in smaller print, "of the United States." The constitution of the U.S. only describes our type/form of Republic. The Declaration of Independence you quoted is just us telling our government to fuck off (which is probably your current government, right?)

    33. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      It works the same way in Sweden (Stockholm airport Arlanda). There are american officials checking passports, and they have closed of an entire section you have to pass through. I think they are DHS.

    34. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought the US Constitution said something about all men being equal. Does it say it doesn't apply to foreigners?

      The US constitution says no such thing. Jefferson's declaration of independence has the phrase that all men are created equal first among the list of self-evident truths, but that did not make it into the actual constitution. And of course "all men" for Jefferson in practice meant at best "all white males".

      --

      Stephan

    35. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Declaration of Independence you paraphrased" Just so you don't get all "I didn't quote that" like the little bitch you are.

    36. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? ESTA, idiot.

    37. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      EVERY airport in the US that is open to commercial flights is an "international" airport. This was done in part to expand the authority and jurisdiction of US Customs. Customs has always had authority within 50 miles of the border. Making all airports "international", and also increasing the 50 miles to 150 miles has given Customs authority pretty much everywhere on the continent.

      Besides, LAX has always been an international airport. I believe Dalls/FW and a few others have been as well.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    38. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if they are DHS, but yes there are American security personnel who sometimes interview passengers bound for US destinations

    39. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Alioth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't need a visa but you *DO* need to be pre-approved for travel to the US by the ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) which they were. So they had applied for travel authorization in advance, and been granted authorization.

      It's not just Muslims - there was a man deported on arrival a couple of years ago because he had used a particular turn of phrase in British English (which is entirely non-threatening in British English, but interpreted as a threat by the US immigration service) on a twitter message. This showed before the Snowden stuff came out plenty of evidence that the US not only trawls social networks, but has mechanisms to match a Twitter pseudonym to an actual live person. Snowden merely confirmed what we could infer already from incidents like this.

    40. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no preclearance at Gatwick.

    41. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will never be able to stop Darth Trump from entering anywhere be wants. So HAH!

    42. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Actually it has benefits for passengers too. The DHS doesn't have this in the UK (it's likely airline staff denied the boarding, not DHS staff). But they do in Dublin. You clear US customs and immigration in Dublin, so on a Dublin to US flight you arrive in a domestic terminal having already cleared customs/immigration. This means you're much less likely to get held up and miss a connection and can have a shorter layover.

    43. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      That's an Ireland thing. They have an agreement with the US. We don't do that in Britain.

    44. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 1
      I'm not going to bother replying to those below, but: "Uh, why yes. You need to get out more. Or at least, read non-US news sources every once in a while." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I can just imagine the grand-standing and filibusters in Congress if Canada (gentle, kind, peaceful Canada!) suggested installing polite, respectful Canadian Customs officials in 'Mercan airports, eh.

    45. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK does not need visa approval for US travel.

      This is not about visa travel. This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.

      B-b-b-but our fine courts have ruled that the DHS no-fly list is constitutional.

    46. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You haven't read the fine print on an airline ticket have you?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    47. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by bwcbwc · · Score: 2

      They had applied for "authorization" in advance, which isn't the same as a visa.

      My guess is that this is related to the changes to the Visa Waiver program where people with dual citizenship no longer qualify to use a Visa Waiver. I don't understand why that can't be explained though.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    48. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more easy, other countries can just refuse that plane access to their airspace. Or just shoot it down and call the crew's death collateral damage.

    49. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought the US Constitution said something about all men being equal. Does it say it doesn't apply to foreigners?

      It's a mixed bag. That text is actually from the Declaration of Independence, which is the document which creates the nation but which doesn't determine how it shall be governed. The Constitution is the rules for how the nation is meant to be governed. Rights are enumerated in the ten amendments to the Constitution known as Bill of Rights, which was not meant to be an exhaustive enumeration of rights, but in practice... The First amendment has traditionally been held to apply to non-citizens and citizens alike, and it does say that congress shall make no law etc etc, not that it shall make no law which applies to citizens, while in other countries you have long been able to be punished for your speech. Other rights, however, are protected explicitly for The People, which is given to imply of the United States. So 1st everyone, 2nd citizens, 3rd everyone, 4th citizens, 5th-9th everyone... So there's loads of precedent for denying some rights to foreigners.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.

      Based upon what article?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    51. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Not really strange at all. If they wanted to make an arrest, or just get them in for questioning. Telling them OK, come board, is a perfect way to make sure they can be approached and apprehended without a gun battle. If they are serious terrorist, like the US apparently thinks, they could very well be ready for the government to storm their abode (and would not be planning to let they take them alive and without bloodshed). They last terrorist group had stockpiles of guns, ammo, and explosives. A siege of that house would of went bad very quickly.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    52. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

      Unfortunately, it was written before evolution bonked the creation myth. These days, there's nothing "self-evident" about it at all.
      (Nor any definition of "man" that doesn't beg the question.)

    53. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you sent Piers Morgan back to us so it's only fair that we make you keep Donald Chump.

    54. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are more and more voices demanding the UN move its HQ to some more neutral place, like Austria, Sweden or Switzerland.

      Jerusalem - seems a suitable place to enshrine endless bickering.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    55. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are very different documents. "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal..." comes from the Declaration, which was basically a big political "fuck you" to the British government and especially the monarchy. It's not a law and has no legal weight, and unlike the Constitution it is not subject to updates (amendments). Its language might serve as a guide for the country at times - apparently, to such an extent that some people can't tell the difference between document that is merely of historical interest and the highest law of the USA - but the Declaration is merely a historical document, today.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    56. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your responsibility to make sure you have permission in the destination country before you fly.

      These people might have had that, or they might be lying - but it doesn't matter. If airlines refunded everyone who bought tickets without getting admitted to their destinations, you could have people buying seats all the time taking up space unnecessarily.

      Plus, if these people weren't Muslim nobody would give a shit-it's a sensationalist piece implying racism and fear when there is zero evidence of it. They could have had a conservative tweet, or it could just be a mistake.

      Again, we shouldn't care unless there's direct evidence.

    57. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      The screening is done at boarding time not because US authorities have long arms. US authorities have no jurisdiction over who does or doesn't board in the UK. What they are saying is "we won't admit this passenger if he shows up at the US border", Since the airline doesn't want to be stuck with passengers with no place to go once they arrive at the US border, they won't even let you board the flight if you wouldn't be admitted.

      Airlines, IIRC, are also subject to fines if the allow someone to board and enter the US without a valid visa / passport / etc.; plus finding them a return flight. I don't know about the UK but th eUS does have Customs and Immigration officers abroad, often to allow people to percale customs and immigration before entering the US. As a side note, airlines often don't seem to realize that you can percale. When I tried to book a connector from abroad the airline's computer wouldn't allow it since I had less than their minimum time for international flights, and the rep kept saying "You won't clear customs and immigration in time..." even after I explained I percolated it at my departure point so the arrival in the US was to a domestic gate right next to the departure gate of the flight I wanted to take. I could book spirit flights but the cost was 2x as much so I booked connector and tried to get on the flight I wanted by being asking the gate agent to help me out.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    58. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      There are more and more voices demanding the UN move its HQ to some more neutral place, like Austria, Sweden or Switzerland.

      And just recently, some of those calls have been coming from other countries.

    59. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Please recheck your assumptions. There are many international airports in the USA: most large airports near US borders have international flights.

      Not just large airports near borders, there are many smaller airports that are international ones as well. All it basically takes is customs and immigration to be able to clear passengers.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    60. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's sad to see all the replies from people who couldn't see the joke. Even when you made it more obvious by referencing buses.

      I'd mod you up if I hadn't already commented!

    61. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Wooooosh

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    62. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're actually considering it now for Donald Trump."

      No we're not, despite what Trump thinks or wants.

    63. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All white male *landowners*.

      FTFY.

    64. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

      It is not sensationalist when the facts are they had permission to enter . They were refused to board. The excuse was that the uk borders or airline security had received a call denying them entry. No direct reason was given.

      Two males and a number of children. With trips booked to Disney land.

      They happen to be Muslim.

      A week or so ago a nutbag running for president decides to promote a fascist border control policy.

    65. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ireland, Britain what's the difference?

    66. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lso, you can use the ESTA 2 years after applying. There's no chance, at al, that in 2 years, that we could have identified some sign of radicalization in an adult, much less a teenager. There's no chance that any one in the large party made pro-Daesh comments online or sent money to family members who have been overrun in any number of civil wars. You're an ignorant idiot.

    67. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      This is not about visa travel. This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.

      Non-US-citizens don't have a right to free travel in the US, so the use of the list to control entry/exit by non-citizens would be constitutional.

      It's unreasonable to block air travel after approving the Visa; however. Unless there is significant logically valid concern about a specific passenger, the authorities should not be blocking people willy-nilly; However, the authorities need the right to do so when the situation warrants it, in order to do their job.

    68. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternative is to turn the plane away on approach and risk it blowing up from some kind of IED taken on board. Unlike the write up, I highly doubt the family was turned away due to them being Muslim. Simply being Muslim is not seen as a negative thing by DHS. However, having contacts with known terrorists, providing funding to terrorist organizations, visiting known terrorist training areas, and other similar behaviors are of concern to DHS. ... And many European governments as well. The reason the family was turned away is probably being kept quiet to respect the rights of the children in the family and to prevent release of operational intelligence capabilities, but there was most definitely a reason they would have done that.

    69. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They didn't arrest the family or interrogate them. They simply turned them away, telling the airline not to let them board or face fines.

      So it's still fairly bizarre. I've heard some attempts to justify them not being allowed into the US (apparently the father had been questioned before at a different airport), but nothing that explains why the entire family were approved for a pseudo-visa.

      Once upon a time that could have been justified by the fact the US government was so divided that different departments were responsible for different aspects of the process, but since shortly after 9/11 it's all been under the TSA's general remit anyway.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    70. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I flew from Frankfurt recently. No DHS, no ICE, no Americans until we landed in Newark. Newark, however, was a festering holding pit for immigrants. The only bathroom before immigration ws full of people puking.

    71. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 2

      As an aside, what are your views on the usage of the no-fly list in vetting gun sales idea.

    72. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no international airports in the States.

      You find airports where international fly will arrive.

      An international airport is an airport where you can change fly's without entering the national territory.

      Chicago is not.
      If you fly from London (UK) to Toronto (Can), you have to enter the US national territory.
      Worse: if you just fly OVER US territory, you need to get throught the US admin process.

      This makes impossible the opening of the line Mexico - Russia as they should fly over the US...

    73. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 2

      The Constitution's rights only apply to Citizens and permanent legal residents. Tourists and those in the country illegally are at convenience extended Constitutional rights. As far as what you're getting at here with regard to the above article, the Supreme Court has general deferred greatly to executive judgment on who is and isn't allowed into the country. This is also why Donald Trump's idea to ban Muslims is a legal gray area.

    74. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      There are various customer protections in both the US and the UK. In the US if you don't get boarded on a plane you have a ticket for the FAA states you are eligible for 4x the value of the entire ticket and any alternative transportation costs. There are also various insurances which will cover the entire trip for whatever cancellation.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    75. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      white male land owners, but only if they were able to read and write (of course, owning land one would probably assume that you're of some higher caste)

    76. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your responsibility to make sure you have permission in the destination country before you fly.

      They had obtained permission, which was revoked at the last minute, therefore they should claim the refund from the agency which originally gave them permission and later changed its mind.

    77. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Should not maybe. Can not. All day everyday. Even if capriciously, every country has the right to ban whoever they want at any time from entry into their country. It's a sovereignty issue.

      Besides, it's not like these people couldn't go to Euro-Disney.

    78. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your electronic travel authorization application is approved, it establishes that you are eligible to travel, but does not establish that you are admissible to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Upon arrival to the United States, you will be inspected by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer at a port of entry who may determine that you are inadmissible under the Visa Waiver Program or for any reason under United States law.

    79. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Ireland's the bit of the country that defies the yoke of the mainland's righteous oppression.

    80. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pretty standard practice. Most countries aren't going to have representatives physically present, but airlines have to submit passenger names and other info to the destination country, which can then refuse entry. If the airline brings someone they weren't supposed to, they get fined and would presumably incur civil liability for any negative consequences. If they don't like a country's requirements, then they don't get to fly there.

      So there is no such thing as a 'walk-up' international fare? I am sure if someone turned up at almost any airport with a credit card with a sufficient limit, that they would be able to purchase a full price first class ticket on the next flight (or one very soon after).

    81. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're sorry our gun crazed culture couldn't off him for you.

    82. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 1

      No mod points so....
      *ba dum tish*

    83. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The visa waiver is not automatic, you have to apply to travel via ESTA. That can be denied, in which case you have to apply for a visa. It's not just "criminals and those with suspect pasts" that are denied authorisation via ESTA, there is little transparency about why the DHS flag people, and sometimes it seems almost random. Don't forget that Ted Kennedy got put on the no-fly list by the DHS, and there was never any explanation other than that it was a "mistake". You can bet there are a lot more such "mistakes" for people with arabic-sounding names though, and for people who aren't US senators, the chances of the mistake ever being corrected are low.

      And Tashfeen Malik - a female with not just any male name (Malik == Michael) but the male name of the Muslim who conquered Spain for Islam - publicly supported violent jihad - posting it numerous times to her Facebook page - and still got a visa to come to the US.

      Where she actually engaged in violent jihad.

      Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

      Yay DHS!!!

      I think our government would do a lot better with more money, don't you?

    84. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by bytesex · · Score: 1

      "Is your responsibility to make sure you have permission in the destination country before you fly."

      But you have no way to check this. The list, based on which you will be denied entry, based on which the airline will decide not to transport you, is not public. And the ESTA application came through. So in a way the US has the power to arbitrarily deprive you of your money.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    85. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that Ted Kennedy got put on the no-fly list by the DHS

      Yes, Ted Kennedy got put on the no-fly list. Well actually it was T.Kennedy. And "Ted" isn't even the man's legal name, it's Edward, "Ted" is just a nickname. So how in the ever-loving hell does the DHS manage to stick an entry on it's list that says "T. Kennedy" and have it apply to former US Senator Edward Kennedy?

      The boundless stupidity that is so easy to see involving DHS and TSA should be evidence enough that the entire thing needs to be scrapped.

    86. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Equality does not imply sameness. Or even equal aptitude in any particular context. Keep in mind that they were perfectly aware of the existence of weaklings, idiots, etc. when they made that assertion, so it clearly had nothing to do with aptitude.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    87. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Unlike other countries that process immigration at arrival, the US has customs verification at departure.

      Ie, in Montreal (YUL), there's a small portion of the airport that is actually under US control. You go through baggage check-in and then head to the US customs office (a long wait really) and then through the body scans. Those potions are effectively US territory with their own police. Then it exists back into Canadaland at the boarding gate for the US-bound terminal.

      So yes, they have long-reaching arms.

    88. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by khallow · · Score: 1

      A week or so ago a nutbag running for president decides to promote a fascist border control policy.

      Unless Trump has a time machine and is enforcing said border policy from some point in the future as US president, then this is completely irrelevant.

    89. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by njnnja · · Score: 2

      Besides, it's not like these people couldn't go to Euro-Disney.

      Note that forcing them to do that would be a violation of their 8th amendment rights (if they were protected by the US Constitution).

    90. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're suggesting Donald Trump has influence over Homeland Security... You are also a fucking moron.

    91. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just means he wasted his own jet fuel. UK will still deny him entry into the country if that's their prerogative. I hope they say yes, then change their mind at the last second... just to maximize how much time he's away from people ;)

    92. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Constitution's rights only apply to Citizens and permanent legal residents. Tourists and those in the country illegally are at convenience extended Constitutional rights. As far as what you're getting at here with regard to the above article, the Supreme Court has general deferred greatly to executive judgment on who is and isn't allowed into the country. This is also why Donald Trump's idea to ban Muslims is a legal gray area.

      It's not a "legal gray area" at all.

      Jimmy Carter had no problem unilaterally stopping all Iranian immigration/visas.

      But Carter's a Democrat.

    93. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Grauniad will somehow manage to blame the US when a kitten falls out of a tree in Australia.

      And rightly so -- being on the other side of the planet, the US is definitely pulling said kitten toward the Aussie ground...

    94. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I never implied that it did.

      The problem is that it is not obvious that man was created to be anything.
      Creation and design is no longer taken for "self-evident", and ranks with Santa Claus coming down the chimney in credibility.

      The Declaration of Independence was a document from another time, and has no relevance for today, other than as a historic artifact. Attempts to apply what it says on today's world is plain stupidity. It wasn't written for us.

    95. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Details please.

    96. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 1

      It's common for people to mix up visa and ESTA.

      Many countries are part of the visa waiver program, and they have to fill out an ESTA-application online and have it approved before attempting travel.

      An ESTA-approval is no guarantee that you will be allowed to enter, but at least you should be able to fly.

      Unless there is also something else in relation to Secure flight / AFIS, that is the transferral of passenger information to US authorities.

      --
      Harald
    97. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The UK does not need visa approval for US travel.

      It's a visa by another name. https://www.gov.uk/foreign-tra... says 'may' but you're not getting on an aircraft without going through the bullshit: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/

    98. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by oobayly · · Score: 2

      The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America."

      http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

      Fucking stupid, but context is everything, except to bureaucrats.

    99. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They happen to be Muslim.

      One of them on the radio earlier just happened to refer to Daesh as 'the Caliphate'.

      Seems a strange choice of terminology when playing the "We've been discriminated against because of our religion" card.

    100. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you have a min time of 3hours for check-in for long haul internatiobal. The airline needs to check that's it's ok to take you.

    101. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I try and avoid the police state known as the UK. Not sure why the brits feel like they have anything to be smug about. Economy in the shitter, politicians that make Trump look sane.

    102. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      They will deny him landing rights?

    103. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2A also applies to non-citizens. If you're in the US under a permanent resident visa (i.e. have a green card), and don't have a criminal history, you're basically good to go.
      My local range sees quite the number of Chinese citizens, most of whom are applying citizenship. And you know, good for them.

      If you're here under specific nonresident visas, you might also qualify -- such as for hunting primarily.

    104. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution, as written, very clearly stated that people were not equal. Try googling 'three-fifths clause' for a good place to start.

      On top of that, the Constitution actually left, at writing, a lot of stuff up to the individual states. Who could vote, for example.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    105. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Things might have changed, but last I flew (even under an I94-W), we still had to apply for the right to travel to the US.

      Basically, getting into the US is either with a Visa, or Visa Waiver, but flying to/from the US (independently of you being allowed in) is a separate program, whose name I cannot remember right now.

    106. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      yeah its a lot quicker to pull off a Gandolf style "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" on the front end of an airplane trip.

      im sure there are English "DHS" agents in US airports for the same reason

    107. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Jefferson in practice meant at best "all white males"

      More accurately, all educated, land-owning Anglo-Saxon males.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    108. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The Constitution's rights only apply to Citizens and permanent legal residents. Tourists and those in the country illegally are at convenience extended Constitutional rights. As far as what you're getting at here with regard to the above article, the Supreme Court has general deferred greatly to executive judgment on who is and isn't allowed into the country. This is also why Donald Trump's idea to ban Muslims is a legal gray area.

      Uh, the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 13th amendments also applies to any human being in US soil, regardless of nationality.

    109. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airlines overbook seats anyway, especially for international flights.

    110. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut you are all English.

    111. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would contend that the Declaration of Independence is more than merely a historical document--Perhaps it is even more important than the Constitution. It is, after all, a written declaration of the values upon which the USA was founded. Citizens and legislators alike may bicker over the wording and intent of laws that change from time to time, but what binds a nation are those shared values that should not change (except to handle inconsistencies and ethics problems).

    112. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The People" Includes "US Persons", which is not necessarily (in law) the same as "US Citizen". Specifically, a foreign national, present on a Permanent Resident Visa ("Green Card") is a US Person and the Second Amendment applies, although may be restricted at the State level. (Example: me, formerly a GC in Florida, issued a Concealed Carry Weapons permit).

    113. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by mrchew1982 · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that The Declaration of Independence heavily influenced the "Roe vs. Wade" legal decision that ended all kinds of stupid laws. The phrase "life, liberty and pusuit of happiness" was interpreted to include the right to privacy.

    114. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Why is that so strange? Many countries have their customs officials in other countries. Would it be better if they flew all the way to LA and then got turned around? If you are in Canada too, and heading to the US via ferry or some airports, you'll check in with US customs before you leave. It's easier for everyone.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    115. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      But you have to apply to have the visa waiver.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    116. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      My curiosity there is that several Visas have been canceled recently, there was a whole discussion/questioning in congress about it. This may be related to that.

      I also want to know why they were flying from London and going to Los Angeles, if it was to visit Disney LAND, why would you settle for the little brother when Disney World is much closer, and therefore cheaper to visit.

      Also, submitter needs to learn the difference between Disney World in Orlando/Kissimmee Florida, and Disneyland in California.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    117. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      And you'll notice that Carter's ban only extended to Iranians. Not Iraqis, not Saudis, not Muslims from Africa, Europe, Australia, everywhere else.

      So, it's a false comparison.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    118. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is a silly thing to do. The no-fly list has no judicial backing, it is people suspected of maybe intending to do something. There is no guarantee that people on the no-fly list have done or intend to do anything wrong. The no-fly list also is not a unique database, it is first name last name, which frequently gets more than one person. There is also no way to get yourself off the no-fly list when it is proven you didn't do anything wrong.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    119. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

      No it's not. Policy is dictated by those in power. Those in power politically position themselves to defend or undermine opposition arguments before elections one method is to occupy the political ground before the opposition does.

    120. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

      You don't understand politics at all.

    121. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Long arms? Are you on crack? This was a flight to the US. There is nothing "long armed" about it. They either get turned back at Gatwick or turned back in LA. At least this way they don't end up stuck in limbo at LAX.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    122. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      vertiginous

      Nice word!

    123. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This is where the whole thing actually starts to touch on "tech".

      Anyone that's done any work in this area knows that name matching is total bullshit. Beyond the con law issues of using this no fly list for anything, it's simply a useless piece of trash. It defies well understood principles of data mining.

      The no fly list shouldn't be used to deny anything to anybody.

      That's not even getting into the policies surrounding how the list is managed.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    124. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was responding to the accusation that it is sensationalist.
      The facts do not contradict a line of thought (even if it is wrong) so it is not sensationalist to raise the question. Why were they stopped? No reason has been given. Was the decision based on evidence (perhaps they cannot declare what the evidence you imply might be). Or is it based on an assumption of guilt without evidence, hence my reference to fascism.

      Do you know the answer? If you do you can tell me what the evidence was. If you can't you are assuming there was evidence, showing a bias at the very least.

      (OK I admit the my last statement of fact was laced with opinion).
       

    125. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK does not need visa approval for US travel.

      Everybody from all countries (except Canada*) need visa approval to visit the US. When you go up to the customs podium and give them your passport, they either grant you a visa on the spot or not.

      Folks from the UK do not need a visa approved in advance.

      * Canadians get a visa when travelling by air and usually by vehicle but you get an automatic pass if you cross the great lakes by boat; you call customs to state where you landed but they rarely bother following up or even recording it.

    126. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Oh, I read

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      As not depending in any way on a personal god (aka one having personhood), or even a conscious Creator. Evolution or Nature fill the role just fine.

      In fact those could readily be taken as natural rights possessed by every living thing until Life is taken away to serve the needs of another. And that within a moral, human framework, no man has the right to take away those rights from another. Contrast that with with a monarchy, wherein the Monarch typically claims to be anointed by God to rule the masses in worldly things as they see fit, with the implied corollary that so long as God does not intervene, the Monarch must be acting within their rights.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    127. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 1

      In what way? They aren't being tried, fined, or punished.

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    128. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes interesting.

      I was trying to stick to the facts of the matter and I was replying to a post that claimed it was a sensationalist story. Yours is the first sensible response to my post.

      There may indeed be a an undisclosed reason for refusing entry. The problem is if all muslims get tarred with the same brush then the argument extremists like to promote, that the west is anti-muslim, is strengthened.

      How can a country keep it's methods / sources secret and defend itself using that information. An ongoing problem.

    129. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Jimmy Carter had no problem unilaterally stopping all Iranian immigration/visas.

      You can more easily ban people from a particular Country that from a particular Religion.

      That's where Trump's idea falls off a cliff, Constitutionally-speaking.

    130. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Well,that's what ISIS fancies itself as... the new Caliphate. It's a historical term really. Using it doesn't mean that you're pledging allegiance to them. It just means that you understand the historical context involved.

      I would bring up Charles Martel, Vlad the Impaler, and Sobieski in the same context.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    131. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case it makes sense. If they aren't going to be allowed in through the checkpoint at the end of their flight then it makes sense not to let them board the flight.

      So the means (preventing them from boarding) at least are reasonable; whether the objective (preventing them from entering the country) made any sense is an entirely different matter.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    132. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 1

      That was my point...also, are you drinkypoo?

    133. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.

      Based upon what article?

      The no-fly list deprives targets of their rights to due process under the fifth amendment, which states (among other things) that no person (this is not about The People) will "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    134. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      As an aside, what are your views on the usage of the no-fly list in vetting gun sales idea.

      It violates both the second and fifth amendment.

      I am not against basic and sensible gun control. That means somewhere in between California and nothing. I am in favor of background checks, with certain caveats; I'm not really sure that this government is qualified to determine who is sane enough to own a firearm, nor that the DSM is an apt basis for classification. I don't really think civilians need auto-fire weaponry, and frankly you can't prevent them from owning the parts to convert their weapon anyway. But I'm against magazine size restrictions and the fear of tacticool weapons that look scary. And I'm absolutely against the use of a secret list, from which you may not defend yourself from inclusion, for any purpose. If you don't have the right to meet your accuser in court, that's a violation of your constitutional rights, and either the constitution matters or it doesn't and let's not pretend.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    135. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by njnnja · · Score: 1

      It's a Euro Disney joke. But I repeat myself.

    136. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      percale

      What do cotton sheets have to do with international travel?

    137. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      No fly without visa. Simple idea, no?
      It's kind of like getting a phone call from the other side of the world and rejecting it and thinking "See, my power is global"...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    138. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      The 9th Amendment to the Constitution covers privacy. No need to invoke the Declaration since it has no legal standing.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    139. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Where is the "opposition" here? Trump has yet to win a single primary and from what I hear current polling has him doing poorly in the first few primary states.

      Further, the no fly list is not a new thing. This sort of thing has been going on for years.

      I don't buy your argument in the least. I think this is just a transparent attempt to whine about Trump.

    140. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I dont think you can land anywhere else, JFK is the only international airport in the USA, I believe there are buses from that airport to the surrounding states but you are lucky to get a space on the roof of those.

      You're full of shit.

      There are many "International Airports" in the USA. For example, here in Indiana, there is Indianapolis International Airport (formerly Weir Cook Airport). That has been classified as an International Airport (with a Customs office and everything) for at least the last 25 years or so.

    141. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Why? The airline could have allowed them to board, fly to the US, be denied entry in the US. At that point, the family would have had to buy return tickets for themselves, probably at the highest rate. Not letting them board if they will be denied entry is the best solution for everybody.

    142. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      To clarify what you said, in case someone simple reads it wrong: the Constitution is the owners / operators manual for the Government, and the Bill of Rights is a document of enumerated restrictions on what government can do. People should pay specific attention to the 9th and 10th amendment, as they specifically say that the Bill of Rights is not a complete list of the rights of the People, and the 10th says that anything not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill reverts to the States or the People respectively. The convention just wanted to enshrine some specifically important rights so that there would be absolutely no ambiguity.

      In fact, I believe the delegates from Georgia actually were worried that if a specific set of rights were enumerated in any sort of list, that some idiot in the future* would think that is the complete set, which is why the 9th and the 10th were added. And because James Madison was a fucking genius.

      * I'm not saying you or anyone else here is 'the idiot in the future' that the newly formed State of Georgia was referring to - far from it; but there are plenty of people that think that because there is no explicit right to privacy mentioned in the current amended Constitution, it does not exist. They are wrong, due to the 9th amendment.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    143. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Um, this is true almost everywhere.

    144. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Whenever I hear that US constitutional rights - really limitations on government since rights are natural rights and the constitution exists to limit government intrusion on these rights - do not apply to non US citizens I want to hurl. Of course, young people are signing petitions saying 'White Christmas' is a racist song, so you cannot say that critical thinking is a strong skill any longer.

    145. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Rights are not enumerated. Government restrictions on these rights are enumerated. When the document says "Congress shall make no law" that is NOT saying that you don't (for example) have the right to free speech, which is a natural law, but that the government SHALL NOT infringe on it.

    146. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      You can prevent people from entering your country - it is called border controls. It is not unconsitutional.

    147. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'm not that guy, but my problem with it is that it's restricting a Constitutional right without due process, and without redress, for US Citizens, which is plainly and clearly illegal under the Bill of Rights.

      There's no specific criteria for being on that list, and there's no way to get off it once you are. The 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits that for a US Citizen, and it denies due process which is illegal under the 5th amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    148. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      The airline can decide that it's better for everyone if they don't provide the service that they were paid to provide. But they can't decide that and still charge for the service that they decided not to provide.

      Without this rule, you get Kafkaesque situations where nobody's responsible for anything. For example, suppose the US simply notified the airline that this group wouldn't be allowed to fly and the airline canceled their ticket on that basis with on refund. The airline will say the cancellation will be better for everyone and the US will say they never actually denied them.

    149. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention the best example of this ever:

      Alice, Bob and Charlie are at a camp in the desert. The next day, they're all going to part ways. Alice and Bob each want to kill Charlie but do not know that the other does. Alice gets up in the middle of the night and poisons Charlie's canteen with a fast acting poison. Later, Bob gets up in the middle of the night and makes a whole in Charlie's canteen. The next day they go their separate ways. Charlie's canteen empties through the hole before he can drink any poison and he dies of thirst.

      Alice can't be responsible for Charlie's death (though she did attempt to murder him). She put poison in his water, but he never drank it.

      And, by the "better for everyone" rule, Bob can't be responsible for Charlie's death (though he did attempt to murder him). If not for the hole, he would have died even sooner. Surely you can't be responsible for someone's death if the consequences of your action is prolonging their life.

    150. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, there are over 150 international airports in the United States. There are thousands of airports in the United States that are not "international airports" but have commercial flights: KLYH and KROA are just two examples in one area of Virginia alone.

    151. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

      My argument is that the post I was responding to accused the previous poster of sensationalising the story. My argument is that it is the facts do not contradict the theory that US policy may have changed in light of recent comments by Trump (and others). There are many political reasons for doing this.

      There may also be some evidence gathered by the secret services or others indicating that this family needed to be stopped, and there might be reasons to not declare this to protect the sources.

      Questioning the reasoning is not sensationalising anything.

      The facts are the facts. That is my point. Take what you like and leave the rest but don't start accusing people who ask questions and would like transparency of making a drama out of nothing.

      Lets hope to god Trump has no direct influence on current border control. However there may be an indirect influence.

      In the UK we have a political party called UKIP it started to do well in polls but had no MP's. The government started to mention strengthening borders and greater controls on immigration to counter the threat. It happens. UKIP only scraped 1 MP out of 6 hundred. Who can say whether the governments change of tack effected the outcome of the election, but that is politics.

      UKIP's leader is Nigel Farage. He is also a nutbag.

    152. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerds rushing to be "right" make themselves look stupid. News at 11.

    153. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      I realize that might have sounded like English to you but surely when you read it back, you could see that it wasnt...?

      There seems to be a cultural and/or quasi-generational disconnect where people think that merely talking is the same thing as actually speaking...

    154. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying he was wrong?

      Because so far. what Jefferson and his fellow founding fathers did is held as the GOLD standard the world over for freedom. You and the modern day spologists and liberal shills may not agree but it is exactly because of what the foubding fathers did that greated the greatest country ever known to man. See they didnt suffer from the delusion that the world needs to be equal or that everyone should get along. They forged a country out of the reality that sime people can be trusted with voting and power and that the rest should not (non contributer. ..... those without a vested interest). And when we stayed true to those principals the country quickly became the envy of the world. But then the non-contributors came along and weezled their way into voting...and now you wonder why things are so messed up. They are messed up because of this everyone gets to vote....everyone gets a say...screw that.....you dont pay in...ie pay in more than you take out then you should get no vote. Thats how it was back then...if you didnt own land (male and white) you didnt get to vote. And the reason was simply you cant trust most idiot humans with this kinda power. And everyday we see the dire results of letting everyone vote. You cant have nice things when you have even those who are nothing but blights on the world included in the votes. They will simply vote themselves whatever they desire without earning it...or appreaciating it. Again...see pur modern society where we now have so much usless human trash. If you take anything from the government you are part of that problem. i pay in over $2 million a year in taxes EVERY Fucking year. No government contracts or handouts. WTF have you done. I employ over 1000 people...and have for almost 30 years now....WTF have you done? I didnt inherit the company i built the damn thing. Screw you and the ilk like you who take and take and bitch and bitch. When those like me have had enough of this bullshit running to the lowest denominator then your kind will really understand what a shit world you and your kind have created. Me...ill do what my kind has always done...continue to succeed and prosper and live the good life. Enjoy your 3rd world slum...its what you and your kind deserve. And dont give me this shit it was built on the backs of the workers. No the only shit you ever built was the whoring you do on your back. So either start paying the nearly 50% in taxes and start -aying in like i have....to the toon of millions of USD per year for decades or shut the fuck up. Your not paying for the system...i am....unless you can show that kind of work...STFU...you dont realize who pays your way....but i do...because it is me...the John Galts of the world.

    155. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The final cutoff is 60 minutes. I checked in at 59 minutes at gatwick and I was denied. Holy shit, maybe because I'm a white male.

    156. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      the idea was that all men were "created" equal before the eyes of the law.

      They were fighting for equality before the law. That a duke be subject to the same rules and regulations, taxes, tariffs and privilege as a man living on the street... in the eyes of his government.

    157. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Because they had family living near there and they wanted to visit them at the same time.

    158. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      In British English, "destroy" means "attend a wild party".

    159. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Alice would certainly be guilty of attempted murder. Bob would probably get away with it.

    160. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Triklyn · · Score: 0

      just those filthy persians?

      islam isn't a race. It's a belief system. And one that seems particularly prone to having elements that get radicalized and blow themselves up in schools.

      but hey, there's just enough of them that a small percentage means they've got enough people to take over a couple failed nations and are trying to set up a theocracy where most freedoms you take for granted are capital offenses... like apostasy.

      Oh wait, that's a capital offense in even the "moderate" islamic nations.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    161. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Just got off a flight (well, 2 days ago) from Hong Kong - no DHS there! A pre-screen for liquids in the bags, but that was it. Likewise when I've traveled throughout Asia - Narita, Pudong, Beijing, Guangzhou, Bangkok, Singapore, etc. I've seen the DHS station in Montreal and Dublin, but that's it.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    162. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      They're both guilty of attempted murder, no question. They each took actions that they intended to cause Charlie's death and that could have caused his death but for factors beyond their control.

      However, I think technically Charlie died of natural causes, thirst. Neither Alice nor Bob actually caused Charlie to die of thirst, it was caused by the coincidental combination of their two actions. So neither of them is actually guilty of murder.

      Of course had they cooperated or had knowledge of each other it would be different.

    163. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are dead wrong. I don't know who told you that, but if you paid for that information, you got ripped off and it makes you look like a fool.

      The Constitution does not define who has the right to vote, and it left that decision up to the states. Most states restricted voting to FREE male land owners. But not all. There is nothing about Anglo-Saxons in there. There were numerous African Americans that had the ability to vote from the beginning.

    164. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Now about that $13,000 that they were charged with no explanation...

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    165. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It's not a legal gray area. The United states has the absolute and legal authority to bar any non-US person from entering the country. This is common knowledge to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by our left-wing education system and media.

    166. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No it's not. He could have just as easily added persons from any and all countries to the list. He could have banned all left-handed people from entering the country if he wanted to. Or all people named Muhammed, Or all people with shoe sizes above 10. The president has absolute authority to bar any or all non-US persons from entering the country for any reason or no reason at all.

    167. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. The President can bar any non-US person from entering the country that he wishes, as long as it does not violate established law. And there's an argument that his Constituitonal Executive Power supercedes any law. An example of this was when states like Texas tried to write their own laws establishing who could cross the border from Mexico. The supreme court ruled that all authority control immigration resides with the federal government.

    168. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Legally called a US-Person.

    169. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Actually, the powers granted to the Federal Government by the people are enumerated. All other powers are reserved for the people and the states.

    170. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Think about how much better off we would have been if there were no 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. Slave holding states would have had higher representation and been that much more powerful in the Congress. It probably would have delayed the Civil War and by extension the Emancipation Proclamation, and by extension of that the ratification of the 14th amendment. People who are opposed to the 3/5ths compromise are actually arguing in favor granting more power to slave holding states, and unless they are white supremacists it makes them look like uneducated idiots.

    171. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      They apply to non-citizens, but they do not apply to non-US persons, unless otherwise indicated by law.

    172. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      you laugh, but i'm pretty sure israel would welcome them with open arms.

      and the delegates would end up bitching and moaning about how israel isn't doing enough to defend their diplomats from getting randomly stabbed by palestinians.

    173. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Left wing?!? LOL :D

    174. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      You are correct that the Constitution does not address voting rights, other than to assign them to the states. The Constitution does, however, address the equality of people, in ways such as the three-fifths clause.

      Besides, what does what the Constitution says have to do with Jefferson's personal beliefs?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    175. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The supreme court ruled that all authority control immigration resides with the federal government.

      The Federal Government, yes; but the President himself, not so much. We are not a Monarchy nor a Dictatorship.

      And (thank God!) there are limits to what can be done with an Executive Order.

      So, no, despite what Nixon said, just because the President does something, doesn't automatically make it legal. So, your statement "And there's an argument that his Constituitonal Executive Power supercedes any law" is patently and demonstrably bullshit.

    176. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The president has absolute authority to bar any or all non-US persons from entering the country for any reason or no reason at all.

      Prove it.

    177. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      It's not a legal gray area. The United states has the absolute and legal authority to bar any non-US person from entering the country. This is common knowledge to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by our left-wing education system and media.

      You keep conflating the Government's powers with the President's. The President's powers certainly overlap the Government's; but there are things that the President cannot (legally) do. For example, the President cannot create laws.

    178. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I also want to know why they were flying from London and going to Los Angeles, if it was to visit Disney LAND

      I do not know the answer, but their plans, dreams, hopes, and desires, are not subject to having to be justified or being argued over by someone else.

      If I plan, intend, and want to do X, then "Y is cheaper" is not a reason that I should not do X. If you ask me, "Why don't you want to do Y instead?" Then my answer can always be "Because I want to do X more!"

      Not going to pass up buying the car of my dreams, even if the exact same model car with a different color paint, and lacking the leather seats has a 30% discount off its normal price.

      Disney World MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have been a cheaper visit for them, but they may have had planned to visit other places or specific things they wanted to visit during their trip.

      For all I know, they already visited Disney World, and there are specific things at Disney Land that they wish to see.

    179. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Actually the airlines are financially responsible if they knowingly transport someone who will be denied entry in their final destination. This is why they do passport control when you board international flights. Not because the US cares that you're leaving, but because the the airline doesn't want to be on the hook. I believe this is something covered by the CAO (a UN body). So this basically covers all international airlines in the world.

    180. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Not last time I checked...I don't even particularly get along with him. I was just responding to a comment on my own.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    181. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using a top-down dictate with no due process as a filter for a constitutional right?

      That sounds like creeping fascism.

    182. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Right, That's why I said the United States, instead of Congress or the President.

    183. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Are you saying there's not an argument?

    184. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I don't think the 3/5th clause did what you think it did.

    185. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Right, That's why I said the United States, instead of Congress or the President.

      Upon re-reading, you're right.

    186. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the people with our "left-wing" education understand that religion is not a race and that stopping all muslims from entering the country will not protect us from the bad guys and will generate further bad will towards us. How is this muslim family supposed to react to not being allowed to go to Disneyland after dropping all of that cash? Maybe next time they will say... "Why no office, I am a jewish man and this is my Catholic wife. " Bam, in the country you go then!

      It is most definitely a legal gray area as you're blocking people from a particular faith from entering the country, freedom of religion is kind of one of the founding principles of this country and is covered under the First Amendment.

    187. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      What I think it did was allow the union to actually form, much like all the other slave/free compromises allowed the Union to continue.

      It was, however, also a tacit acknowledgement that a large chunk of the colonies did not consider 'all men to be created equal.' It was actually somewhat noteworthy that it assigned any value at all to them, much like the 'no religious test for public office' clause was noteworthy at the time.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    188. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a 757-200 that won't be allowed to land.

    189. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose a simple test.

      Muslims must drink a shot of Martel cognac to be allowed into the USA.

      The fanatics won't be able to.

      Then we extend it the bible thumpers that left and want back in.

    190. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      US bound airlines submit lists of passengers to US authorities before departure. Anybody the US won't accept is not allowed to board though the strange thing here is that these people had all applied for visas in advance, and had them approved.

      It's a wonder any Muslims are turned away at all from travel to the US regardless of whether or not they may have ties to violent groups.

      The San Bernadino, CA killers might have been stopped before they killed 14 people but the US government halted the program that was in place to prevent such attacks because of political correctness.

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    191. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Are you saying there's not an argument?

      That the President's authority supercedes any law? No, there isn't really an argument.

      Technically, there is always an argument for any premise; but most rational people automatically disregard the ones that are patently false.

      For example, you technically could make an argument that, on a planet with a positive gravity, a hammer that is dropped will not fall downward; but there is no point to making that argment; since it is fails prima facie.

    192. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Family of 11? They should be denied entry on that ground only. No sane man and woman pop up 9 children, not in this day and age.

    193. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You can cure any disease by killing the host.

    194. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by swb · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'd rather let him land, refuel and leave then have a 757-200 crash land with no fuel.

    195. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "visa waiver program" is optional. You can still apply for a visa, if you suspect that for whatever reason your visa waiver application may not be granted. Apparently this family thought that, and they were right.

      Their mistake was in imagining that having a visa (which they would have paid for, incidentally) would make a difference.

    196. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you can't enumerate rights, you don't have a basis for a government. Government has to work on the principle that there are legally recognized rights. In particular, the Supremes held the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Constitutional provisions to the states, which means my state can't ban free speech or freedom of religion any more than the Feds can.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    197. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just the US. Commercial airlines are obliged to verify that all individuals boarding their flights have a valid visa for their destination, and face stiff penalties if somebody slips through without a visa. Case in point from Australia.

    198. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I should also mention that this family should be grateful. Disneyland is no place to go. They've been saved, not hindered.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    199. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up bitch and get back to cooking those fries. No one cares about ypur delusions.

    200. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by hey! · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the government. That was the airline not wanting to give up 11 fares. Not that I'm defending the government here; given the incompetence of the no-fly program in the past it's very likely this is a case of something stupid, like mixing up names that sound similar.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    201. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the average American realises how awful that is. In the EU we have a universal declaration of human rights that applies to everyone anywhere. We can't even deport people to countries where those rights might be violated, even if it wouldn't be us doing the violation.

      It sounds like the US needs to decide what the minimum standards it considers applicable to every human being are (e.g. the right to know the charges against you, the right to face your accuser, the right to a trial) and write them down.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    202. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, many rational people disregard arguments that they disagree with.

    203. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, many rational people disregard arguments that they disagree with.

      But usually, they just post as AC... (J/k)

    204. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, you're claiming they're deprived of liberty? Well, good luck getting any court to agree with that. And, by the way, courts have given the government great leeway when it comes to public safety overriding individual rights.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    205. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      The US does indeed has its border controls in few foreign airports, e.g. in Ireland, before you even board the plane to the US. But really you don't need "long arms" to pick up phone and let the other side to know in advance that you don't want passenger X to board the plane as he is in extra risk list. US (and not just US) gets passenger list at least some hours in advance for very obvious reason, so they can react and prevent boarding.

    206. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Likely reason for not being allowed through checkpoint is some ties with guys who blow up themselves and cut heads. This reason means they should not be allowed to board a plane full of passengers as well, as they may choose not to reach the second checkpoint.

    207. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Visa waiver still requires you to submit all your information in advance online. But the checking is somewhat loose and permission may be revoked at random just before the trip. I guess being Pakistani origin after recent events doesn't help much.

    208. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      It is about foreign persons trying to enter not their own country. They don't have any right to do so, whatever are their countries. They may be granted such privilege, but that is all. No-fly list is different issue.

    209. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      They are not supposed to look for explanations. They are supposed to look for suspicious things, even if probability that person X will blow up plane is 0.001%. Such probability is enough just to play safe and let person X stay home in his own country. Idiots joke about bombs on planes all the time, and they get kicked out of the plane every time and fined, even if everybody understands that most likely it is just yet another boring idiot's joke.

    210. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Airline not just get stuck. It gets huge fine of many thousands of dollars for every passenger that it delivered to US airport without proper documentation, that has very specific criteria. They won't let you to board unless they are really sure your papers are correct. Even if you may eventually be admitted to the US at border, airline still will face the fine if CBP will find that it allowed to board you without proper papers.

    211. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      No airline or travel agency takes responsibility for government actions. It is government that refuses to allow travel, airline just follows directions as it is required by law. Seat reservation is done, airline most likely has no other use for it hours before the flight.

    212. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly like any other government. So don't make any foreign travel plans :/

    213. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      It means you buy their silly story that their cult is somehow related to the historic one. Which means there is small or big chance you may be pledging allegiance. And that is exactly enough to prevent travel.
      Frankly, I wouldn't want such people close to me either. Even if 1 out of 10,000 such people blows up, it is already too much.

    214. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, he still needs to submit flight plan in advance. Sure, it would be more fun to let him flight across Atlantic and only then to turn back :/

    215. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you brother, same situation here. I'm starting my strike in a few months !

    216. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue 'false postives' gets ignored under circumstances. Circumstances of war, or hysteria...
      Here is a free beginning of a movie script.
      A person is talking on his cell phone in a loud voice to his/her spouse, girlfriend, father, whoever, and says
      "I'm tired of you taking me hostage..." He/she is referring to being taken hostage in an emotional relationship manipulative way. (If we don't go to my mothers for Christmas you can forget....etc. etc.)
      Unfortunately he is entering a bank, or a plane, or a school while he/she is saying this, and people hear "taking...hostage." It then devolves to a surreal Dog Day Afternoon.
      I'm sure with millions of people doing things everyday, something like this has already happened.

    217. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And, by the way, courts have given the government great leeway when it comes to public safety overriding individual rights.

      Yes. That is a farce.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    218. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And, by the way, courts have given the government great leeway when it comes to public safety overriding individual rights.

      Yes. That is a farce.

      So, you believe yelling FIRE in a crowded theater shouldn't be illegal then.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    219. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, you believe yelling FIRE in a crowded theater shouldn't be illegal then.

      Not if there's a fire. If the people are such sheep they have to trample each other in panic... you know what comes next

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    220. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Not if there's a fire. If the people are such sheep they have to trample each other in panic... you know what comes next

      You know well that the topic assumes there's no actual fire. So skirting the question, or does the answer conflict with the farce you claimed?
      And, the vast majority are sheep, and I'm not sure what you believe comes next.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    221. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And, the vast majority are sheep, and I'm not sure what you believe comes next.

      is it kinder to lance a boil, or let it keep growing?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    222. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a few more months and a few more gaffes and Donald Trump will be in the same position. The UK flights will deny him boarding even if the US airports let him through security right to the gate, etc.

      Donald Trump doesn't fly commercial. He owns a 757-200.

      We do have the Royal Air Force to deal with violations of our air space.

    223. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Yes there are DHS at foreign airports, e.g. there were 40 in Germany in 2014. It is on the German news since 2013. They mostly give "recommendations" about people who should not travel.

    224. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      percale

      What do cotton sheets have to do with international travel?

      Some of the rules are full of sheets?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    225. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      Are you saying he was wrong?

      Because so far. what Jefferson and his fellow founding fathers did is held as the GOLD standard the world over for freedom. [...] They forged a country out of the reality that sime people can be trusted with voting and power and that the rest should not (non contributer. ..... those without a vested interest). [...] They are messed up because of this everyone gets to vote....everyone gets a say...screw that.....you dont pay in...ie pay in more than you take out then you should get no vote. Thats how it was back then...if you didnt own land (male and white) you didnt get to vote. And the reason was simply you cant trust most idiot humans with this kinda power. And everyday we see the dire results of letting everyone vote. You cant have nice things when you have even those who are nothing but blights on the world included in the votes. [...]No government contracts or handouts. WTF have you done. I employ over 1000 people...and have for almost 30 years now....WTF have you done? I didnt inherit the company i built the damn thing. Screw you and the ilk like you who take and take and bitch and bitch. When those like me have had enough of this bullshit running to the lowest denominator then your kind will really understand what a shit world you and your kind have created. [...] Your not paying for the system...i am....unless you can show that kind of work...STFU...you dont realize who pays your way....but i do...because it is me...the John Galts of the world.

      Well, Jefferson was creative with spelling, but at least somewhat consistent. Rand could spell. What you are ascribing to "Jefferson and his fellow founding fathers" was not Jeffersonian at all - it was Jefferson nemesis Hamilton, who suggested that "the rich and well born" had "a distinct, permanent share in the government", while Jefferson was much more of an egalitarian - within the confines of his times.

      As for your rant: Odds are good that your mother was driven to a publicly supported hospital on a government-build road kept safe by government-provided police and military just to get you born. Your illusion of superiority because of your financial contributions is just that.

      --

      Stephan

    226. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 1

      There's never been a challenge to banning people of a certain religion from entering, this is why it's a legal grey area and not "fall[ing] off a cliff."

    227. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Well, y'all spooked the lil guy...

    228. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also a shot of sobiewski vodka? Not sure we should encourage them to drink vlad's favourite drink though!

    229. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And, the vast majority are sheep, and I'm not sure what you believe comes next.

      is it kinder to lance a boil, or let it keep growing?

      Unusual point of view considering what I thought were your very liberal leanings given prior posts.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    230. Re: There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      US customs processes passengers bound for the US before they depart... Should they, for example, let someone fly from UK to US if it turns out the US has that person on a 'no fly' list?

    231. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I can only plead that I've met Americans who though we could just put a toolbooth on the border with Mexico.

    232. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The government was the one that stole the money. Sorry, but the airline was coerced by the government into canceling their boarding permit. So it was the government that stole the money.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    233. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why hasn't the US government stated the reason for denying them from entry? Where is the proof that they are tied to terrorists?

      The US government has proven time and time again that it is composed of untrustworthy, criminal scumbags. There needs to be another civil war in the USA before the current government becomes the new Nazi regime.

    234. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Bob would probably say that he did it to stop Charlie drinking the poison. The prosecution would have to prove that this wasn't the case, so that's why I think he would get away with it.

    235. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unusual point of view considering what I thought were your very liberal leanings given prior posts.

      I am a classic liberal, based on the most basic sense of the word; I want government to regulate business heavily, and I want it out of my private life as completely as is reasonable; I don't need the right to murder or rape, for example. I even believe in a social safety net for those who have been disadvantaged through the acts of others. What I don't believe in is coddling every person through incredible stupidity until Idiocracy becomes a documentary.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    236. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Well, then we would probably disagree mostly on in the business arena, though I'm very much in favor of regulating against monopolistic behavior, and "too big to fail". You can't have a free market with only one or two players.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    237. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Actually the airlines are financially responsible if they knowingly transport someone who will be denied entry in their final destination.

      Yes. I didn't want to go into all that detail, hence I simply said "stuck with".

    238. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Without this rule, you get Kafkaesque situations where nobody's responsible for anything

      Ultimately, the traveler is responsible with the risk associated with the trip. He decides whether he travels to the US and takes the risk of not getting admitted, knowing that the US can make such decisions arbitrarily and without any compensation. He also decides what kind of ticket to buy at what price and with what airline. Airlines offer fully refundable tickets, and they offer non-refundable tickets; there are also various forms of travel insurance that cover such eventualities.

      If a passenger decides to buy a non-refundable ticket, the passenger assumes the risk. If the passenger doesn't like the risk and doesn't want to pay to insure against the risk, they shouldn't fly. There is nothing Kafkaesque about it.

    239. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      And, by the "better for everyone" rule

      You're confusing my statement about it being "better for everyone" with a moral or legal principle for resolving a dispute after some wrong has been committed. What I'm saying is that there is a set of contractual and legal obligations that is commonly used to set up travel because it is "better for everyone".

      If you don't like that set of contractual and legal obligations, nobody is forcing you to travel according to them. You always have the option, for example, of buying a fully refundable ticket or buying travel insurance that covers such issues.

    240. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA

      A British Muslim family heading for Disneyland was barred from boarding a flight to Los Angeles by US authorities at London’s Gatwick airport...

      Wow, is it true? The US "authorities" have pretty long arms.

      Ask yourself whether you'd let them in

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3372467/KATIE-HOPKINS-Just-Britain-s-border-security-Mickey-Mouse-operation-t-blame-America-not-letting-lot-travel-Disneyland-wouldn-t-either.html#ixzz3vFk768vF

    241. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the Declaration is merely a historical document, today.

      One should still be able to make an argument based on it in court. It is a "soft" source just like an extra-legal, value or culture-based argument for conservation of some particular area is, without any relevant regulation of course.

    242. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever read the constitution? Apparently not.

      The United States Constitution guarantees no protections of rights to UK citizens not legally present in the US.

    243. Re:There are US DHS at London Gatwick?? by neoritter · · Score: 1

      You pretend like any of that is binding. Sovereign countries can do whatever they want with another country's citizens within its borders. Countries usually don't treat foreigners poorly because it's bad for export business and sometimes it can lead to war.

      There's no such thing as a free lunch, and you Europeans are relearning this fact. The EU is starting to crumble.

  2. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of them has possibly been involved in Islamist activities, has known associates involved in Islamist activities, etc.

    1. Re:So? by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      One of them has possibly been involved in Islamist activities, has known associates involved in Islamist activities, etc.

      Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"

    2. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence is reality.

    3. Re:So? by rapiddescent · · Score: 1

      From another news article, one of the extended family trip to Disney is an Imam (aka "a priest") and is likely to be a pillar of his community. Just replace the words Islam with Christian to see how bonkers that statement is.

    4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Santa for a dictionary. Islamism != Islam.

    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note the subtle difference between the word "Islamist" and "Islamic". The former is a political philosophy based on a religion with Jihad or Holy War at its core. The latter is a religion.

      So, who's the dumbass here?

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"

      Those are "Islamic activities", not "Islamist activities". Use a dictionary. Thank me later.

    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they were asked why they were going to the US. And someone misheard them when they said they were going as tourists.

    8. Re:So? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"

      Since many Muslims that pray and celebrate holidays are allowed to fly to the US every single day, maybe its not a big stretch to conclude there is another reason this particular group was flagged.

    9. Re:So? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Then the authorities probably have some data on him. What kind of imam is he? Moderate, or the Muslim equivalent of the Baby-eating Bishop of Bath-and-Wells? There's free speech and all that, but what you say publicly does have consequences, and the US might be reluctant to admit hate-mongers. My own country very rarely refuses anyone entry on vague fears or suspicions if they meet the regular entry requirements, but extremist imams visiting from the Middle East are precisely the type they do refuse.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    10. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps they're innocent (which is a reasonable start point unless you think Gitmo was a fab idea) and this is slightly ominous.

    11. Re:So? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      They believe in a false god and their religion is fake

      Know any religion to which this does NOT apply?

      Also an interresting point; muslims believe in the same god as the jews, christians and rastafarians, it's just that they have an extra book, like the mormons.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    12. Re:So? by BadgerRush · · Score: 2

      ... maybe its not a big stretch to conclude there is another reason this particular group was flagged.

      Yes it is a big stretch. Your comment is just a variation of the just-world fallacy. In real life, the fact that something bad happened to a person or group, something which doesn't normally happens to other people or groups, is not evidence of the existence of a hidden reason for said people or group to deserve it.

    13. Re:So? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      something which doesn't normally happens to other people or groups, is not evidence of the existence of a hidden reason for said people or group to deserve it.

      Umm.. yes it is. Your logic relies on the assumption that there aren't hidden reasons. In the real world (not the "just" world), security decisions often rely on hidden reasons.

    14. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Islamicistsians

    15. Re:So? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they're innocent (which is a reasonable start point unless you think Gitmo was a fab idea) and this is slightly ominous.

      No, I don't think Gitmo was a "fab idea", but I sure as shit don't think the inmates were non-combatants (as opposed to innocent...that's for criminal action, not war).

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    16. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just the Mormons, but Christianity in general has an extra book. We kill each other because one worships a god differently than another worships the same exact god.

      That's part of why no religion has ever caught on with me. The actions of the followers.

    17. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How stupid are you? Do you think there's US officials in Heathrow just flagging people for being named Muhammad or being Muslim? That's like half of the people in London. You are a moron.

      The only reason why the US would exclude them is if they had some particular reason, not something that this passenger has in common with thousands of others every single day. If the exclusion is predicated on covert intelligence, then the government has every reason to keep the details to itself. You don't want to reveal your capabilities to your enemy, or give them ways to test it themselves.

      Interesting historical tidbit: The Allies in WW2 cracked many German codes and were able to get advanced intelligence about German troop movements and plans. But always acting according to that knowledge would have revealed the fact that the codes were cracked, and the Germans would then change and strengthen them. The Allies had to let some of their own troops and civilians die in order to protect the secret. The code-breaking effort is today regarded as a crucial element of the Allied victory. At the very least, it shortened the war by years. The moral of this story is that intelligence isn't just a game of what you know about your enemy, it's also about what they know you know about them. The less your enemy knows the better.

    18. Re:So? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      So you are assuming that this one family was singled out for no reason at all. The indirect evidence, that many families are allowed to travel but this one wasn't, is and indicator that there was something different about this family or a member of it. Assuming there was no reason at all is your own personal world view fallacy.

    19. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there are nine kids, the first thing that pops into my head is that they might not have all had valid passports. That's exactly the sort of thing that would get caught at the gate just prior to departure, and it is not uncommon with families because parents assume that X-year-olds (for whatever value of X fits their family) should be able to fly without documentation othet than their parents vouching for them.

    20. Re:So? by rapiddescent · · Score: 1

      this could well be the case. However, something inside me thinks that a 9 grand holiday to Disneyland with the kids wouldn't be the first choice vacation for a radical preacher.

      In fact, a 9 grand holiday to Disneyland wouldn't be my cup of tea either. I went to Disneyland Paris and it cost a similar amount and was interesting, but a bit shit although watching French students trying to adopt American disney culture (and doing a piss poor job of it) was mildly humorous.

    21. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's the thing. With a million employees in an organisation, you can pretty much guarantee that every day somebody is making a mistake. It's just a normal, Human thing. Have they made a mistake in this case? We don't know and never will because their intelligence isn't made public (for good reason). So we have to (1) assume good faith (2) assume a low probability, but a certain chance nonetheless that it's a mistake (3) know that just as we don't have the full facts from the DHS, we also don't have the full facts from the family involved.

    22. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Your logic relies on the assumption that there aren't hidden reasons.

      And when those hidden reasons are revealed, they tend to be bullshit like ticking the wrong checkbox

      That is the real world.

    23. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh there definitely was a reason. A software error. An erroneous checkbox. A misspelled name - Buttle or Tuttle. Or some other kafka-esque bullshit reason. But yeah, there definitely was a reason. So it's all OK.

    24. Re: So? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      No, that's the thing that would happen at check in.

    25. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck right off. There were several that were very obviously non-combatants.

      You do understand that the US paid MASSIVE cash rewards which provoked bounty hunting and outright fabrication, right?

      They ended up with people in Bagram and then in Gitmo that were there simply because someone sold them out.

      This happened and you can't fucking pretend it didn't.

    26. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buttle / Tuttle. It's astonishing how evocative that reference is. *applause*

    27. Re:So? by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Because, of course, they never EVER get it wrong!

    28. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"

      That's all fine and well; but pray tell, why does that seem to be the answer 99.99997% of the time when the question is "What religion was that Terrorist?"

    29. Re:So? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The moral of this story is that intelligence isn't just a game of what you know about your enemy, it's also about what they know you know about them.

      That type of logic always reminds me of this great TNG quote.

    30. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because as the headline says, they came to California to visit DisneyWorld. DisneyWorld is in Florida! They're obviously terrorists!

    31. Re:So? by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

      Uncle "boom" Sinsa got his nickname from how he defeathered the livestock back when he was a teenager.

    32. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great clip, I love Data.

      It's not the same though. If your enemy knows what your intelligence capabilities are, they will adapt their behavior to cut you off from the information. This isn't an endless cycle of "if we know that they know that we know", it's just keeping your enemy ignorant, which is a good thing.

    33. Re:So? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And the Muslim I know best claims that the God of Islam is not the same as the God of Christianity, which I find ridiculous on philosophical grounds.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:So? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Great clip, I love Data.

      It's not the same though. If your enemy knows what your intelligence capabilities are, they will adapt their behavior to cut you off from the information. This isn't an endless cycle of "if we know that they know that we know", it's just keeping your enemy ignorant, which is a good thing.

      Spoilsport!!!

      I just wanted an excuse to watch that clip again, LOL!

  3. Why do people still bother? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    the country refused to allow the family of 11 to board the plane, even though they had been granted travel authorization online ahead of their planned 15 December flight

    Why would someone even risk these shenanigans just to go see someone dance around in a giant rat costume? Jiminy Christmas. There must be nearer amusement parks.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is Disneyland Paris.

    2. Re: Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's Disneyland Paris, but...

    3. Re:Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There must be nearer amusement parks.

      Banksy's Dismaland? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08...

    4. Re:Why do people still bother? by ledow · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if the US genuinely doesn't want the tourism, many other parts of the world will rock up to fill that demand.

    5. Re:Why do people still bother? by chthon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they could have gone to Disneyland Paris.

    6. Re:Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as big.

    7. Re:Why do people still bother? by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      I think any country would rather have an aircraft explode every decade than stop tourism.

      Money trumps lives every single time.

    8. Re:Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were going to Disney California not Florida.

    9. Re: Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hear it's a Mickey Mouse outfit.

    10. Re:Why do people still bother? by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      They also planned on visiting relatives in southern California.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    11. Re:Why do people still bother? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      It's not as big.

      Plus... Paris.

    12. Re:Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also planned on visiting relatives in southern California.

      I guess those "relatives in southern California" were already dead and known to US immigration. Hence the travel denial at the airport during secondary screening.

    13. Re:Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And two guys travelling with NINE children will be able to pull this off?

      Seems to me the sheer effort involved in travelling with more than ONE child would be enough to render any travel plans nightmarish, let alone a plan to commandeer the plane on the way. No.. sit still. All of you. Daddy's just got to... Azim, put that down. Good. Daddy's -- TAMARAH! STOP KICKING THE SEAT, the man in front is angry. Children, stop crying...

    14. Re:Why do people still bother? by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

      If only I had points. Although, any family flying with 9 children...

    15. Re:Why do people still bother? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Any family with nine children, it's the mother who should be sent on a vacation, alone.

    16. Re: Why do people still bother? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Well, there's Disneyland Paris, but...

      ...in Soviet France muslim families stop you. At least they do if you are going anywhere near Calais.

    17. Re:Why do people still bother? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      One wonders at the level of screeching outrage if suddenly other countries started blocking Americans with no explanation.

      It might go something like "coming to America is a privilege, Americans travelling abroad is a right".

      Oh, sorry, you plan on voting for Trump ... you are inadmissible to our country.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re: Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's Disneyland Paris, but...

      Actually I was just thinking that it would be a nice gesture (/piece of PR) if Disneyland Paris were to offer them a free vacation for the same length of time they were planning to go to Disneyland CA.

      They might not get to also visit Hollywood, etc but Paris itself is always worth a visit. Hmmm. Actually, every tourist attraction in Paris should give them a free visit. It'd be a nice response to recent unfortunate incidents.

    19. Re: Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be all the other passengers. Fuck people that fly with babies and kids.

    20. Re: Why do people still bother? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      An airline I used back in the 70s had a policy that every child under the age of 12 needed to be accompanied by an individual adult. A family with three children needed three adults.
      This seemed a reasonable compromise to me, back in the 70s, when parents/guardians could be relied upon to quiet down a child. A 1:1 ratio made it livable.
      These days, parents don't give a damn.

    21. Re:Why do people still bother? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      They do it all the time, who cares. Sure, it pisses these people, but every country has its own sovereignty and allows what they want only. I do not admit every stranger to my house either, whatever "rights" he imagines to have.

    22. Re:Why do people still bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the GPs point is Americans are self-entitled assholes who think the world revolves around them and that they occupy a special place in the world.

      Like the pointless spoiled idiots they are, Americans think the rules are different as applied to them.

      An entire country of selfish douchebags.

  4. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were only 11? I think we need some soft of birth control globally. This is getting out of hands.

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming they were all their own kids, and some weren't nieces, nephews, etc.

      And if you look at global birth rates are dropping globally including in developing countries. We are on course to average out at 2 children / family globally in the next few decades. Hardly 'getting out of hand'. It's therefore expected that the world population will plateau at something around 11 billion. Which should be sustainable, if everyone has fair equal access to farming technology and have reduced their overuse of resources including but not limited to food and water.

    2. Re:wow by kirkb · · Score: 1

      ...and therefore just got added to the no-fly list ;)

      --
      Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
  5. Whatever. by msauve · · Score: 0

    Disneyland/Disneyworld, whatever.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Whatever. by requerdanos · · Score: 1

      > Disneyland/Disneyworld, whatever.

      Yes. Not like they're thousands of miles away from each other, right?

      They're obviously the same thing, kind of like Slashdot and SoylentNews.

  6. 11??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    were they muslim rabbits?

  7. looking up inciting civil unrest on alphabet.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cause the need for even more wmd on credit equipped herding of us by hired goons? creepy is an understatement? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=truth+about+US+weather ... these byrds need all the distractions they can MANufacture? spontaneous cease fire orders being issued wwworld wide?... none too soon?

  8. Re:Well done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well they get drunk because they drink poper beer and not that weak ass piss you call beer.

  9. Re:Get the f*** out by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Odd. I was about to post the same about US bases still operational all over the planet. Just replace "muslim nigger" with "white trash chauvinists".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. To summarize by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Informative

    ..what I need to do, as a European, before being able to get into the US: get a ticket, and better pay that with a credit card (if I pay cash, officials at the airport will ask the hell out of me why I paid cash and annoy me with a very tough security check), pay with a credit card some entry fee, at least 3 days ahead of travelling. Let DHS pat me down upon arrival. Of all these things, only getting a ticket makes sense to me, the rest is security-craze-inspired overhead. Solution: I don't travel to the US anymore. My life is easier that way. If a US-based customer wants to meet, tough luck. I now have as solid a reason not to fly to the US anymore as I have not to go to Saudi Arabia, although the nature of the reason is different. Well done, America !

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:To summarize by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Solution: I don't travel to the US anymore. My life is easier that way.

      I don't think most Americans care.

      I now have as solid a reason not to fly to the US anymore

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

    2. Re:To summarize by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      What hassle? Last time I went to Europe I was pretty much just waved through customs. When I visit the US, the most stressful part of the trip is going through customs, you never know if the border guard's having a crappy day and might just unload on you. Happened to me once - after questioning me for 10 minutes and then spending another 5 literally yelling at me, he lets me through but not before threatening to bar me from the US for 5 years for a minor paperwork error. Joke's on him though, that soured me so badly I voluntarily stopped going to the US and didn't need to go again for longer than 5 years.

    3. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The hassle is returning to the US.

      Last time I traveled from the US the only part of the trip that gave me a giant hassle was returning home. Pretty much everywhere else was just "scan your passport and go" but the US sent me through a two hour line to get through customs (as a citizen, mind you, there was a different "non-citizen" line) that combined with a delayed flight meant I missed my connecting flight home. Which I then had to go through a giant hassle to rebook because while the (foreign) airline I booked the flight through rebooked me on a new connecting flight, the US-based airline handling that flight refused to give me a boarding pass for that new flight. So then there was a second round of arguing with ticketing agents while jetlagged.

      And that was before I had to go through US airport security because foreign airport security doesn't count and the international terminal was a separate part of the airport than the domestic terminal anyway.

      It's the same with visiting Canada - getting into Canada as a US citizen is fairly easy. Returning to the US is a couple of hours as you deal with US customs.

    4. Re:To summarize by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Americans working in tourism will care.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

      It's about as much "hassle" to land in Europe as it is to come back to America as a citizen. It's not the hassle that prevents Americans from traveling, it's the cost, as the US is quite poor, as well as the rabid Nationalism that convinces the few with means that the US has everything the world could offer, so there's no reason to see anything beyond your secured compound.

    6. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > What hassle? Last time I went to Europe I was pretty much just waved through customs.

      I wasn't. I have a big fierce black beard, and my face is a summary of Spain's invasion by the Moors and its' effects on European culture, and I had on a big blue cloak made of polar fleece. They did eventually pass me through, but we wound up spending quite a bit of time as he tried to give me the hairy eyeball. I kept expecting Nobby Nobbs to walk into the room and try to steal my pocket, and for them to call on Captain Carrot to come figure out what to do with me.

    7. Re:To summarize by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      >

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

      Hassle as in NOT have to pay $15 in advance entry fee? Or Hassle as in NOT have to get a visa? Or hassle as in only have to flick your passport once at the destination airport and then being able to travel to ~20 other countries without a single border control?

      Could you give an example of what you're referring to?

      And don't blame it on Europe if the "hassle" is only in obtaining a passport because US bureaucracy is as swift as a 70s banana republic's. That's homemmade.

      --
      bickerdyke
    8. Re:To summarize by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

      Also too many Muslims.

      Yeah you heard me! :D
      This opinion isn't allowed to tell in this land of the vikings either but it's totally fine in the US and relevant for the article so I guess you can deal with it - me? I'm already stuck here with them.

    9. Re:To summarize by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Your experience at the US border will depend a lot on the airport. Kennedy was the worst: long lines and surly staff. Houston had long lines but polite staff. The immigration guy at Miami was downright cheerful and I breezed through the whole process. I never got patted down upon arrival. When leaving they did pat me down (lightly) but the DHS guys were generally polite and efficient. Much unlike Schiphol airport (Amsterdam), where security staff is downright rude and the Marechaussee (passport control) seem to do their best to make things move along as slowly as possible.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    10. Re:To summarize by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      being able to travel to ~20 other countries without a single border control

      Well once you are here you could travel to 50 other states and few territories without a single boarder control, too. What's your point, again?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:To summarize by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Funny

      A CLOAK? You wear a CLOAK? To hell with the beard, the Moorish ancestry, and any other shit you come up with. I'd give anyone in a fucking cloak the hairy eyeball too. WTF is with you people? Wear a coat. Wear a jacket. Wear a nice wool sweater. Don't come sneaking through security in a God-damned CLOAK! Are you a hobbit in disguise?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you saying that the Schengen area is kind of like the USA and a country like Luxemburg is a Schengen state like Florida is an US State?

      Or are you saying that bickerdyke should have counted all the federal subdivisions, too? Germany alone has 16 of them, Austria 9.

    13. Re:To summarize by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      Well, my point was that I was counting countries.

      Country. You know, that thing with a common head of state, often federal laws and institutions... well.. a COUNTRY! a friggin run of the mill independant, soverign state.

      Please don't tell me you mixed that up with a US state.

      If you start now with listing a countries sub units, alone France with about 100 departements would beat you to that.

      And if you just tried to counter-troll with that post, you even missed the obvious rebuff of comparing square miles.

      --
      bickerdyke
    14. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      London is crawling with obnoxious Yanks (you can hear them a mile off), I'm pretty sure you all love a bit of Brit.

    15. Re:To summarize by vikingpower · · Score: 2

      Some people know how to dress well, ya know... It's not hist fault if you are a conformist.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    16. Re:To summarize by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You have to go through US customs on the way back. It's a huge hassle and thus some people don't bother.

      Where did you read anything blaming Europe in that sentence? Or is that just your paranoia playing up?

    17. Re:To summarize by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Solution: I don't travel to the US anymore. My life is easier that way.

      I don't think most Americans care.

      I now have as solid a reason not to fly to the US anymore

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

      You'd be amazed how many Americans don't fly much anymore because of the TSA bullshit, and the fact that with the added delays, you can often drive somewhere as fast as you can fly, and cheaply with current fuel prices. For me, anything that's less than an 8 hr. drive isn't worth even looking at air fares.

      For the record, I've traveled to Europe, and found it to be no more hassle than flying inside the U.S. What hassle do you speak of?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    18. Re:To summarize by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't have said it any better. Want less hassle? Stop trying to pretend that you're a unique snowflake instead of just a flake.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re:To summarize by arth1 · · Score: 2

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't fly or take trains inside the US anymore either, because it's too much hassle.
      Any travel that takes less than a day by car, even if it's a 12 hour drive, is better done that way. You might even arrive faster, and with your luggage and sphincter intact.

    20. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Americans working in tourism will care.

      No, the Americans working in tourism have all been fired and replaced with illegal aliens, who are cheaper.

    21. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just returned from Europe. Upon my arrival the EU had a single immigration officer working at CDG. There were over 200 people in line with connecting flights to catch. They held the planes, but there were a lot of pissed travelers. Upon my return to LAX, the US had automated passport kiosks (over 30 of them) to pre-screen travelers (it reads your passport, does facial recognition, and prints a small security voucher with your pic on it). After getting the voucher you talk to a custom's/immigration officer. There were over 10 agents working and everything was running smoothly. I would rate the EU system far worse for efficiency.

    22. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upon my arrival the EU had a single immigration officer working at CDG.

      That's because the French are lazy. Told to me by a customs office at AMS.

      Never fly though CDG always look for AMS instead. This the would second best airport behind ATL.

    23. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey everyone, I found the butthurt American nationalist!

    24. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't have said it any better. Want less hassle? Stop trying to pretend that you're a unique snowflake instead of just a flake.

      Stop pretending people want to be treated like sheep. And fuck you all holiday season long with a jagged broken brick, sideways.

    25. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even as a US citizen it's pretty bad. When I went to Europe, the customs process was easier than even domestic flights within the US. Then, when I came back to my own country, I got heavily searched and pretty much interrogated by US customs. And I'm very white. I can't imagine how bad it is for someone who's brown or isn't a citizen.

    26. Re:To summarize by Alioth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I got that going into Dallas from the immigration officer. First off there were only 3 immigration desks for an entire B767 load of people. Fortunately, for a change, I was near the head of the queue. Now I normally went direct to Houston (where I worked) and Houston had never been a problem, they looked at my visa, asked a two questions or so about my work (I was on an L1 visa) and stamped my passport. But Dallas was another story. The immigration officer was surly and demanded to see my L1 petition. Fortunately I carried it in my hand luggage, and he looked at it and told me "This is a copy. Give me the original" (it wasn't a copy, it had the ink stamp clearly visible of the US Embassy). When I told him he said it was up to his judgement whether he could let me in and next time I may be deported.

      Let's not get into the US Embassy in London. When I got the visa I had to go for an "interview". This consisted of sitting in a huge square room with a bunch of other people for about 4 hours. They give you a number, like a supermarket deli (probably the same system!) and you go up when your number is called. The numbers are called in seemingly random order, so you can't read the book you brought because you suspect if you miss your number they won't call it again and they will force you to schedule a new interview. They also leave these "newspapers" around as reading material called "Going USA", the first half of which is dedicated to people who immigrated to the US saying how awful your home country is and how awesome it is they immigrated into the US and are now running a gas station, and the last half is dedicated to how we're not going to give you a visa anyway. Anyway, so my number was called some 4 hours after I got it. The officer asked me one question "how long have you worked for $COMPANY". I told him. That's all he wanted to ask. We could have done it by phone, or he could have requested that from my employer, but instead I have to waste hours travelling to London and back to be asked a simple question with two word answer.

      But that's not the best one. Eventually my visa was converted to an H1 to extend my stay a year. It was approved in the US, and all the paperwork was done in the US, but because I had a vacation home I had to get a new visa put in my passport. The US Embassy in London does this. There's another form (requesting all the information you've already supplied to the INS) that the embassy wants. My employer game me the form and I filled in the few things that my employer didn't (basically the same questions on the visa waiver, including the one about "moral turpitude"), enclosed it with my passport. They refused my (already approved!) visa application because they said this form was out of date. So I go to the US Embassy's website and download the new form.

      It is Exactly. The. Same. To the letter, *apart* from the issue date at the bottom. Exactly the same. Of course now I have a non-refundable flight ticket that I can't use because another round-trip time of my passport to the embassy means I have to wait another 10 days.

      I think part of the problem is these immigration jobs attract certain type of "little Hitler" personality. I'm not saying all the immigration officers are like this (the ones in Houston for example have never been anything except professional and polite). It's not just the US that does this either. My next door neighbour is Albanian and she's exactly the sort of person we want to come to our country - she's well educated, she's an engineer, fluently speaks three languages - but was treated to a degrading Kafkaesque experience by the UK immigration authorities when she was moving here.

    27. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I've been outside of the US twice, and it's always harder to get back in than it is to leave. Unfortunately, not coming back to the US isn't a viable option - yet.

    28. Re:To summarize by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      Not to mention U.S border guards will steal^H^H^H^H^Hconfiscate your stuff.

      "Team Sp00ky", a streamer of fighting video game tournaments (you know, Street Fighter and such) once went from the US to Canada to stream a tournament and when he came back they seized his laptops, cameras, and even cell phone.
      I honestly don't know if he ever got his stuff back.

      This year the TSA stripped and/or cut up his SDI cables. I'm sure the cables were a threat to national security.

    29. Re:To summarize by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      Nope.

      Also, don't forget that you might just get shaken down just like any other third-world country.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    30. Re:To summarize by njnnja · · Score: 1

      It's not about conformity. It's about wearing an article of clothing whose very name is now used to describe the action to hide; conceal. Maybe he was just trying to figure out what was being cloaked.

    31. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you people all traveling to muslim training camps or something?
      I have never had a problem with traveling to, or through the USA.
      The worst I can say is that the people checking passports are sometimes a bit grumpy, but then again, it's a shit job, and the same can be said for every other country I've visited.
      Returning to Europe from South America is way worse than anything I've ever experienced in the US.
      First they check your passport, just to get off the plane. (they check it again later, where they check everyone else, too).
      They let a dog sniff you. You have to go through the xray device. Your carry on is xrayed. Next you go to get your check luggage, which is xrayed again.
      Then if you're unlucky they have 100% checks and every single bag has to be unpacked. This can take an hour or more.
      Yeah, never had that happen in the US.

    32. Re:To summarize by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The hassle is returning to the US.

      Last time I traveled from the US the only part of the trip that gave me a giant hassle was returning home. Pretty much everywhere else was just "scan your passport and go" but the US sent me through a two hour line to get through customs (as a citizen, mind you, there was a different "non-citizen" line) that combined with a delayed flight meant I missed my connecting flight home. Which I then had to go through a giant hassle to rebook because while the (foreign) airline I booked the flight through rebooked me on a new connecting flight, the US-based airline handling that flight refused to give me a boarding pass for that new flight. So then there was a second round of arguing with ticketing agents while jetlagged.

      And that was before I had to go through US airport security because foreign airport security doesn't count and the international terminal was a separate part of the airport than the domestic terminal anyway.

      It's the same with visiting Canada - getting into Canada as a US citizen is fairly easy. Returning to the US is a couple of hours as you deal with US customs.

      Sounds like you haven't traveled that much to me. The USA is basically average in my opinion. Anyone complaining about US immigration hasn't experienced the circus at MNL (Manila, Philippines). It resembles a free for all. Long lines, a stink that is similar to the Paris subway, etc. Oh, and those airline fees that normally are just added on to your ticket? At MNL you have to pay them in cash. Inbound and outbound.

      Let's not forget that many countries require an actual visa to travel there, even as a tourist. China's L visa (tourist visa) is a pain in the butt, and costs $140. More if you want a 3rd party company to do the inconvenient work of actually going to the Chinese consulate on your behalf. Even just getting a 48 hour transit visa in Beijing is more difficult than it should be. There are many countries that have similar requirements and ordeals.

      Most USA visitors can just do the ESTA, buy their ticket, and come for a visit of up to 90 days, with very little scrutiny. That's not unreasonable in my opinion, and is much easier than many other countries. Not as easy as going from one EU country to another, but quite easy when compared to China, Russia, and a long list of other countries.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    33. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much. We provide our own tourism domestically in many cases. Frankly I would enjoy it if some of the good vacation spots were a little bit less crowded. You can see pretty much any type of natural beauty. Mountains, beaches, arctic, island oasis, etc. Sure we might miss out on some cultural stuff but its too much work and money to go to France to see the art or whatever.

    34. Re: To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes....but you'll still be surrounded by Americans. That's the problem with America, it's full of Americans.

    35. Re:To summarize by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      But you were hoping for Sgt. Angua, admit it.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    36. Re:To summarize by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that Donald Trump was criticised for voicing his position on halting any new Muslims from coming to the country and yet apparently it's happening already with the current USA administration. I guess the difference is that... they are not promising to do it, they are just doing it. Of-course they are not stopping all new Muslims yet, but once you have the precedent of stopping some Muslims from even visiting the country who is to say that stopping all Muslims is the boundary that the government will not cross? Camel's nose under the tent (or was it his toe?)

    37. Re:To summarize by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Well, my point was that I was counting countries [wikipedia.org]. Country. You know, that thing with a common head of state, often federal laws and institutions... well.. a COUNTRY! a friggin run of the mill independant, soverign state.

      The EU has a common head of state, often federal laws and institutions.and has started to integrate its military. So, yes, the EU is very much like the US federal government, just a little late to the starting block (because Europeans spent a couple of centuries longer under monarchies and fascism).

    38. Re:To summarize by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      True enough, but amazingly, the US government doesn't always jump because some special interest group wants something.

      Now, I'm not defending DHS here; I think they are an awful agency and illustrate how bad government-run programs are. It is amazing to me that people want nationalized health care, social security, and other services like that from a government that produces DHS.

      However, given that border security is actually a delegated power of the federal government, and given that anti-terrorism is something the American people actually want, DHS is doing what it is supposed to do within the limitations of how well any big government agency can function.

    39. Re:To summarize by hey! · · Score: 1

      So -- Alatar or Pallando?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    40. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I now have as solid a reason not to fly to the US anymore

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

      What hassle?

      The hassle of coming up with a reason to go.

    41. Re:To summarize by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I'm a native born US national and I prefer not to fly either - if I'm inside the 48 continental states, I drive, no matter how far it is. Of course, the nice thing is I don't fly for work. If I did, I'd find a new job.

    42. Re:To summarize by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Let's not even start with the horrible clothes people (in the US anyway) wear whilst flying...basically, unkempt pajamas. Me? I wear "western dress clothes" - nice jeans, leather blazer, shirt, tie, cowboy hat, boots. ;-)

    43. Re:To summarize by Solandri · · Score: 1
      I sympathize with your frustration. The bureaucracy can be mindboggling at times.

      (basically the same questions on the visa waiver, including the one about "moral turpitude")

      That question isn't there because they expect criminals to confess their criminal intent. Is there so they can nail someone for a fraudulent visa application if they should enter into the country, commit a crime, and background check shows a criminal history.

      It is Exactly. The. Same. To the letter, *apart* from the issue date at the bottom. Exactly the same. Of course now I have a non-refundable flight ticket that I can't use because another round-trip time of my passport to the embassy means I have to wait another 10 days.

      Most airlines let you rebook non-refundable tickets for a different date for a fee (typically about $100) within 1 year of the original flight date. While it's not free, it's almost always a lot cheaper than having to buy new tickets. Non-refundable just means you can't convert them back into cash.

    44. Re:To summarize by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Nope. Sorry, but that is plain batshit wrong (spoiler: I am a European citizen of country A, member state of the EU, living in country B, also an EU member state). We have no common head of state - only a president of the European Commission, whose function is not even close to that of a head of state. We have no federal laws - we only have regulation which member states "translate" into their own laws. We have not even begun to integrate our military; we're talking about a common border patrol force of about 2000 strong, and this is - for the moment - only talk. Now, if you ask as to whether I would like to have a common head of state, and federal European law, and a common military.... I would rather be in favour of it, with (probably) a totally new system of checks and balances. Many of my fellow Europeans, especially the lower socio-economic "classes", are rabidly against it. But that is another discussion.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    45. Re:To summarize by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My ex-girlfriend, a US-born Latina living in Virginia, resorted to that as well. She'd rather relocate to the West Coast and find a new job there, than undergo the hassle and degrading, even humiliating procedures in US airports when flying. And she was a very prettyLatina.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    46. Re: To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone that knows something. MNL, Bolivia, china, etc. 2 of 3 of those are America's fault. (Retaliation)

      But the worst, flying from se Asia to israel. I thought I was going to be raped in the Israeli SS substation in Bangkok airport. My pants were off and a gloved hand was on. Just some light groping, luckily.

    47. Re:To summarize by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I guess that's why I've seen - on more than one occasion - a train stop at the French/Belgian border, officers come on board, ask for paperwork - and escort a few 'undocumented' individuals off the train. Border control in the EU exists - it's just not enforced most of the time. But each country still retains its right to implement border controls at will.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    48. Re:To summarize by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, my sister had trouble travelling from Las Vegas to San Jose, CA. Stupid idiotic "security" caused her to miss her flight. After that I'll believe any story about how stupid, inept, unkind, disrespectful, and uncouth the TSA are. After all, I have to presume that she didn't receive the worst possible treatment. Mind you, this doesn't contradict "Most people don't have any trouble." as there was no reason or explanation given either before or afterwards. And no apology. And on the same flight my wife, who was travelling with her, didn't have any trouble (except getting off the plane when my sister was held captive without warrant. I'm not sure whether that should count as kidnapping or false arrest, but they can get away with it because nobody has the right to challenge them. Not even a US Senator.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    49. Re:To summarize by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i think i'd give him the hairy eye because it's a cloak, and he mentions no other apparel. Big hairy cloaked streaker.

      i'm surprised they let him pass at all.

      maybe just didn't want to tangle with someone that crazy.

    50. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, this is just a case of "fuck dallas" they all suck there, the other cities in texas are much better.

    51. Re:To summarize by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      you've gotta remember, the US spans a continent, with all the weird climates that that entails. And it covers roughly the same area as europe and has about 70 percent of the population of the EU.

      comparing the EU and the US as a whole is generally a valid comparison when talking about a whole host of issues. challenges in health care, defense, scientific output, GDP.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      to us, you're like a loose loose loose confederation of states that in the past really really really wanted to kill the fuck out of each other.

      except you've got a currency union that's not going to work in the long run, because the central body isn't empowered to redistribute wealth from stronger "states" to weaker ones. As the federal government does with lopsided taxing and spending between states over here. We're also americans first, regardless of ethnic origin or current residence.

    52. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect he's butthurt by ggp's post, sure sounds like it anyway

    53. Re:To summarize by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      to us, you're like a loose loose loose confederation of states that in the past really really really wanted to kill the fuck out of each other.

      Yes. But, as you said, not anymore. Don't you think that's a big win? Because that past isn't THAT long ago.

      --
      bickerdyke
    54. Re:To summarize by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      well my point there was more that comparing the US to say, sweden is a grossly negligent ignoring of scale.

      the US as a whole is comparable to the EU as a whole. and some states are comparable to countries. Except germany and france, maybe. California is only as "big" as italy.

      also, unfortunately, because you're not as centralized... you almost got fucked by Greece... BY GREECE.

      I don't think it's possible to maintain this half-assed state the EU is in right now indefinitely. We'll hit another speedbump, and the EU will fly apart.

    55. Re:To summarize by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Ok. comparing size. got that.

      But how, pray tell, is that connected to the amount of hassle you have to go through to visit a country as a holiday destination?

      A few posts up someone said that many Europeans don't visit the US anymore because it's to much hassle. And someone tried a "back at you" reply claiming that going to Europe would mean as much hassle and feeling of being unwelcome for US citizens that they wouldn't visit the US anymore.

      Well that's clearly neither connected to size or population density, but I'm still waiting for one example where entering Europe is as cumbersome as traveling to the US.

      --
      bickerdyke
    56. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's strange...I'm a Canadian living in the US as a Permanent Resident, I have found no particular greater 'issues' entering either country as I go back & forth...it can be 'hit or miss' either way but of course being a Canadian citizen when I go home it's reasonable to assume I'm treated slightly nicer than when I come back to the US as I have cultural ties I can use when chatting with border security. Ultimately the amount of time I spend in a line to cross either border is a function of the number of people that are trying to get in & the number of border security people on the job (and how bored they are I guess)...

    57. Re:To summarize by KGIII · · Score: 1

      "I was doing things that made me stand out. They noticed me. They asked me questions. I am oppressed by the system!!!"

      Yup. First world problems.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    58. Re:To summarize by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Kennedy = Drunk
      Houston = Southern Hospitality
      Miami = Cocaine

      How very odd.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    59. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On behalf of the American public, we thank you for staying the fuck out of our country. Now go fuck yourself you self righteous bitch ass trick.
       
      Seriously, jam it up your ass. We don't fucking care.

    60. Re:To summarize by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yup, another special snowflake.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    61. Re:To summarize by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      don't think it's possible to maintain this half-assed state the EU is in right now indefinitely.

      Neither do most of us, European citizens (if I read the serious media and various polls correctly, ).

      We'll hit another speedbump, and the EU will fly apart.

      Not necessarily. A "speedbump" might as well lead to tighter integration. It's as it is with real speedbumps: they *do damage you and your car badly, if you drive over them with 140 km/h. If you drive over them with 20 km/h, they may lead you to permanently alter your driving behaviour in *that street.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    62. Re:To summarize by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't travel to Europe either because it's too much hassle.

      Yeah, having to get a passport in itself seems too difficult for most Americans.

    63. Re:To summarize by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Hassle as in NOT have to pay $15 in advance entry fee? Or Hassle as in NOT have to get a visa? Or hassle as in only have to flick your passport once at the destination airport and then being able to travel to ~20 other countries without a single border control?

      Could you give an example of what you're referring to?

      And don't blame it on Europe if the "hassle" is only in obtaining a passport because US bureaucracy is as swift as a 70s banana republic's. That's homemmade.

      Well most Americans actually don't have a passport. And a startlingly large number of them have never left their home towns (nor home state).

      Heck, there was a point when you didn't even need a passport in the US - I still remember seeing Americans going through immigration with little more than driver's licenses. Always amazed me as a Canadian that passports were optional.

      So of that, I'm sure a bunch of US citizens don't travel because now they have to get a passport when it wasn't required before.

      And really, one thing I've found fascinating is the US is really quite a set of disparate people - every region in the US different, with different accents and customs. I still remember dealing with a company from Atlanta, Georgia and that thick Southern drawl. (And then wondering why one person from that company had a west coast accent - turns out he was remotely working from California).

      So you can really experience a lifetime's worth of culture just by travelling within the US.

    64. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't have said it any better. Want less hassle? Stop trying to pretend that you're a unique snowflake instead of just a flake.

      And that's how fascism starts...

    65. Re:To summarize by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      Neither do most of us, European citizens (if I read the serious media and various polls correctly, ).

      ...

      Not necessarily. A "speedbump" might as well lead to tighter integration. It's as it is with real speedbumps: they *do damage you and your car badly, if you drive over them with 140 km/h. If you drive over them with 20 km/h, they may lead you to permanently alter your driving behaviour in *that street.

      i'd say it's more likely to fall apart then cede power to a central office. National identity is too strong. The only reason the american "currency union" has worked at all is because of the migration of money from richer states to poorer states, typically urban to rural. Until france and germany are willing to subsidize the PIGS, i don't see it happening. and france I already consider underperforming, and germany I already consider unwilling...

    66. Re:To summarize by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      don't know, been looking into it. last time i went to europe was a long time ago, and i've never had to enter the US as a non-US citizen :)

      anyway, don't see the hassle of 15 dollar fee, i'd consider that similar to the hassle of booking a flight/accomodations at destination. visa waiver/electronic should take care of the majority of business travellers and tourists. and being denied entry, like these people seems like a vanishingly small fraction of travelers.

      If you try and visit too often for too long, they might make you get a tourist visa. but if you've got no criminal record, and want to visit for a couple weeks or visit family, i don't think there's much hassle there.

      again, i can't speak of that.

      I pointed out the size of the US to weaken your argument that it was easy to visit 20 different countries in the EU. in terms of different ecosystems/parks and regional flavors, each state you have access to once you get into the US has its own distinct character. I'm saying, maybe not in terms of history, but in terms of cultural distinction it's less cut and dry than you make it out to be.

      visiting the west coast vs visiting the east coast, north south, midwest, etc. are all going to be pretty different experiences.

      We've got deserts, swamps, dormant volcanoes, flatlands, forests etc. there's a lot to see for "one" country is all i'm saying. And it's not super fair to compare it to, say, belgium.

    67. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us do care, very much, but in general we aren't the ones who are rich enough to buy the politicians. I have no authority to speak on anyone's behalf save my own, but if it helps, I apologize for the current insanity of security theater that blocked these poor Disney fans from their flight and has caused innumerable other cases of injustice and inconvenience. There are times when I am very proud of my country, and there are times when I just want to wear a paper bag over my head for shame. This is one of the latter.

    68. Re:To summarize by anti-disney · · Score: 1

      A lot of Americans no longer travel by air because of the TSA and the fact they must give up their Fourth Amendment rights and be molested in order to fly an airplane. Unfortunately there are a lot of Americans who simply don't care or are misinformed. Some think it is a fair trade-off not realizing that the TSA is nothing more than security theater and even worse than the security they replace. They also don't realize how unconstitutional the TSA is with some of the things they do to people. Others have no opinion because they are more interested in what is happening in Hollywood than what is happening in their country and either don't know or don't care. As evidenced by Trump managing to be the frontrunner of a major party, it says a lot about the education level of some Americans. In fact, after he makes outlandish comments about plans that are unconstitutional, he gains even more support.

    69. Re:To summarize by anti-disney · · Score: 1

      I nearly missed a flight after a BDA (Behavioral Detection Officer) saw some kind of red flag in my behavior on a flight from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas. Does the airline reimburse you if you miss a flight through no control of your own? Are they able to book you on another flight without charge? In my case I arrived two minutes before the scheduled departure time after questioning about where I planned to stay, how I planned to get to my hotel from the airport, what I plan to do on my trip, and other personal questions that didn't seem to be their business and I didn't feel comfortable divulging the details to my planned trip to a stranger even if it is a TSA officer. I barely made my flight in time. In fact I spend more time in the interview with TSA officers than flying to Las Vegas.

    70. Re:To summarize by HiThere · · Score: 1

      In my sister's case the airline made space available for both my wife and my sister on a later flight. This was to the credit of the airline, and it cost them two passenger tickets. In the case this story is about the fares were not refunded, and no later flight was allowed.

      I hope that the airline billed the TSA for the lost passenger fares, but I doubt that they're allowed to.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    71. Re:To summarize by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You should not be accusing the parent of not having travelled and instead count your experience lucky.

      For me I have found it easier to get onto the Chinese mainland, and easier to get from there to Tibet then I found getting into the USA.

      You had to apply for a visa? Boo hoo. Countries have immigration laws that require such a thing. Now the USA on the other hand don't require a visa for many people to travel. ... and yet we still have to pre-register, pre-screen and all for naught in the end.

      I went to the Chinese consulate to drop off my passport, picked it up 2 days later. That was it. Flying to China was 100% effortless. I cleared the customs queue before the first bag even made it off the plane.

      On the other hand last time I travelled to the USA (an ally and a national friendly to the one on my passport) I was questioned for 20 minutes because I had a stamp with Arab text in my passport. The text? The stamp I got when entering Dubai because I flew Emirates and the boarder guard didn't understand the concept of getting a courtesy hotel when you have a long layover, mind you the same airline I just arrived with. Then he asked me why I didn't keep a 3 week old used plane ticket. It was a lesson in bureaucracy and stupidity and a waste of time that was unrivalled anywhere I have ever travelled.

      I have no problem travelling to China. I dread going to the USA. While much of the western world has now streamlined the service to the point where you can clear customs without even talking to a customs officer, immigration in the USA is still representative of your country: Everything is bigger and grander, sadly including how much time I need to waste at immigration.

    72. Re:To summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, having to get a passport in itself seems too difficult for most Americans.

      Actually, it is kind of a hassle. However, actually almost 40% of Americans have a passport.

      Nevertheless, the real reason why not more Americans have a passport is because few Americans actually want to travel abroad. The US is huge and has a wide range of cultures and environments. There is simply no need to travel to Europe.

      A century ago, traveling to Europe was something educated people needed to do; these days, it's just an overpriced, slightly backwards and run-down travel destination.

    73. Re:To summarize by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Nope. Sorry, but that is plain batshit wrong (spoiler: I am a European citizen of country A, member state of the EU, living in country B, also an EU member state).

      No, it's not "batshit wrong". And, yeah, I'm also from Europe originally, so don't try to pull authority with your bullshit.

      ... whose function is not even close to that ...

      Of course it's not: Europe is just a few decades out the gate doing what the US did a couple of centuries ago, and Europe started off with a bunch of cultures and ideologies that had just murdered each other by the millions and hated each others guts. Of course, the EU isn't as closely integrated, of course, the European presidency doesn't have a lot of power yet, and of course, lawmaking happens much more at the state level. The EU hasn't had its 14th Amendment yet, nor its Civil War over states rights. The EU is a young, immature, and fragile political construct populated by a politically naive and inexperienced citizenship.

      But the construct of the EU is very similar to the construct of the US: a region in which people and goods can move freely and have a common legal framework. That means that when you compare the US with Europe, you need to compare the US with the EU as a whole, not with individual member states.

    74. Re:To summarize by anti-disney · · Score: 1

      I think the TSA should be forced to repay airlines when they screw up but the TSA would probably refuse to admit that they made a mistake like they always do especially if they had to repay the airline company for the fares someone pays after they are denied boarding due to an error by the TSA. In a lot of ways the TSA has more power than the police department. If I was wanted by the police and they figured out that I was boarding a flight they would probably have to go to a judge to get some kind of warrant to come onto a plane to search for me or to search for me at an airport. They would get into a lot of trouble if it turned out that I was not the person they were looking for after taking me into custody and I missed my flight as a result.

  11. Re:Well done! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Nonono, you read that wrong. That was a UK Muslim Family going to the US, not a US family going to Europe.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Give a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Radicalization starts when you treat people badly and word gets around. That family probably loved America. Not any more. The bad press incidents like this generate only fuel negative perceptions. Border guards: If you want the world to hate America, mission accomplished.

    The more fans America has around the world, the better. Border guards need to learn how to do their jobs without needlessly pissing people off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Give a reason by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      The reason is, why take the risk? Let none of them in, nothing gets blown up. Become atheist, then we'll let you in. It's high time all religion was thrown out the window where it belongs.

  13. Sounds like bullshit by Muros · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFA: "He said that the airline told them that they would not be refunded the $13,340 cost of their flights. They were also forced to return everything they bought at the airport’s duty-free shops before being escorted from the airport."

    EU law states that:
    If you are denied boarding or your flight is cancelled or overbooked, you are entitled to either:

            transport to your final destination using comparable alternative means, or
            having your ticket refunded and, where relevant, being returned free of charge to your initial departure point.

    http://europa.eu/youreurope/ci...

    1. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law doesn't apply to terrorists*, silly.

      * Includes suspected terrorists, or potential terrorists**.

      ** Persons capable of holding a knife and fork.

    2. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit? Merely because the law protects the passenger doesn't mean that the airline would tell him that he had no right to a refund. Airlines are known for illegal shit worse than that.

    3. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Except the flight was neither cancelled nor overbooked. I would say that paragraph doesn't apply in this particular case.

    4. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D'oh, I misread the "or" and I can't delete or edit my earlier comment. Please ignore it, apologies.

    5. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand the logical concept of or at all, or are you just so repressed you accept everything passive-aggressively?

    6. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you didnt read it properly.

      If you are denied boarding

      or your flight is cancelled

      or overbooked

    7. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you are denied boarding or your flight is cancelled or overbooked..."

    8. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only applies when it's the airline denying you boarding. Third parties don't count; otherwise I could just ask a random person to tell me "you can't board!" when I want to return a ticket, and then demand a refund from the airline.

      And I doubt there are any specific regulations stipulating that a refund must be granted if said third party is the country you're travelling to. After all, the USA do not technically have authority to tell an airline, in Britain, what it may or may not do; they merely have the authority to not let the passenger enter the country.

      So the whole situation is more akin to these guys getting on board, being turned away, and returning home right away. The only difference, to them, is that they didn't actually travel to 3000 miles to be turned away.

      Would they be entitled to a refund if they had actually flown? No. So I'm not entirely sure they should be entitled to a refund in this case. The way this was handled was essentially just to save everyone involved some extra hassles.

      'sides, the real question isn't "should the airline refund them for their tickets", the real question is "on what basis were they denied entry". Of course the USA, as a sovereign nation, has complete discretion as to which foreign citizens to allow to enter or not; there is no entitlement to enter the USA if you're not a citizen. That said the USA may be running afoul of its own laws and its own constitution here (or not; IANAL), and certainly adding a modicum of transparency to the whole process and making it less kafkaesque would be the right thing to do, too.

    9. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are denied boarding ...

      Dear God, if there was one place on the internet that people used to be able to grok an OR statement, it was Slashdot. Clearly, Slashdot Beta has arrived.

    10. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a third option which does apply: "If you are DENIED BOARDING or your flight is cancelled or overbooked" (emphasis mine).

    11. Re:Sounds like bullshit by msauve · · Score: 1

      It's only 2 letters. Learn what "or" means. If you study really hard, you can do it!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you are denied boarding or ..."

      Learn to read.

    13. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      The FAQ is making it clearer what is meant:

      Do I have any rights if I am not allowed to board my connecting flight because I arrived late at the gates due to a delay with the first flight?

      If the delay to the first flight was within the control of the airline, then you are entitled to compensation for denied boarding on the connecting flight.

      You have to read it in context, you don't get a refund for not checking in on time, not being at the gate including behind held by security, not having the necessary travel papers like passport and visa or anything else that's not the fault of the airline. That you don't have valid travel papers is not such circumstances, that the US government might have led you to believe you did is not the airline's fault.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      transport to your final destination using comparable alternative means,

      Some cargo ships used to have nice cabins for random travelers, in Baltic Sea years ago. I wonder if they still do it for trans-Atlantic travel also.

    15. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The paragraph says denied boarding OR your flight is cancelled OR overbooked. Only one condition needs to be true for the whole "or" statement to evaluate to true.
      They were denied boarding, therefore the condition is met; they should be refunded.

    16. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the flight was neither overbooks nor cancelled, so neither of those clauses apply.

    17. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Non-refundable tickets doesn't mean the tickets become worthless if you miss your flight. Every airline I know of will change the date of your non-refundable tickets for a fee within 1 year of the original flight date. Typically $100 + any difference in cost of the flight if you rebook on a more expensive flight. Many will even let you apply the value of the tickets to a completely different flight (if it turns out you don't actually need to go to the original destination). But saying the airline wouldn't refund their $13,340 cost of the flight is a lot more dramatic than saying the airline charged them an extra $100 (well, $1100 since they had 11 people in their party).

    18. Re:Sounds like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the flight was not cancelled.

  14. Simple Solution by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Each time the US block entry it has to give a justification. if it does not, it has to reimburse 100% of the trip expense. Maybe then that would cut some of the bullshit.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Simple Solution by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The justification can be as simple as, "Fuck you, that's why." Contrary to popular opinion, the US is a sovereign country. That means they get to be as retarded as they want to be, in matters such as this. All evidence suggests that they'll continue to not only be retarded but that they'll try to escalate that level of mental retardation. However, the important thing to remember is the US doesn't have to give you shit for justification and there's fuck all you can do about it.

      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for 'em and nobody every listens to me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Simple Solution by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Justification is very simple - Mister X is foreign citizen, he has no right to enter the country. No further justification makes sense as it would be formal and would not explain anything anyway.

  15. No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm not buying this. I smell someone with an agenda.

    1. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're applying for asylum as stateless refugees in Disneyland ?

    2. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just pretend there's some encryption involved or something for a tech angle. There's an argument that this is a big enough and shitty enough to make any context.

      Particularly here. Microsoft is evil, apparently. Anti-trust. Blah blah f-ing blah. You know that it's a tech company you hate. Boo. But other corps aren't much different. There's a world of shit around: being too narrowly focused won't do you any favours.

      This is, of course, a minor privacy issue here. Some tech nerds get quite excited about that in the right context.

      But yes, of course, if lack of religious freedom doesn't bother you then fine, next article..

    3. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know what slashdot has become... DICE = http://www.offthegridnews.com/tag/sod-dice-database/

      "DEA Tells Agencies To Recreate Where Information Is Found"

    4. Re:No. There aren't. by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 0

      That still doesn't explain the relation this article has to tech/geek.

    5. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better start believing it. If you're in doubt, read it here: http://www.dhs.gov/news/2011/12/02/fact-sheet-dhss-international-footprint

    6. Re:No. There aren't. by truck_soccer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Try and strain your little brain as a hard as you can, until you get wrinkles on your forehead. Now imagine a world where there are billions of different individuals, some with overlapping interests and social beliefs. Now imagine a world where almost 25% of that population identifies with a specific religion. I know this is all very odd, thinking about things other than your own internalized bullshit, but there is a slim possibility that of the 1.7 billion people who belong to that religion are also technology enthusiasts or mathematicians or engineers. Wow!

    7. Re:No. There aren't. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      With that kind of logic you can find similar "links" between people and everything else on this planet. Why isn't there more tech-related articles on the Vatican website? Why isn't there more religion-related articles on the Microsoft website?

      Slashdot is a tech-related news website, not a general news website. Your logic is flawed.

    8. Re: No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on the dumbest fucking comment on Slashdot.

      There are probably more Jews and Asians reading this site than Muslims, and when was the last time we read about random shit which happens to them with no tech relevance?

      Fuck you, and fuck your agenda.

    9. Re:No. There aren't. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I myself am wondering why this is even news at all. As far as I know, people are inexplicably denied entry to the US all the time, usually just for having a name "similar" to somebody with known terrorist ties. It's probably easier for that to happen if you happen to be from the middle east and have the same first and last name as somebody else from there who DOES have terrorist ties.

      But now we're getting "oh it's BECAUSE he was a muslim" and furthemore "Donald Trump is responsible for this" (yes, there's already a few big news outlets that, strangely enough, seem to assume that Trump already has enough influence to revoke Visas.)

    10. Re:No. There aren't. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      While there are many reasons to hate Dice ... this clearly falls under "Your Rights".

      /. has never *solely* been about tech, but *also* about politics -- namely freedom. Go figure.

      When one person's rights are infringed it is up to ALL of us to name-and-shame the stupidity of government. Sometimes that is the only way to get through to these clowns.

      -- 2015 and /. still fucks up manual line breaks.

    11. Re:No. There aren't. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, there's already a few big news outlets that, strangely enough, seem to assume that Trump already has enough influence to revoke Visas.

      That's why I use MasterCard.

    12. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... there is a slim possibility that of the 1.7 billion people who belong to that religion are also technology enthusiasts or mathematicians or engineers.

      So fucking what ?

      When some of these idiots embrace a religion that espouses murder, the vast majority of citizens DO NOT WANT THEM IN THE UNITED STATES.

      All religion is used for evil. Fuck Islam, Judaism, and all the rest.

    13. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I myself am wondering why this is even news at all.

      Because Trump made a big deal about it. When a hugely popular politician shines a spotlight on an issue it should be no surprise that people start looking at what is now in the spotlight.

    14. Re:No. There aren't. by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I myself am wondering why this is even news at all. As far as I know, people are inexplicably denied entry to the US all the time, usually just for having a name "similar" to somebody with known terrorist ties. It's probably easier for that to happen if you happen to be from the middle east and have the same first and last name as somebody else from there who DOES have terrorist ties.

      But now we're getting "oh it's BECAUSE he was a muslim" and furthemore "Donald Trump is responsible for this" (yes, there's already a few big news outlets that, strangely enough, seem to assume that Trump already has enough influence to revoke Visas.)

      Isn't the fact that random people are inexplicably denied entry to the US enough to make it news worthy? Why isn't an explanation given along with a procedure to clear your name if you're incorrectly flagged on a watch list?

    15. Re:No. There aren't. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I imagined 25% of the world population was Amish. Your move.

    16. Re:No. There aren't. by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      "News for nerds, stuff that matters".

      I consider myself a nerd, and this matters to me. I also infer that nerds in general would be interested in more than tech news, including a US border scandal happening abroad and involving the religion in the spotlight, but I may be wrong.

      Maybe since that motto is no longer visible, it may well no longer be the guide for its content subjects. If that's the case, a newer guide doesn't seem to be visible anywhere else either, so assume "tech/geek" at your own risk.

      Hope that helps.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    17. Re:No. There aren't. by argee · · Score: 1

      25% ... wow, we would be having driverless horse carriages made by the English Horse company.

    18. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh...yeah, you don't speak for Americans that understand the Bill of Rights. You don't speak for me. Send me your Muslims, I'm not scared of their religion or their beliefs. I don't feel threatened by them - at all.

    19. Re:No. There aren't. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You joke, but most horse carriages are essentially driverless on frequently traveled trips, especially for trips home.

    20. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because of "your rights online?". As in we're online and discussing your rights.

    21. Re:No. There aren't. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Eh. We're a nation of bed wetters at this point.

    22. Re: No. There aren't. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, news implies recent and at least somewhat peculiar events. This has been happening for 14 years now. Does there need to be a way to fight it? Yeah, probably, but I really doubt any politician is going to sponsor any kind of bill that might in any seem likely to trigger another 9/11.

      Anyways the point is, I sincerely doubt the guy was stopped just for being a Muslim, and the media is being extremely disingenuous for suggesting otherwise.

    23. Re:No. There aren't. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Trump is no politician. He is aspiring to become one but he has never held any elected office of any government that i can find.

    24. Re:No. There aren't. by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      It's not "your rights " the category is "your rights online "

      This story still doesn't fit. Even if it was just your rights, a foreigner has a privilege - not a right to enter another country.

      Yes, The privilege was revoked and people where inconvenienced but the only rights in play here is the sovereign rights of the U.S..

    25. Re:No. There aren't. by shubus · · Score: 1

      I'm not buying it either! This is the WRONG VENUE for this and has no business on Slashdot.

    26. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It's almost certainly this combined with other "odd" factors like, why would a Muslim family choose to travel across the world during the most expensive travel holiday when they do not celebrate the holiday; combined with the very common name collisions (Mohammed is an extremely common Muslim name to the point where I've met people named literally "Mohammed Mohammed" using various spellings).

      The family is out $13,340 for their plane tickets.

      Sucks that they're out the money -- I do feel like that should be refunded, if they're blocked from getting on the flight. It seems likely that they will get a refund.

    27. Re:No. There aren't. by orasio · · Score: 1

      First of all, you are right, the category is "your rights online". Some discussion about how there is no longer an online and offline distinction might be interesting, but you are right .

      About citizens having some rights and foreigners only having privileges, that is very convenient, but deeply unethical.

      All people have the same rights regardless of anything. You usually can deny some of them to foreigners, based on practical considerations, like lack or resources or something similar.

      In any case, it's so very wrong to say that someone has different rights only because they were born inside some geographic shape, or have a specific lineage.

    28. Re:No. There aren't. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Foreigners have the same rights, to travel and enter their own country. There is no difference in this right except their country. No US citizen has a right to enter any other country of their choosing.

      This story is about foreign nationals trying to enter a country not their own. As far as I know, that is a privilege even if attempted by a US citizen.

    29. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main candidates are so bad, that Hilary clearly employed Trump to make her look good. I see she's been after the muslim and female votes recently.

    30. Re:No. There aren't. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      When a hugely popular politician

      Politician means somebody who makes public policy decisions. Trump has never held such a position.

    31. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you sheldon coopers! Both of you.

      Fucking autistic dickwads can't see the forest for the trees.

    32. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Politician means somebody who makes public policy decisions.

      Hey dictionary pedant! Check the fucking dictionary before 'correcting' someone.

      http://dictionary.reference.co...
      politician:
      2: a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

    33. Re: No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the point is, I sincerely doubt the guy was stopped just for being a Muslim, and the media is being extremely disingenuous for suggesting otherwise.

      Your own words suggest you believe that being muslim was a factor in being denied. That is bullshit enough. Since the DHS is the department of kafka, we will never know the full details. And as long as they insist on not explaining their actions and being held accountable it is absolutely fair to make the solid guesses as to their motivations. That secrecy shit cuts two ways.

    34. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're applying for asylum in the Magic Kingdom?

    35. Re:No. There aren't. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Are you really going to be _that_ anal retentive??

      The "online" portion of "your rights online" is only because we are discussing it, here, online -- but those rights STILL apply online AND offline.

      Regardless if you call it "your rights" or "your rights online", *nothing* changes.

      Now I don't a see a category for "Your Privileges Online"; the closest match is "Your Rights Online" so nitpicking means fucks all.

      The family _already_ got permission and were fraudulently denied without any explanation.

    36. Re:No. There aren't. by rch7 · · Score: 1

      You would need to apply for paper visa, not electronic "visa waiver", if you would still want to visit after that.

    37. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it was just your rights, a foreigner has a privilege - not a right to enter another country.

      That's a debatable point, actually. It could also be argued that (with a few exceptions) all humans have the inalienable right to freely move wherever they want. Around 100 years ago, some governments choose not to recognise that right.

    38. Re:No. There aren't. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I myself am wondering why this is even news at all.

      Two reasons, really. One thing is that because this is a Muslim family, it will be picked up by people Daesh's propagandists and used to 'prove' that we in the West are all out against Islam and must be exterminated. That makes it a sensitive issue. The other thing is that although this isn't a new issue in general, we still need to hold this kind of mindless idiocy up to the public eye, so that the tossers in DHL or whoever feel the pressure and are encouraged to get the finger out to change things for the better.

    39. Re:No. There aren't. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your rights online is about the tech angles of rights - that is how rights are affected online. It is not and never was a general rights discussion group. It was always about a tech presence at the meat of the story.

      This story does not belong here. There is no tech angles whatsoever at all. As for the fraudulent denial, no it was not. Any country can at any time deny entrance to foreign people for any reason not prohibited by their law. No reason to which why the denial is illegal can be given. There are two parts to the visa waiver program and all that has happened is they got past one part but not the other. It happens all the time.

      It's sad that they found out after spending a ton of money but they had no rights violated here.

    40. Re:No. There aren't. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's a little more than 100 years ago with the US anyways. The constitution actually talks about congress making rules for naturalization and bars congress from making laws banning people from entering the states (importation) until after 1808.

      So even with some sense of an inalienable right, the founding of the USA was of the premise that this right could be controlled or removed altogether.

    41. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The distinction between rights and privileges is an artificial one.

      You should have an expectation not to be treated as a criminal or terrorist without evidence. You should have an expectation not to be treated as a criminal or terrorist solely because of your religion. You should have an expectation not to be treated as a criminal or terrorist because of your skin colour.

      I don't know whether these count as "rights", but they are certainly things that should apply in any civilised society.

    42. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook page linked to Taliban and Al Qaeda was registered to same address as British Muslim father whose Disneyland trip was blocked by Homeland Security

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3371472/David-Cameron-look-Muslim-family-banned-visiting-Disneyland-California-U-S-officials.html

    43. Re:No. There aren't. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You have absolutely no evidence that such things have taken place. No reason was given for denying their travel and everything including the terrorist and criminal reasoning is all speculation. For all we know it could be because someone in the family posted something about going to live in America on their Facebook profile and they were blocked from travel to the US because it appeared they would become illegal aliens if given the chance.

      But it doesn't matter anyways. Any infraction of what you think should apply in any civilized society is pure speculation at this point.

    44. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the war on humor continues.
      "Supervisor at Taliban" and "FBI - Federal Bureau of Islam"

      Looks like one of the kids he went to school with put it up to hassle him. Succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

      captcha: insular

    45. Re: No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not unethical for citizens to have rights while visitors have privileges. Any more than i have the right to things in my home while guests have privileges.

      Expecting to have the same rights as a citizen while being a visitor is unethical.

    46. Re: No. There aren't. by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      This should have all been sorted out over a decade ago, when Sen. Ed Kennedy was found to be on the terror watch list... It's very easy to wind up on the terror watch list, it is an ADMINISTRATIVE decision made by nameless, faceless, mid-level managers. And the process for getting your name off the terror watch list is essentially up to the whim of those same nameless, faceless mid-level managers.

    47. Re: No. There aren't. by baristabrian · · Score: 1

      This isn't news any more than 10 million fuckers illegally sneaking in, is it? Or am I missing something, besides the irony?

      --
      -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
    48. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why isn't an explanation given along with a procedure to clear your name if you're incorrectly flagged on a watch list?

      The terrorists would love that.

    49. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I myself am wondering why this is even news at all. As far as I know, people are inexplicably denied entry to the US all the time [...]

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

      Perhaps you'll consider it newsworthy when they come for you?

    50. Re:No. There aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is aspiring to become one but he has never held any elected office of any government that i can find.

      That's a good thing, especially since career politicians have done so much damage to the world.

    51. Re:No. There aren't. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The "online" portion of "your rights online" is only because we are discussing it, here, online -- but those rights STILL apply online AND offline.

      No, the online portion means rights on activities you do online not just talking about them online. For instance, this entire topic is off topic but trying to stop people from talking about the topic would be on topic. See the similarities there but notice the differences. It has never been a blanket your rights category.

      Regardless if you call it "your rights" or "your rights online", *nothing* changes.

      Sure it does. That is because both are specific statements and while one might contain the other, the inverse is not true at all. I understand you are failing to distinguish that difference but that doesn't make your lack of knowledge the way reality is.

      Now I don't a see a category for "Your Privileges Online"; the closest match is "Your Rights Online" so nitpicking means fucks all.

      No, nitpicking means this entire story is offtopic and belongs on topix or rededit or whatever other shit site where people make things up and bitch about it in some virtual attempt to save the world as they think they know it.

      The family _already_ got permission and were fraudulently denied without any explanation.

      How were they fraudulently denied? Neither you nor anyone else has presented any valid reasons to why they were denied. The article does it's best to point out they were Muslim but no proof of that being true or even the reasoning for the denial is ever tendered. The VISA waivier program is only to see if they qualify for a visa wavier not to see if they are allowed into the country. So not only did you get the entire online thing wrong, you have gotten the entire process they were trying to enter on wrong to boot.

      How does it feed to be wrong on so many levels?

  16. I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Im a UK citizen, im not religious and I am a family man. Stripping back all of race/religion side of this I put myself in their place.

    If I have worked hard to save the money up to take my family on holiday, my children are excited to go do what would probably be a once in a life time experience for them. We fill in all the forms get visa do everything by the book. Then on the day just when we are about to get on the plane get told sorry you cant come, oh and all that duty free stuff you have we will be taking that, escorted out like criminals then told oh by the way all that money you worked so far for and paid? your not getting it back.

    I would be livid if it happened to just me, I would be would be enraged if it happend to me and my partner, but then to destroy my childrens hopes I would so angry it would be beyond describing in polite converstation.

    I would be kicking off to everyone and anyone. I don't care if it politically embarrases heads of state or not. So good on this family for doing the same. Race or religion may or may not have been part of the reason for this but putting that asside no family deserved to be treated in such a manner and if unless you think it would be acceptable for you and your family to be treated as such then its not ok for this family.

    I for one hope they get some explanation for this and if its not a good one they damned well better get appologise refunds and someone should make it up to those kids.

    1. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im a UK citizen, im not religious and I am a family man. Stripping back all of race/religion side of this I put myself in their place.

      If I have worked hard to save the money up to take my family on holiday, my children are excited to go do what would probably be a once in a life time experience for them. We fill in all the forms get visa do everything by the book. Then on the day just when we are about to get on the plane get told sorry you cant come, oh and all that duty free stuff you have we will be taking that, escorted out like criminals then told oh by the way all that money you worked so far for and paid? your not getting it back.

      I would be livid if it happened to just me, I would be would be enraged if it happend to me and my partner, but then to destroy my childrens hopes I would so angry it would be beyond describing in polite converstation.

      I would be kicking off to everyone and anyone. I don't care if it politically embarrases heads of state or not. So good on this family for doing the same. Race or religion may or may not have been part of the reason for this but putting that asside no family deserved to be treated in such a manner and if unless you think it would be acceptable for you and your family to be treated as such then its not ok for this family.

      I for one hope they get some explanation for this and if its not a good one they damned well better get appologise refunds and someone should make it up to those kids.

      Under English law there is case precedent for refunding money paid for a holiday. See Swan Tours.

    2. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no family deserved to be treated in such a manner and if unless you think it would be acceptable for you and your family to be treated as such then its not ok for this family.

      That is the true nature of the "war on terrorism" - it is primarily a war on dignity.

      It is also going to be just as successful as the war on drugs - trillions of dollars spent, millions of lives ruined as collateral damage and no significant positive results.

    3. Re:I feel for them by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      And of course you wouldn't even think that possibly one of my 9 kids did something to cause this. Nope, not a chance right?

    4. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with you. But, this family should have chosen to go to Euro Disney instead. It is well known that there is a backlash on Muslims in the US (also in the UK) so it is not worth the risk, IMHO.

    5. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a rest, save your faux outrage for real issues. This is about two muslim men travelling with nine muslim boys (aged up to 18). This isn't a regular family on the jolly heading to the sun, it's 11 young muslim men. Be honest with yourself, males do not give a shit about disney beyond the age of 5 or 6. Had they been a real family, as in dad, mum and their young family, it may be different. But 11 men and teen boys off to a disney theme park, no fucking chance.

      Furthermore, why are they buying duty free on the way out? Muslims do not drink alcohol, why did they buy it? There's far more to this than we're seeing.

    6. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah, blah, blah. My family got kicked out of Greece, so cry me a river. No social media to complain to back then. Just come home from school, pack your bags and you're on a plane ride to Houston.

      Boo hoo hoo, we didn't get to go to Disney World. Next thing someone will say is that ISIS is using this to recruit more extremists.

    7. Re: I feel for them by oobayly · · Score: 1

      What did you do, insist paying the hotel with a credit card so they'd have to pay tax on it?

    8. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If i wasn't plotting an attack on america before this happened to me, i would be now

    9. Re: I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha and Christians don't have premarital sex. And Jews don't eat ... whatever. And slashdot nerds don't post stupid things. I've drank a lot with a lot of muslims.

    10. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's an unfortunate coincidence, or maybe their 18 year old son is an idiot...

      "However, a check by CNN of traveling family members on UK Electoral Roll shows an email address associated with 18-year-old Hamza Mahmoud that links to a suspicious Facebook page. The page appears to belong to a Birmingham resident with a similar name, whose occupation is listed as Supervisor at Taliban and Leader at al-Qaeda"

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/23/europe/british-muslims-denied-boarding-to-la/index.html ... in either case, it's wise to ensure that email addresses linked to your official documents are under your control, and you've at least squatted them on popular social media sites.

    11. Re:I feel for them by jabuzz · · Score: 0

      There is a bunch of other stuff you can buy duty free starting off with tobacco products that would be perfectly acceptable for Muslims to consume/use.

      I would also put the the Disney and males a bit beyond five or six, probably eight at least. However a group of two Muslim men travelling with nine Muslim boys some of which are teenagers legitimately raises questions.

    12. Re:I feel for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have lived in muslim multicultural [love how they took 20 years to turn that uinto a dirty word] areas most of my life .. i don;t know about these days but this family are pretty atypical of the previous generations of british muslim families i have known and it all makes sense now. If you even try to aspire to leisure travel outside of mecca or pakistan to visit family it is a terrible misuse of funds frauight with risks of financial loss and traumatic humiliation fir you and your family. got it.

  17. Breaking news by RDW · · Score: 4, Funny

    This just in: according to sources there is strong evidence that one of these travellers had links with a terrorist network in Agrabah:

    http://time.com/4155228/amierc...

    1. Re:Breaking news by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      They were even quite open about wanting to go to one of their training facilities!

    2. Re:Breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's not let facts like this get in the way of a good ol slashdot circlejerk

    3. Re:Breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in support of it as well. After all, I can't think of a more appropriate place to test bombs than a fictional country. Means nobody has to get hurt and all that, plus in the bizzaro land this question was formed in, I assume we still get to see the results. Win-win all around.

    4. Re:Breaking news by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

      Another family seduced into evil by the charismatic Ali Ababwa. Someday we will bring that monster to justice.

    5. Re:Breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup he was brown and had an islamic sounding name.

    6. Re:Breaking news by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there was no way to answer that question without looking like a fool? The headline "30% pf republicans support bombing fictional city." Left for further down in the article is the fact that 36% of Democrats OPPOSE bombing that fictional city. Why would I support or oppose bombing a fictional city?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Breaking news by StenD · · Score: 1

      While that article clearly shows the idiocy of the American public, it has been reported that a Facebook page registered with the family's postal address claimed links to the Taliban and al Qaeda.. http://www.itv.com/news/update... Could it be, as claimed, a former resident, or as it appears, a joke? It could be, but if the TSA discovered the page between when the ESTA was initially approved and the date of the flight, it may have been sufficient cause to deny entry. This is a major problem with these hidden no-fly and terrorist-watch lists: people can get on them by being pranked, and since you're not told why you're on the list, you can't readily get off.

  18. Oooohhhhh by codeButcher · · Score: 0

    I, as a lily-white non-muslim EU citizen, registered on the ESTA program still have to agree that even if they accept my application and authorize me for travel to the US, I still may be denied entry without reasons given. And even if I'm allowed, I'm still subjected to the normal security screenings (oh, I even had one of those chemical analyzers swiped over my hands at San Antonio - not that it's inconvenient or intrusive, but it seemed that the agent decided to "randomly sample" me while I was asking for information).

    No, but it must be because they are muslims!

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:Oooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spot on. The USA treats ALL, repeat ALL visitors as if they came from another planet. You are Aliens. You don't have the same rights under the US Constitition.

      I guess this post will now put me on a 'no-fly' list. Sigh. So much for the 1st Ammendment eh?

    2. Re:Oooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on. The USA treats ALL, repeat ALL visitors as if they came from another planet. You are Aliens. You don't have the same rights under the US Constitition.

      Correct. It works the same way in Europe.

      I guess this post will now put me on a 'no-fly' list. Sigh.

      The US doesn't exclude people merely for political speech. The UK, however, actually does.

      So much for the 1st Ammendment eh?

      You're not a US citizen and you're not on US soil, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to you. Sorry. Get your own First Amendment, wherever you may be.

    3. Re:Oooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not a US citizen and you're not on US soil, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to you. Sorry. Get your own First Amendment, wherever you may be.

      On this particular point you're mistaken. There have been plenty of legal cases in which the question has been whether certain rights only apply to US citizens or all persons. Freedom of speech has by legal scholars and precedents been determined to apply to all. The more interesting question is what happens if a cop asks you for ID and you choose to exercise your rights and refuse to show it. Then the cop can't tell whether you're a citizen or not even if your accent might imply that you're not since you could of course be a foreign-born naturalized citizen.

    4. Re:Oooohhhhh by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The more interesting question is what happens if a cop asks you for ID and you choose to exercise your rights and refuse to show it. Then the cop can't tell whether you're a citizen or not even if your accent might imply that you're not since you could of course be a foreign-born naturalized citizen.

      Or a US-born birthright citizen. Not all Americans speak American English as their first language, or at all.

      Anyhow, it's not that interesting a question. The police authorities have the rights to detain people on public property until the identity can be verified, whether it's through papers or others vouching for who the person is. On private property, there must be direct suspicion of a crime.

    5. Re:Oooohhhhh by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      There have been plenty of legal cases in which the question has been whether certain rights only apply to US citizens or all persons.

      The First Amendment's legal protections apply to people who are under American jurisdiction. The cases you are talking about involve the foreigners ACTUALLY BEING IN the United States.

      The First Amendment isn't international law. The world would be a better place if it were, but it isn't.

    6. Re:Oooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cop asks you for ID and you choose to exercise your rights and refuse to show i

      Isn't that when they shoot you, and check your ID, if you're a citizen, they claim they thought you were reaching for a weapon and if you're a visitor, they claim you were a Muslim?

    7. Re:Oooohhhhh by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I, as a lily-white non-muslim EU citizen, registered on the ESTA program still have to agree that even if they accept my application and authorize me for travel to the US, I still may be denied entry without reasons given. And even if I'm allowed, I'm still subjected to the normal security screenings (oh, I even had one of those chemical analyzers swiped over my hands at San Antonio - not that it's inconvenient or intrusive, but it seemed that the agent decided to "randomly sample" me while I was asking for information).

      No, but it must be because they are muslims!

      And, I as a lily-white non-muslim US citizen have been put through the same. Even to the level of having been pulled aside 3 separate times at one airport before being allowed to board...I'm a very average looking middle aged white male, and wasn't doing or carrying anything out of the ordinary. Maybe they thought I was Muslim.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Oooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, I have no idea why anyone would want to go through the hassle of travelling here.

    9. Re:Oooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard to believe that there are multiple bullshit reasons to dick over travelers? That it is not just possible, but plausible that being muslim was enough to bump them over the threshold of bullshit reasons to be denied entry while your non-muslimness was enough to let you in with just an extra dose of hassle?

    10. Re:Oooohhhhh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Anyhow, it's not that interesting a question. The police authorities have the rights to detain people on public property until the identity can be verified, whether it's through papers or others vouching for who the person is. On private property, there must be direct suspicion of a crime.

      There technically must always be suspicion of a crime to demand identification, although in states with stop-and-identify statutes they can merely suspect that you are are about to commit a crime so I guess the PDs in those states are hiring psychics now. And I'd hate to be the guy standing there arguing with the cop over whether I had to show him ID in any state...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Oooohhhhh by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's a self-reinforcing rule - if they didn't suspect anything, they wouldn't have stopped anyone, so they're thus always justified to ask for identification because of suspicion.

      That this circular logic is utter poppycock doesn't mean much. It's justification for the practice.

      And, true, saying "no" to a request for "Papieren, bitte" will likely not go over well in any state.

    12. Re:Oooohhhhh by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      No, it was because you were a middle aged white male. We're on the target list.

    13. Re:Oooohhhhh by sjames · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Constitution applies to the U.S. government. It doesn't matter where or the citizenship of the person, the U.S. government may not do anything not granted by the U.S. Constitution and especially may not do anything forbidden by the Constitution.

    14. Re: Oooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why this is bullshit. You think somwho the chemical test was related to your specialness. White American frequent flier ... I constantly get that test. But I'm not whining it's because I'm Italian or some bullshit. Its just a thing they do.

  19. Lucky by ebonum · · Score: 2

    I was just talking to a guy from India. He was born in India, but holds an Australian passport. He owns his own software company, and he's very successful. Not too long ago he landed in California. He plan: Go look around. He heard it was a great place. It was his first time to the US. At the boarder they pulled him because he couldn't tell him definite plans for his stay in the US. They questioned him for hours, denied him entry and sent him back to Australia. This is a rich guy who speaks perfect English.

    My point is: they should be grateful to be turned back in while still in the UK. They could have ended up making the flight for nothing.

    btw. Revealing a reason helps the terrors.

    1. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Looking around" is not sufficient reason to be granted permission to enter the US. Even Canadians have to state an exact reason to a neighbouring US state. Simply saying "going to McDonald's" is sufficiently precise. However, saying "oh I just want to to look around at your shops" will likely get the Canadian turned back at the land crossing. To take a vacation in the US a Canadian must have a particular destination even if you will be visiting other places or travelling through numerous states to reach the destination including if the final destination is another part of Canada.

    2. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is: they should be grateful to be turned back in while still in the UK. They could have ended up making the flight for nothing.

      But in that case they could have kept the duty free stuff ...

    3. Re:Lucky by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Looking around" is not sufficient reason to be granted permission to enter the US.

      It's called vacation and millions of people from all over the world do it in California every year. They have heard that there is a mystical land called California where the streets are paved with gold and all that jazz, and they come here and spend money and take a lot of photographs and then they piss off again and everyone is happy, unless they got pickpocketed at the Boardwalk. And then, at least the pickpocket is happy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Lucky by njnnja · · Score: 1

      I remember in being in (a US) college near the Canadian border, and since the drinking age in Canada was lower than in the US, a lot of times students would take road trips to Canada. When asked why you were going up to Canada, the *wrong* answer was "Oh, we're just going up for tourism/to drive around." Better was "We are going to the bars to get drunk!" But you would get waved right on through if you said "We're going to Rafferty's/Black Bear/Mintz." Specifics (and honesty) were definitely best.

      n.b. This was even before 9/11

    5. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Hitler would argue that the Jews that were merely shot were lucky too. What a completely ridiculous statement.

      The problem lies with the United States of Paranoia, fueled by xenophobes.

    6. Re:Lucky by ksheff · · Score: 1

      The rich guy who speaks perfect English should have been bright enough to come up with a basic itinerary for his visit whether or not he was actually going to stick to it. The Canadian immigration/customs guys didn't quite believe at first I was going to Rouleau Saskatchewan to visit the Corner Gas set, but I still had a plan of where I was going to stay, visit, etc. I guess they figured that no one outside of Canada had ever heard of that show.

      BTW, the correct word is border which is different from boarder (1.a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services. 2. a person who boards a ship during or after an attack).

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    7. Re:Lucky by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I was just talking to a guy from India. He was born in India, but holds an Australian passport. He owns his own software company, and he's very successful. Not too long ago he landed in California. He plan: Go look around. He heard it was a great place. It was his first time to the US. At the boarder they pulled him because he couldn't tell him definite plans for his stay in the US. They questioned him for hours, denied him entry and sent him back to Australia. This is a rich guy who speaks perfect English.

      I got near the same thing going from Seattle to Vancouver, Canada with my girlfriend. Had a plan, dinner and night club, then coming back or staying in a hotel if we were too tired to drive, but we didn't have $50 cash in our pockets. Apparently Canadians had never heard of credit cards. Stopped, pulled over, questioned, about to have car searched when I found an ATM statement with my checking and savings balance. Once they saw it and that I had some money, they dropped everything and let us go on our way.

    8. Re: Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Everyone knows to have a bullshit itinerary printed up. True alost anywhere you go.

      Not as smart or well traveled as he thought I guess

    9. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paranoia fueled by 9/11, Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, 1993 bombing of the WTC, Times Square SUV bombing, sneaker and underwear bombers, Garland Texas, 7/7/05 London, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, Beslan, Mumbai, Nairobi, San Bernardino, Sydney, Ottawa, beheading of Lee Rigby, Daniel Pearl, James Foley, Fascist Iran...

    10. Re:Lucky by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Shit, I have US citizenship and I've been bugged by cops as a fairly-frequent hobby of mine is driving around the country at random - as in, literally, no specific destination. I hope on the interstate (maybe) and don't use a map (though I usually know where I am - I've been everywhere) and just hop off at an interesting looking exit and drive until I find something curious. Then I stay or move on. Then I hop back on another highway and hop off the next interesting looking exit. I might cross a few States a half dozen times and never once have bothered with a map or GPS or anything.

      They really don't seem to be happy if you don't have a destination. It's tough to explain to a cop that the journey is the destination without them thinking you're on drugs. Which, I admit, I probably was/am but that's not the point. A destination? Yes. I want to get somewhere and find something. Oddly, Canada doesn't usually ask me a whole lot about what I'm going to do because I have Canadian citizenship by grace of heritage. They still like to ask what I'm doing but they don't seem to give a shit. (I'm a citizen, not a resident. I could be a resident. I am not.)

      I don't know but I don't think Canada can actually refuse to let me in and I'm pretty sure the US can't either. The US, on the other hand, doesn't ask me what I'm doing when I come back - probably because I'm a resident. I should start answering the Canadian Customs questions with gibberish like, "Oh, I'm just coming up to go bareback moose riding." Or, "I'm going to try to lasso me a RCMP man." They're polite, they won't kick my ass. I'm not sure why they ask, I'm pretty sure they can't stop me from entering without some due process. Can they revoke my citizenship? Hmm... I don't think so.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Lucky by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "Looking around" is not sufficient reason to be granted permission to enter the US.

      That's explicitly what the B-2 visa is for.

      The issue is that no sane person doesn't have a plan.

      "I'm going to land in IAH and take a cab to the Hilton. I'm staying there one night, and going out. If I like it, I'll be staying more nights there. If Houston sucks, I'll fly to Las Vegas. Spend 3-7 days there, then to California, then home from LAX, open ended ticket."

      That's "looking around" and is specific enough that it doesn't sound like a drug dealer making up shit. "I'm going to look around IAH, then maybe fly home." That will be taken as a lie and you'll be denied entry because they will have reason to believe that you are not a legitimate tourist. But "looking around" is a valid reason to enter.

    12. Re:Lucky by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The issue is the specificity. I entered Amsterdam with no plans. We didn't have a place to stay that night. We didn't have transportation. We had 12% of a plan. Head west on the trains until we stopped, then get a place to stay there, whatever country that was. But articulating an outline of a plan, however odd, is still a plan. A tourist landing in LAX who says he wants to "see the sights" but can't name a single one, will be turned away at the border. No sane tourist has no idea of anything they'd want to see. Just answering "Rodeo Drive, maybe Long Beach, Pasadena, and Anaheim" is more than simply "looking around" which will get you sent home for not being a valid tourist.

  20. France by DrYak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, there's Disneyland Paris, but...

    ...they might be on strike. :-D

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they might be on strike. :-D

      Fucking smilie-face retard.

    2. Re:France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would look more like this:

      8===D O-:

      Retard.

  21. false premise by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A British Muslim family heading for Disneyland was barred from boarding a flight to Los Angeles by US authorities at London’s Gatwick airport amid concerns of an American overreaction to the perceived terrorist threat. US Department of Homeland Security officials provided no explanation for why the country refused to allow the family of 11 to board the planeeven though they had been granted travel authorization online ahead of their planned 15 December flight. Senior politicians have been drawn into the case, warning that a growing number of British Muslims are being barred from the US without being told the reason for their exclusion.

    The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.

    The actual reason may be anything from insufficient funds to cover a family of 11 to documented terrorist connections. Would it be better for US authorities to provide reasons and let people know earlier? Of course. Is there any kind of obligation to do so? No.

    Note that the UK bans people from entry for no other reason than that they voice unpopular political views, so the UK government is hardly in a position to criticize other nations over arbitrary exclusions.

    1. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "obviously false" at all. The most effective discrimination merely increases probability of bad treatment rather than guaranteeing it, since the latter is too transparent and easy to remedy.

    2. Re:false premise by Sesostris+III · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as I know, the UK will at least tell you why you are banned.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    3. Re:false premise by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.

      There is nothing "obviously" false about this. Racism doesn't have to be applied 100% for it to be a very real force in American culture, any more than H1B visas have to be granted for every job in America to depress salaries for technology people in the USA.

    4. Re:false premise by dywolf · · Score: 1

      why quote something if youre not even going to read it?
      from your own quote: "a growing number of British Muslims are being barred from the US without being told the reason for their exclusion".

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that changes things.

    6. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite common to have a name which is "close enough" to cause a false positive match.

      Think Reza Aslani vs. Rezah Aslani. If latter is on no-fly list for whatever reason, it is possible that the former name has been added to a no-fly list as an alternative spelling due to lack of a true standard to transliterate arabic. Probably not such an issue for celebrities, but for regular people can be a huge issue.

      This is compounded by people who spell even their own names in various ways on different documents due to the same lack of a standard way to convert written arabic, or by officials who do the same.

    7. Re:false premise by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Note that the UK bans people from entry for no other reason than that they voice unpopular political views, so the UK government is hardly in a position to criticize other nations over arbitrary exclusions.

      Wasn't there a story a few years ago about the home office denying someone entry after they had arrived at Heathrow, simply because he was visiting London and had no concrete plans of what he was going to do?

      The list of people barred from entry to the UK reads pretty bizarre, too:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Martha Stewart? Busta Rhymes? Michael Savage?

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    8. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.

      Poor conclusion. That's like saying black people haven't been discriminated against in US since large numbers of black people were not lynched, falsely convicted, etc.

    9. Re:false premise by rhazz · · Score: 1

      It makes it harder to play the race card.

    10. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foreigners have no right to enter the US. Just as Americans have no right to enter any other country. Even the countries that we have visa-free arrangements with can arbitrarily exclude people. Even if you have a visa, you can be turned away from the border. It can't be any other way.

    11. Re:false premise by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Martha Stewart is a convicted criminal (spent jail time on an insider trading rap) which means she's automatically banned from entry to a variety of countries including Britain. Given the non-violent nature of her crime and the likely nature of any visit to the UK, she probably would qualify for an exception if she lobbied hard enough.

      The others I'm not familiar with the circumstances, but is Michael Savage the shock-jock? British Home Secretaries do have a habit of banning controversial figures.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God, yes, Oh my God

    13. Re:false premise by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Sure they will, and so will we, when the time is right. They aren't going to hand you a little note at boarding saying 'hey one of your kids has terrorist connections, just FYI."

    14. Re:false premise by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Martha Stewart is a convicted criminal (spent jail time on an insider trading rap) which means she's automatically banned from entry to a variety of countries including Britain.

      It wasn't even insider trading, it was lying to shareholders about being investigated for insider trading. She was never tried for insider trading. The conspiracy theory is the investigation was bungled from the start, and they wanted to get her on SOMETHING.

      Savage is a right-wing shlock jock ala Rush Limbaugh. AFAIK he has never been convicted of anything, nor told anyone to do anything illegal.

      My favorites on the list are Robert Mugabe (OK I could maybe see that) AND his main political dissident (What?). Don't want to seem biased, I guess?

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    15. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martha Stewart is a convicted felon; of course other countries have the right to deny entry to a convicted felon.

    16. Re:false premise by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Why don't you read the entire quote and actually understand it?

      Senior politicians have been drawn into the case, warning that a growing number of British Muslims are being barred from the US without being told the reason for their exclusion.

      So, first, the "growing number of Muslims" isn't a fact, it's a belief of senior politicians.

      Second, to the degree that it's true, what's unexpected about it? Since the US faces Islamic terrorism and such terrorist networks are mostly composed of Muslims, you would expect a "growing number of British Muslims" to be barred from entry into the US. That's not because they are Muslim, it's because they are linked to terrorist organizations.

    17. Re:false premise by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      There is nothing "obviously" false about this. Racism doesn't have to be applied 100% for it to be a very real force in American culture

      Your reasoning is apparently that if something bad happens to a Muslim or African American, without any other evidence, it must be due to racism. Your reasoning is faulty both when it comes to Muslims and when it comes to African Americans.

      There is no reason to believe that racism caused this family's denial of entrance, just like there is no reason to believe that racism causes most of the negative outcomes or statistical differences between African American and white populations in the US (clearly there is some racism in the US, but no more than in other countries).

    18. Re:false premise by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      That family hasn't been "banned", they have been "denied entry". Most of them might well be able to visit individually, for example.

    19. Re:false premise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.

      A large number of Blacks didn't get killed by cops today. That's not proof the justice system is colorblind.

    20. Re:false premise by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1
      Interestingly enough a short investigation reveals information which suggests the reasons:
      • the family consists of two brothers traveling with 9 children ages 8-19 (not a reason in and of itself, but significant when combined with the rest)
      • the brothers were previously detained in Tel Aviv and ejected from Israel (again not a reason which stands on its own, but continue)

      • emails were sent from computers owned by one or both of the brothers sympathizing with Al Qaeda (this starts to be a reason, but only starts)
      • Facebook posts outlining radicalization and Jihadist opinions
      • the brothers are neighbors to Anjem Choudary, a prominent UK proponent of Jihad

      Those things in and of themselves, as outlined, might be insufficient to allow them entry, but they are suggestive of there being a lot more to this story than the article reports.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    21. Re:false premise by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Your reasoning is apparently that if something bad happens to a Muslim or African American, without any other evidence, it must be due to racism

      That is a classic straw man argument, and no. I'm afraid your attempt to claim that no racism exists because there exist people who are not harassed is similarly poor logic. An illegal or mistaken racist policy can be broadly applied without all people experiencing it directly, and bad things can happen for reasons other than the racism.

      Even a casual review, however, shows many well-done tests and scholarly studies demonstrating the racism and religious profiling by TSA personnel, their refusal to state reasons for denying entry to the USA, and their general incompetence in actually detecting dangerous people.

    22. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because some muslims are allowed to travel to the US doesn't mean that there is no discrimination. Even if there's a slightly higher probability of being denied a visa or entry for muslims that anyone else is a clear indication of discrimination. (however one family isn't statistically significant).

    23. Re:false premise by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      That is a classic straw man argument, and no.

      No, it's not a "straw man argument"; it's not an "argument at all". It's a restatement of your reasoning.

      I'm afraid your attempt to claim that no racism exists because there exist people who are not harassed is similarly poor logic.

      Nowhere did I say that "no racism exists". In fact, I said explicitly: "clearly there is some racism in the US").

      Even a casual review, however, shows many well-done tests and scholarly studies demonstrating the racism and religious profiling by TSA personnel

      There are studies that show that Muslims are treated differently. Treating people differently because of their race or religion is not "racism" if the race or religion is actually relevant to what you are looking for.

    24. Re:false premise by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      A large number of Blacks didn't get killed by cops today. That's not proof the justice system is colorblind.

      The rate at which cops kill blacks is commensurate with the rate at which blacks commit violent felonies relative to the population at large. (If anything, if you look at the number, cops have a slight racial bias against shooting blacks.)

    25. Re:false premise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So the number of unarmed killings not related to a felony is deserved because "those people" commit crimes?

      We aren't talking about killings during felony arrests. That is biased towards killing whites, as Blacks are less likely to fight back. We are talking about unarmed Black people who have done nothing other than contempt of cop or "resisting arrest" when they weren't being arrested.

    26. Re:false premise by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      So the number of unarmed killings not related to a felony is deserved because "those people" commit crimes?

      Why don't you go through the database and actually pick out the kinds of cases you mean?

      http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

      Now, I'm sure there are a few cases where cops maliciously killed people, maybe even out of racist motivations. But keep in mind that the US has about a million police officers, so a couple of dozen homicides a year by police officers would simply match the murder rate in the general population.

      We are talking about unarmed Black people who have done nothing other than contempt of cop or "resisting arrest" when they weren't being arrested.

      When a cop stops you, you need to comply or you risk getting shot; whether you're armed or unarmed, black or white, guilty or innocent is, and has always been, irrelevant. Furthermore, the rate at which innocent, unarmed people get stopped by race should match the proportions of criminal suspects, not the proportions of the population; that's because cops tend to stop people who resemble criminal suspects. I have no idea whether people "deserve" this, but it's the way it works.

      Would I like to change the system? Of course. For many reasons, I'd like to replace public police protected by public sector unions with private security forces, with full legal liability and financial accountability.

    27. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rate at which cops kill blacks is commensurate with the rate at which blacks commit violent felonies relative to the population at large.

      Racist handwaving.

      When a cop stops you, you need to comply or you risk getting shot; whether you're armed or unarmed, black or white, guilty or innocent is, and has always been, irrelevant.

      Fascist sheep. You're also ignoring all the people straight up murdered by cops who were minding their own business, like Tamir Rice.

  22. Disney by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > They were flying to Los Angeles on a trip to visit Disneyworld.

    Disneyworld is in Florida. Disneyland is in Los Angeles.

    They were right to be suspicious. Disneyworld is much better. Disneyland is tiny and dusty and cramped in comparison.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know much about the difference.

      I can only assume that Disneyland is displayed in four shades of green, and Disneyworld has the Star Road.

    2. Re:Disney by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Having grown up in Orange County CA, Disneyland is in Anaheim which is not in Los Angeles. Try getting from LAX to Anaheim sometime during rush hour and you'll understand.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  23. Time for Moderate Muslims to Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If non-extremist Muslims are tired of their religion being turned into something evil and not very peaceful, then it is time for these moderates to take up arms and fight and stand up for their peaceful religion and beliefs and take out the extremists. Until that happens our policies will affect the entire religion. Feel sorry for the family, but their lack of standing up for what they think is a peaceful religion has caused their anguish. What these people have to understand is that their faith is being used against to cause further and deeper damage to their way of life.

    1. Re:Time for Moderate Muslims to Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If non-extremist Muslims are tired of their religion being turned into something evil and not very peaceful,

      it's always been that way dipshit.

  24. Disneyland in Paris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would they have saved a lot of money by travelling to Disneyland in France? There is a reason why Disney has other worldwide locations. Seems like there is something else going on, other than being a Muslim family of 11.

    1. Re:Disneyland in Paris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also wanted to visit some cousins in south California. But yeah, this is ./, where everybody feels inclined to comment without reading TFA.

  25. I see their problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They wanted to do something suspicious like go to an entertainment establishment.

    What they should have said was they were going to buy weapons/guns, because heaven forbid a no-fly list be used to deny someone their ability to purchase weapons.

  26. Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't care about muslim psy-ops fairy tales. But a few days ago the korean teenage girl pop band "Oh My Girl" was detained for 12 hours and then sent home from LAX, because US border control searched their luggage and decided they must be underage sex workers, based on the wardrobe they brought for a photo-op and a concert.

    The incident was pretty big news in Asia, BBC News covered the story twice and even the infamously anti-korean japanese otaku sided with band members. (Who doesn't like kawaii kittens?) US diplomacy salvaged the incident by stating the girls were turned back for not having an appropriate type of employment-allowed visa, even though South Korea is on the visa lift list.

    For details and photos, see:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35071156/k-pop-group-oh-my-girl-detained-at-la-airport-on-suspicion-of-being-sex-workers
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35101815/k-pop-group-oh-my-girl-had-wrong-visa-says-us-customs-and-border-protection

    Of course, the story was submitted to Slashdot but didn't make it for lack of M-word in the title...

    1. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      So what visa do under age sex workers need?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case DHS did the right thing to protect America. There are enough pop bands in the US already. Young Asian women are notoriously trafficked into the US to work in the "sex trade." Asian gangs and African-American gangstas import these women on false pretences in a regular basis. "Sure honey you will be singing in a club,"as their overseas "agent" chuckles to himself. The exact same ruse is used to lure young attractive American women to parts of Asia including Japan.

    3. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >attractive American women

      Nice oxymoron.

    4. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shipping manifest on a cargo container vessel usually works fine.

    5. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The visa lift list is for tourism, not work or business.

    6. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they really are under age sex workers they don't need a visa.

    7. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. They came with the wrong visas. They came on a tourist visa to shoot a music video and as such need to come on a work visa

    8. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 1

      <quote><p>The visa lift list is for tourism, not work or business.</p></quote>

      This.
      When I was traveling all over for work, I had issues with EU countries, Canada, Mexico, and China.
      Canada was the worst.  I ended up getting sent back to Buffalo, (then rented a car and drove across the border to Toronto, but still)
      Going to Scotland I ended up stuck at Heathrow for 24 hours.  All of it was paperwork non sense.
      The kpop group sounds like they tried pulling the tourist excuse, and then answered wrong when they said they were working.  Or like going to Canada for "just meetings" means you don't need a work visa.
      And if you try and get a work visa, it better be to train canadians to do the work, and not actually doing work that a Canadian could do...
      The British Muslim's, sounds like it's a case of one family member may have something questionable, so they hosed all 11 of them, including the children, which is ridiculous.  The Airline/list should have at worst detained the 1, and then investigated more thoroughly to see if it was a valid reason to prevent him/her from coming over.  Not kept  the kids and rest of the family out.
      The entire security theater mixed with customs/immigrations for all countries is ridiculous.

      --
      I am 31337 or something.
    9. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Replying to cancel accidental down-mod. Intended to give +1 funny but slipped.

    10. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a good example."Oh My Girl" was booked to play a private gig in LA, but they tried to come in using tourist (non-work) visas. They got caught when customs found all their costumes and performing gear.

    11. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the story was submitted to Slashdot but didn't make it for lack of M-word in the title...

      Of course, it was totally due to that. Couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the fact that K-pop band gossip isn't "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

    12. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Matheus · · Score: 2

      So... since you included links to both articles I presume you give at least as much credence to the second article as you do the first. Sorry if that's an incorrect assumption. That being said:

      If the details claimed by the DHS in the second article are true then that was not news and matter-o-fact happens all the time. Being someone who travels internationally all the time for work the US is not alone in that distinction either. A band I work for had a tour put together in Japan. The tour organizer did not get them the appropriate *work Visas and so they faced serious repercussions.

      There was an article on /. not that long ago (well a few years now probably) 'bout some dude who came here planning on traveling around doing a bunch of pick-up gigs and was aghast that DHS wouldn't let him in on his tourist Visa. He got the proper ridicule for not understanding how Visas work and it sounds like Oh My Girl should have received the same (or at least their management). This is not the US at all.. honestly there are other countries who are WAY more strict when it comes to getting work visas. If you're here to work then you need a work visa. Period. If you can't be bothered to get one (or they deny you) then you are not allowed to come in and work.

    13. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the story was submitted to Slashdot but didn't make it for lack of M-word in the title...

      Microsoft?
      Masochism?
      MIttens?
      Madagascar?

    14. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "muslim psy-ops fairy tales"?

      I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight

    15. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding your last sentence, the political correctness "fad" that's going on at the moment is reaching critical point.
      (NOTE: This does not mean being racist / sexist is good)

      Anyone who doesn't tie the PC line is ostracized, doxxed, abused and basically all the shit they claim happens to X Y or Z people, is done to the naysayer.

      At this point it's virtually impossible for any Muslim to do anything wrong at ALL. Lest anyone point it out, they're CLEARLY A RACIST. The lack of common sense and amount of strawman bullshit going on, online with this in the past 24 months is insane.
      (NOTE: again, this applies to all genders, sexual persuasions, religions, races, if you're not '100% with us, no matter what!!!' you're against us)

    16. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      I watched a Border Patrol episode from Australia, where an American had his visa denied because he was "working" by performing in a professional wrestling match, where that match was an exhibition he wasn't getting paid for. He ended up being held long enough to rush through an entertainment visa (the same kind actors have to get to shoot a movie, or the band shooting a video may need). Though, the US is one of the least flexible countries when it comes to issuing the correct visa at the point of entry, and denial is much more likely.

      There was an article on /. not that long ago (well a few years now probably) 'bout some dude who came here planning on traveling around doing a bunch of pick-up gigs and was aghast that DHS wouldn't let him in on his tourist Visa.

      Most countries would have converted him to a working holiday visa, if he were eligible, and allowed him in. The US is one of the least flexible for such modifications at the border. The US presumes you have $1,000,000 to spend on lawyers for each point of law, and if you don't, you are too lazy or too poor to bother entering in discussions with.

    17. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the story was submitted to Slashdot but didn't make it for lack of M-word in the title...

      More likely they didn't want to kill off half the slashdot readership through combustion due to excessive masturbation.

    18. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the neat intersection between consumption of sex slavery and power means it is never in the hands of petty immigration bureaucrats for usto ever know.

    19. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by rch7 · · Score: 1

      "The record company also said there might have been an issue with the type of visa the band members presented" - and this is very typical with all such local wannabe pop "stars". They or their managers want to save money and hassle and they LIE and PRETEND to be tourists, while they know very well that they are going to work in the US and they need performer's visa. At some time they are caught for visa fraud and then cry rivers how unfairly they were treated.

    20. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Another reason to do so is to evade on US taxes on US income. At some time authorities notices they were written a check and didn't pay taxes, and entered on tourist visa. So next time they are turned away.

    21. Re:Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't followed this too closely (and I certainly do not know enough about each different visa to know if they are right or wrong), but according to one Finnish news source (hs.fi), they apparently weren't supposed to need work visas since their concert was going to be held in a private event.

  27. England isn't Europe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, this happened in England and England isn't part of the EU and therefore isn't subject to EU law. Witness all of the wrangling in court with Julian Assange over whether a European Arrest Warrant was valid in England (it was then, it isn't now.)

    1. Re:England isn't Europe. by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 2

      Nonsense.

      England is part of the UK, and the UK remains a member of the European Union.

      EU laws apply.

      As for Julian Assange, he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is Ecuadorian sovereign territory, so technically whilst he remains inside there he's not on UK (or EU) soil. As he's technically in Ecuador which doesn't have an extradition treaty, he's safe there.

  28. Rotten by AndyCanfield · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact is that the United States government shit on these people. Whether it was 'legal' or not is irrelevant.

    Warning: your government is afraid of you.

    1. Re:Rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The governing should have respect and fear of the governed. Any other way means they can run roughshod over said governed, presuming the governed have a method of exacting penance from the governing.

  29. Some hyperbole here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It transpires that one of the adults was arrested and convicted of crimes in Israel and neglected to disclose that.

    1. Re: Some hyperbole here by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Citation please. I've heard it mentioned that he was held in an Israeli airport, but not that he was convicted. Or is that all that is needed nowadays?

  30. Dear world by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as I hate to say it, I would say that the best response is to not come to the US for vacation. You can find the equivalent of pretty much anything you might want to see in another country without being treated like a felon from the most wanted list by the DHS and the TSA.

    And maybe... just maybe... if the US loses 200 billion dollars a year in tourism income, our politicians will pull their heads out of their asses and start making some sane national security policies (but I wouldn't hold my breath).

    1. Re:Dear world by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And maybe... just maybe... if the US loses 200 billion dollars a year in tourism income, our politicians will pull their heads out of their asses and start making some sane national security policies (but I wouldn't hold my breath).

      As an American, I call tell you that that is not very likely. Few Americans directly benefit from foreign tourism. Americans in general are somewhat xenophobic and its not unusual for them to think that everybody on earth except maybe people in Canada lives in absolute third world squalor in their pitiful, sad country. Americans don't really care at all - not at all - if foreigners face severe restrictions on coming here. And doing "tit for tat" isn't going to change things because the majority of Americans have never been outside of North America. If you just look at the group of Americans who've been outside of North America and remove the ones who've only been to the UK or France and never anywhere else, then you're looking at a pretty small subset of people. Most Americans could not possibly care at all if they aren't allowed to visit foreign countries or if it becomes more difficult to do so because they weren't going to do that anyway.

      There may or may not be a good reason why this family ran into problems, but we're unlikely to ever know what the real reason was. My guess is the UK family is Pakistani, which going forward is going to become more and more of a red flag to American DHS people, and they may be connected to a mosque that is under US scrutiny. Or it may just be a complete bunch of crap but either way we'll never know. Some of this may also be a complete overreaction to the recent San Bernardino shootings where the wife was Pakistani and DHS completely fell down on the job by failing to look into the fact that her husband had never actually met her in person before their marriage when he filed for the fiancee visa to bring her over here. All I can say is that over a decade ago I filed for a fiancee visa (we never got married as we broke up before the very final steps of the process, but I digress) as did a friend of mine. We both had girlfriends in Eastern Europe. It was really easy to prove my girlfriend and I had met as I had photos of us together and phone records and email that I submitted with the application to prove we had met in person. My application got preliminary approval and basically all we had to do was go through the final steps, including her personal interview, and she was going to get the visa. Proving that she and I met was incredibly easy since we actually had done so. In fact, at that time there was some government website you could go to where you could look up fiancee visa applications that were denied and the most common reason for denial was lack of proof of a personal meeting. Meeting in person before you apply for a fiancee visa is an absolute legal requirement. So it may suck, but I suspect even if there is no terrorism link that the family is Pakistani and they're suffering for the sins of others from Pakistan.

    2. Re:Dear world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, why not just go to Euro Disney or whatever it's called now? It's all the same garbage.

    3. Re:Dear world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Few Americans directly benefit from foreign tourism"

      You are very much mistaken. Florida alone received over 11 million international tourists this year. There are literally 10s of thousands of people who are directly employed because of foreign tourism here in Florida. Even though I don't work in the tourist business, I pay no income tax because hotel room taxes contribute so much to our budget, so I am also directly affected by foreign tourists.

      So let them come, even if they are Pakistani or whatever nationality DHS wants to shit on today. I am 1000x more likely to be killed by a dumbass American with a gun or a dumbass American driver who is speeding or running a red light than I am to be killed by a terrorist.

      I AM NOT AFRAID.

    4. Re:Dear world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe... just maybe... if the US loses 200 billion dollars a year in tourism income, our politicians will pull their heads out of their asses and start making some sane national security policies (but I wouldn't hold my breath).

      As an American, I call tell you that that is not very likely. Few Americans directly benefit from foreign tourism.

      How exactly are you planning to get rid of your multi-trillion deficit if you don't give foreigners an incentive to buy dollars for any purpose?

  31. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep dating crack-whores and as a result my shit keeps getting stolen and I keep getting STDs.

    Well, surely it isn't the crack-whores! Keep dating them!

  32. Mouse Geography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because Disney World is in Florida not CA. They knew they must be up to something.

  33. So...let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump says: "I, Donald J. Trump, am calling for a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on," and the whole "mainstream" political world including team Obama goes insane - flinging terms like "insane", "racist", "fascist", "NAZI", etc.

    Meanwhile, the Obama administration stops a Muslim family from coming to America to visit a Disney themepark and, well, [crickets] from the "mainstream" media. Is the Obama admin crazy, insane, fascist, nazi, etc????

    Partisan hyper-sensitivity is just another dishonest political tactic the media and the permanent political class use to prevent change by making ousiders into the politically unacceptable "other". The humorous aspect of the Trump quote is that all the people screaming about it are desperate to have nobody notice that the ban's duration is directly, clearly and explicitly tied to the competence or incompetence of the government..... the only way it could be construed to be a long or permanent ban is if one assumes the government intends to remain incompetent at screening visitors/immigrants. Of course, the establishment political hacks of BOTH political parties are fully intending to remain incompetent and therefore assume the ban would be unending...

  34. Why is this on slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the love of god I come here for tech news. This isn't fucking CNN.

    1. Re:Why is this on slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is on slashdot because even you clicked on it.

  35. suspicious by Rich_Lather · · Score: 2, Funny

    "They were flying to Los Angeles on a trip to visit Disneyworld." That sounds suspicious right there. Disney World is in Orlando.

  36. Re:#standwithtrump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congrats! I see that they've finally set up Internet in your trailer park.

    We don't need them, they don't need us

    I'd imagine that they'd like our government out of their countries.

  37. Re: Non-muslim kpop girl band turned back from LAX by vpness · · Score: 1

    Glad this was modded up. Slash-bias clearly leaking through. Just as msft==bad, Linux == good. Not slightly a defender of DHS.

  38. Presindetial ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didnt the American president just ban all Muslims, including citizens from (re)entering the country?

    1. Re:Presindetial ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't. In fact, Obama is trying his damndest to relax immigration requirements for Muslims.

    2. Re:Presindetial ban by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 0

      Ummmm....no. One of our crackpot right wingnut presidential candidates (Donald Trump) is suggesting that be implemented if he gets elected president. The way he is carrying on, the Republitards will go down in flames in the next election. Maybe. Hopefully. But there is also a lot of inbred, brain-dead rednecks in this country that love him as well and might be able to get him elected..

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  39. Re:#standwithtrump by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 0, Troll

    have you seen american women? it's how einstein was first able to observe gravitational lensing and complete his works on general relativity.

  40. Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I kinda sorta get that the US revoked their travel because somewhere in some there might actually be a semi legitimate reason for that or hell at least some semi reasonable clerical error involve. Tho I will say that the whole radio silence thing as to exactly why doesn't exactly score high marks with me.

    But what the ever loving hell was up with them forcing them to return everything they bought at the duty free shops? Up until that point they had every reason to be in the airport and as such to buy whatever the hell they wanted. I'm sorry it is bad enough that people are being barred from a flight for some as yet (if ever) to be determined reason but forcing them to return what they bough on top of that was just seriously petty.

    Other people have stated that the rules in the EU are as such that they are entitles to a refund on their plane tickets, hopefully they are correct and hopefully they get that money back.

  41. Don't give money to terrorist groups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should have purchased "I might be on the no fly list because I know some almost-radical people, but they're really nice and wouldn't hurt anyone" trip insurance.

  42. Visa required for Visa Waiver by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    They had applied for "authorization" in advance, which isn't the same as a visa.

    Only in the semantics since a visa really is just authorization to travel to a country. I often wonder if anyone in the US government appreciates the irony of still referring to it as the "visa waiver program" since effectively you are applying for a visa (even if they refuse to call it that) to be part of the visa waiver program.

    1. Re:Visa required for Visa Waiver by rch7 · · Score: 1

      It is difference in practice too. Paper visa applicants are more thoroughly checked and have less chance to be rejected at border.

  43. Applies to Airlines not Governments by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1
    This only applies to airlines and the airline did not deny the family boarding, the US government did. This is clearly stated in the second sentence of the page you linked:

    This concerns delays, cancellations and overbooking that prevent you from boarding

    None of these apply in this case.

    1. Re:Applies to Airlines not Governments by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. There were no US government officials on the ground in the UK that were blocking their boarding. They computer system put a red asterisk next to their names in the system, put there by the US government. The airlines decided that it was in their best interests to deny boarding. The airline was the sole actor in blocking boarding. The asterisk indicates a risk of refusal of entry, and in that case, the airline is often required to send them home at their own expense, so to prevent all those problems, the standard practice is to deny boarding and refer the travelers to the US Embassy.

      By refusing boarding, the airline cancelled their tickets. Though the context of that rule may mean cancellation of flights, but it was the airline's choice to deny boarding, and the airline could have boarded them without a US official causing a problem. That the airline is complicit in a government policy doesn't absolve them of their ultimate responsibility for not honoring the ticket, which should then be refunded.

  44. Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stop flying to the US for any reason and see how quickly they reopen the borders with red carpets to welcome you back. There are plenty of other places to visit in the world.

    1. Re:Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been all over the country. It is rare for me to encounter foreign tourists. Not enough of you guys show up to make a difference.

  45. At least they should get their tickets refunded... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

    When something like this happens, the airline should be compelled to refund their money. These folks did their paperwork properly and shouldn't be penalized by the airlines for something beyond their control. Ehhhhh.......they didn't miss much not getting to go to Disneyland. Disneyworld is better anyway (but not much)....IMO....

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  46. Embarrassment that this is done in my name by DutchUncle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was in Britain last summer (Scotland, specifically) for the Fringe. No visa on our US passports, no problems at arrival airport, immigration security people firm (as is their job) but polite. It *can* be done nicely. Reading British coverage of this, I am embarrassed that, as an American, my personal reputation (and future welcome back) is sullied by poor handling of this situation. This should be the same as a police stop: There has to be a reason, and the person should be TOLD the reason, and it better be a good enough reason to justify screwing up someone's day, not to mention potentially losing out on the expense of the tickets. Considering most of these cases are going to be false positives, the impression it gives of the US as a randomly secret-police state is a stain on all of us.

  47. Blame radical Islam? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    They want the west terrorized. They got their wish, we are terrified of radical Islam, and with good reason.

    1. Re:Blame radical Islam? by donkwich · · Score: 1

      "It's your fault we're so irrationally scared of something that has an infinitesimal chance of killing 0.0001% of the population that we'll generate more ammo for radicalization."

  48. Hilarious by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, the US lives on tourist dollars, we hardly have any other industry.

    1. Re: Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    2. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's because you sent most of it to China, Mexico & Canada

    3. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is you have a big ugly trade deficit. If all those dollars the foreigners have are not even good for a vacation, at some point they'll figure out that the dollars are worthless and they do no longer want to get them in exchange for their wares.

      And then the U.S. industry will be left competing at the bottom of the barrel of work conditions.

    4. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your trade deficit tends to agree. And in spite of taking more than you give back, your political system does such a lousy job at sensible distribution that education and health are much stronger linked to your parents' income than in civilized countries. Your rich fuck your poor.

      At some point of time, people are going to say "keep your dollars, we already have enough of them without being able to get useful value for them from you". They'll figure out that it makes no sense to pay for the services of the the U.S. note printing press.

  49. www.prophetofdoom.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of you idiots don't even know the first thing about Islam.

    Do you have nothing against Islam?
    Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...

    Islam... in layman's terms

    Here's how it works:

    As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

    United States -- 0.6% Muslim
    Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
    Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
    China -- 1.8% Muslim
    Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
    Norway -- 1.8% Muslim

    At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:

    Denmark -- 2% Muslim
    Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
    United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
    Spain -- 4% Muslim
    Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim

    From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

    France -- 8% Muslim
    Philippines -- 5% Muslim
    Sweden -- 5% Muslim
    Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
    The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
    Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim

    At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.

    When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

    Guyana -- 10% Muslim
    India -- 13.4% Muslim
    Israel -- 16% Muslim
    Kenya -- 10% Muslim
    Russia -- 15% Muslim

    After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:

    Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim

    At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:

    Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
    Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
    Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim

    From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:

    Albania -- 70% Muslim
    Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
    Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
    Sudan -- 70% Muslim

    After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

    Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
    Egypt -- 90% Musl

    1. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      Quite a bit of hate propaganda there...

      I have known many muslim people and they have all been very nice, decent people.

      Please don't blame the entire religion for the actions of a few misguided idiots.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Do you have nothing against Christianity?

      In that case you must have nothing against genocide, slavery, polygamy, buying girls for sex, and a long list of other stuff I can find in the Bible. Exact same reasoning.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. This garbage is so easy to refute it's not even worth the effort. Fuck off.

    4. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point me to any contemporary examples of institutional "genocide, slavery, polygamy, buying girls for sex, and a long list of other stuff" done in the name of Christ.

    5. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A link to a website that has refuted this would be a good start.

    6. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the most flamingly hate inducing thing I've seen on /. so far. Good job.

    7. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves

      Oh please, supermarkets will feature anything that makes them money. Simple economics will determine that if you have a reasonable number of potential Muslim customers you will stock halal products, just like supermarkets in areas with significant numbers of potential Jewish customers will stock kosher products, and supermarkets in areas with significant numbers of potential FSM customers will stock an extended range of pasta-related products..

    8. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      Propaganda and patsies....

      At least 7 of the 19 so-called 9/11 suicide pilots have been confirmed to be alive and well. They had their passports stolen. There has been zero evidence that Muslims carried out 9/11. That was a lie that was propagated by war criminal and terrorist supporter George "Dubya" Bush (and company).

      Falsely accused hijacker Abdul Rahman Said al-Omari was even given a formal apology:

      RIYADH, Sept 17 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - U.S. officials in Riyadh offered Abdul Rahman Said al-Omari an official apology in the presence of Saudi interior ministry officials for including his name among the list of suspects in the U.S. terrorist attacks, news agencies reported Monday. Original story here (Arabic)

      In fact, Osama Bin Laden was never listed on the FBI's most wanted list for 9/11 because the FBI had no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

      It is because of 9/11 that this whole bogus "war on (of?) terrorism" and Muslim hatred began. Who benefits from it? USA and Israel. Partners in crime.

      Most of these other terrorist attacks are also false flag operations perpetrated by the same people and blamed on Muslims.

      The 7/7 bombings in London, incredibly, were planned as crisis management exercises the night before they occured. They just happened to pick the same subway stations and the same times as the terrorists! What a freakin' coincidence! Simply, WOW!

      The war on terror is a global sham designed to shift the blame from the real terrorists to the Muslim people and usher in a fascist New World Order, as announced by "Poppy" Bush on 9/11, 1990.

      Please turn off FOX news and take your xenophobic, racist b.s. and stick it where the sun don't shine.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    9. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      The Christian crusades and the ongoing epidemic of hetero/homosexual pedophilia among the priesthood is a very good place to start.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    10. Re:www.prophetofdoom.net by NewYork · · Score: 1

      The Arabic countries led by the Muslims were the most advanced scientists/engineers in the world, until they let the religious CRAZIES take over.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  50. Disneyworld in L.A.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disneyworld in L.A.? Or, maybe, there is a city called L.A. in Florida next to Orlando? What is the editor smoking?

  51. Maybe one of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    the kids was bringing a clock?

  52. people never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they even bother?
    Don't travel to the US. Don't buy their stuff. Sell yours to them at double what you'd get anywhere else and let them feel proud and smart, while they keep shooting themselves in shopping malls and schools, still thinking they are superior to everyone, because they can go to wallmart in their underwear, carrying guns.
    There's plenty to see and buy and have fun with, all around the globe.
    As long as the US treats everyone as braindamaged idiots and people still want to go there, the US government might be right in assuming everyone is as dumb as they want them to be.

  53. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Let's face it. The United States is a Mickey Mouse outfit...

  54. turnabout by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    If a couple countries retaliated (retail-ieated?) by banning all Disney products from entering their land, this sort of shit would stop immediately.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  55. Come to Canada by phorm · · Score: 2

    Come to Canada instead. We like tourists, and the current state of the Canadian dollar means that you'll be getting more for your money.
    There's no Disneyland, but you could hit Toronto and go to Wonderland, Casa Loma, Niagara Falls, etc.

    Or hit the west coast and visit the Vancouver night market, PNE, Bouchard Gardens, and maybe take a whale-watching tour, etc. Finish up with a trip on the Rocky Mountaineer and tour the province.

  56. We don't trust our processes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's face it, we don't trust Muslim's. Its not politically correct, its not the correct way to protect ourselves. But in the end paranoia is going to win.
    What really happened is that we can't trust any Muslim anymore not to be a terrorists. When you have a mother of a young baby killing people in San Bernardino CA you have a problem defining who could be radicalized and who is safe. But then you have stories like this who side on these people being innocent victims but do we really know all of the story? Maybe one of these family members had been found to have ties or contacted a ISIS like group.
    Maybe they claimed their Islamic radicalization to the cause. We just do not know, but the story mistakenly takes a side without all the facts. Maybe its just a case of siding on a paranoia of being overly cautious probably because our previous abilities to stop these people have been shown to be flawed in discovering who is the bad ones. So now for a lot of people, every Muslim is bad. This is what happens when you don't do the proper tasks at protecting your citizens.

  57. National security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Use your brains people. If they were refused to fly and the government did not disclose a reason then most likely there was a reason. The government is in damage control mode with panic and they are simply keeping a low profile on another incident. This is a national security issue and they dealt with it. People are on a need to know basis YOU don't need to know so please keep your all knowing narcissistic comments out of this.

  58. China by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

    Much cheaper if they go to China, so long as they're not choosy about the sign at the gate.

  59. 9 kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it possibly be that they were denied based on the fact that two adults were escorting 9 kids? I didn't check the ages, but I believe there is a limit to the number of kids that can be accompanied by an adult on a flight.

    From an imigration perspective the risk of having 11 people overstaying their visa may also have been deemed possible/likely.

  60. just my 2 cents by blocsync · · Score: 1

    I find it ridiculous to see articles like this. Referencing Los Angeles, Disney Land, and Disney World..... For those that are unaware (and authors of such articles should at least make the effort to find out what they're really writing about), Disney World is in Florida and Disney Land is in California. So beyond my frustration with the confusion of that is the lack of actual information. Ok, a family was barred from traveling. Until we know why, their race, religion, sexual orientation, even the spot they're planning to travel to is irrelevant. I don't care if it was Muslims, Christians, or any of 1000 other religions that they follow. Unless there was credible reason to believe they posed a threat they should have been allowed to travel. If there was credible reason to believe they posed a threat they should have been barred like they were. The problem here is we know they were barred and nothing else. So what's the point of the article? To stir up controversy? Get us some facts to consider before posting this kind of rubbish.
    Also, not sure why the UK Government would care why the US is restricting travel to the US. I think every countries government has the right to decide what it considers a threat and deny entry. I'm not saying that I agree that this was a threat, but if there is good reason then they shouldn't care. I also wouldn't think it a big deal for the US government if the UK barred me from traveling there (although I'd love to visit one day, so I hope they don't).

  61. so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be able to board a plane is not an universal human right. Therefore, no need of all the fuss.

  62. they will get a ticket refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're unable to travel for some reason not of your making (e.g. you show up on the no-fly list), the airline will refund your ticket price. A hideous inconvenience, and doesn't help much if you rebook (after fixing the problem) at a much higher price, not to mention all the other incidental costs (schlepping 13 family members to the airport is a significant logistical challenge)

  63. they were was "working" on a tourist visa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it was not underage prostitution..

    They were going to do a *performance* (pretty clearly employment and work) and had *tourist* visas (no work allowed).

    This is true most places in the world. Back in the 80s, I had friends who were in the fashion industry, and worked illegally (models, photographers, etc.) all the time. The key thing when working (illegally) on a tourist visa is to make sure that nothing "work related" is in your luggage or carryons. Models, ship your portfolio ahead of time. Photographers, ship your gear separately.

    These K-pop folks had all their costumes and gear with them.

    they tried to claim that it was just a photo shoot, not a real performance, and hence not work, but I suspect that was trying to lawyer their way in.

  64. Re:Get the f*** out by Coren22 · · Score: 0

    If you don't want the US assisting in the defence of your country, talk to your political leaders. We are more than willing to let you fend for yourselves.

    You should notice however that shortly after leaving the Philippines, they are being pushed around by China, and shortly after leaving Iraq, Deash nearly overran their government. Both of these pullouts were requested by the local governments, and both have gone badly for them, where they turn around and beg us to return.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  65. Quite expensive plane tickets by raynet · · Score: 1

    I wonder how big that family was as they had to pay over 13000USD for their tickets. I can get from Europe to USA and back for around 500USD without any discounts.

    --
    - Raynet --> .
    1. Re:Quite expensive plane tickets by rch7 · · Score: 1

      You can find tickets for $500 but in general not to the West Coast and not in summer.

  66. Impossible to comment without knowledge by iamacat · · Score: 1

    US is not stopping all/most Muslims from flying or visiting Disneyland, so there must have been something alarming about this particular family. Without knowing what is was, we can't say if the authorities made the right call. The only thing for sure is that airlines/hotels/amusement parks should be required to issue refund in such circumstances. And passengers involved should be given a chance to clear their name with an interview.

  67. HUMMM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disneyworld is in Kalifornia? Can I get the address?

  68. Name on a secret watch list? by jo.smith.beckett · · Score: 1

    If the name of one of the 11 family happened to be an alias on one of the secret watch lists, wouldn't this be the result? They can't tell you about the list, because then it wouldn't be secret, so they just have to reject you.

  69. Re:Get the f*** out by rochrist · · Score: 1

    Ah, slashdot. Never change.

  70. no such thing as "Disneyworld" in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only Disneyworld is in Florida...

    There is, however, a Disneyland in California...

  71. wow by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

    I am embarrassed for this country sometimes.

  72. Now if only... by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

    Now if only we could stop all the goddamned Christians coming in as well. And actually, anyone really wanting to go to Disneyland.

    --
    Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
  73. Re:Get the f*** out by orasio · · Score: 1

    You overran Iraqs government, and armed those guys. Just saying it isn't so won't change it.

  74. Simply pointing out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DisneyWorld is in Florida. This may have just been a typo in the article, but might be something DHS would flag as "unusual."

  75. If we lose 200 Billion in tourist income by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    It might be worth it if we get our national parks back.

  76. How dare you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note that the UK bans people from entry for no other reason than that they voice unpopular political views, so the UK government is hardly in a position to criticize other nations over arbitrary exclusions.

    How dare you, sir! How dare you impugn Her Majesties Empire in such an uncouth fashion? Good day to you, sir. Good day!

  77. pay up... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    If they first granted them acces but blocked it after the family bought the tickets, the family should be reimbursed for their expenses.. OR better have real public evidence that the family were terrorists (which I highly doubt)..

  78. Re: Get the f*** out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir, have been trolled.

  79. Re: Get the f*** out by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Nevermind causation vs correlation?? Sounds reasonable enough to me; I'm right with you. ;)

  80. Re:Get the f*** out by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Yes, and the new government that was elected by the people asked the US to leave, they were then overrun by Daesh.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  81. Hyperbole by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

    Let's look at the article as is rather than this exaggerated sky is falling hate speech the Muslim family is promoting:

    This was done at Gatwick, in London England. By London residents. Employed by London businesses and governments.

    So first and foremost, the US does not stop people from departing their countries. This is on them.

    Second, Visas are checked on arrival, regardless of the destination.

    IF they are ever checked on departure, it's only to cross reference the dates of stay. If the date is valid, they'd skate right through. doesn't matter where you're departing from. Even London, who's got a problem with their fear of terrorists beyond anything America has.

    I suspect someone's fibbing. Either the UK government, employees at Gatwick, or the Muslim family themselves.

    Common sense. I ain't buyin this load of crap.

    1. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the US does not stop people from departing their countries

      Yes, it does. For every plane departing for the USA, the detailed list of all pax must be sent to the DHS in advance. They either OK it verbosely or say N. N. and X.Y. must be removed before boarding owing to a number of various reasons.

      In case of non-compliance the plane won't be allowed into US airspace and has to go for Cuba, CAN or Mexico or will be escorted by fighter jets to a US military airfield and then sent back wholesale, without any pax allowed to go through US border control. Airlines are under duress to obey, due to fears of bankruptcy from non-disembarking round trips and long-term bans from US airspace.

    2. Re:Hyperbole by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you've been misinformed. Cite your US Government based sources (.gov) if you believe otherwise.

      Please don't reference third party articles from news sources - including the BBC or CNN - who increasingly do not seem to fact check or check credibility of their sources any longer.

      And what you're saying about airline duress with non compliance does not translate to law. My bet is the airline is sending this information to the destination and checking with the DHS before they even arrive and has nothing to do with DHS requirements.

      Enter subjective quantum bias which taints the results.

      Chances are, even after 'fact checking', passengers like this would arrive and be sent and clear through customs and the DHS no problem.

      This is a product of airline corporate paranoia shifting blame to the big bad government to mitigate the risk to their image.

      And has nothing to do with DHS rules.

  82. Facebook page claiming links Al-qaeda and Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears that there is a facebook page registered to the family's home address, claiming a work history of "supervisor at Taliban and Leader at Al-Qaeda" might possibly be related.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update...

    This is denied by the father, although suspiciously, the name "Hamza Hussain" in which the facebook page is registered, is the same as one of his son's.

  83. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they are British? I thought were over the britishphobia?

  84. If you are a foreigner going to the US....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....and you HAVE to, I fell sorry for you.
    If you are going for leisure/holidays, you are a certified fuckwit : the humiliation and the random trouble is not worth the hassle.

  85. Re:Get the f*** out by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about, Daesh works as designed. First, destabilize a region, oust everyone who represent a stabilizing factor, ensure that there is nobody powerful enough to fill that power vacuum other than some force you can easily vilify, then lean back and relax.

    The whole shit works like a dream. Everyone around is busy shitting his pants and pumping oil like crazy, dumping it on the market to, on one hand, keep Daesh from getting money and on the other hand to keep up with the arms race (of course you should be able to provide those arms), you create a huge wave of refugees that floods into Europe and put a heavy strain on their economic power, at the same time you can use the ongoing problem between Turkey and Russia to keep Russia from getting even remotely cozy with Europe (seriously, the only thing the US would have to fear if those two powers started to get friendly), and for all that you don't even have to lift a finger. That is self perpetuating. And as a bonus you have the boogeyman of Daesh as a comfortable and believable reason for whatever you want to do, domestic or abroad.

    What the hell is your problem with Daesh? That shit is a masterpiece of international diplomacy.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  86. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  87. It's not a right. by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    there's loads of precedent for denying some rights to foreigners.

    Do you believe that being permitted to board an aircraft you don't own is a constitutional right? In Sept. 2001, permitting the wrong people to board an aircraft led to far more death and destruction than any case of allowing the wrong person to bear arms ever has. (And as you of course know, the latter does happen to be an explicit constitutional right.)

    It is possible to construct criteria for getting onto the no-fly list that can be applied equally to all persons. Therefore, the existence of a no-fly list is not necessarily a violation of the "all men are created equal" principle in the Declaration.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  88. More reasons why it's bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can be found here: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

  89. 9 children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He was travelling with his brother and nine of their children." 9 children between the two of them. Wow! They have been very busy, haven't they.

  90. Re: Get the f*** out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is happening because the places without a long standing USA army base are getting bombed by war planes that take off from places with a long standing USA army base...

  91. Not cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very uncool USA... Fuck, they just going for a holiday...

  92. Re:Get the f*** out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and the new government that was elected by the people asked the US to leave, they were then overrun by Daesh.

    Daesh being led by senior military figures in the Iraq army that the US cleverly disbanded.

  93. Re:Get the f*** out by orasio · · Score: 1

    That's not how democracy works.
    You can't just take people that only lived under a dictatorship, send them to vote, and then say that they are responsible for the outcome.

    I live in a country with a long tradition of democracy (not in the seventies) and strong political parties. Of course I am responsible for the guys in office.

    In Irak, they are only partially resposible for whatever came out of the polls. More responsible are the guys who killed the dictator with the supposed intention to replace him with something better. That seldom works. What happened was exactly what was feared by those who opposed military action.

    I think this is the most probable outcome when you just destroy a government from the outside, democratic or otherwise. It has some characteristics in common to what happened in Central America when the US used to throw more of their their weight around. Chaos and mayhem. Extremists thrive in that environment, for fun or for profit.

  94. Re: Get the f*** out by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Gun-boy? WTF makes you think I am someone with lots of guns? I don't own a single gun, but I defend the rights of everyone in the US to own one. I defend the First amendment, and seem to understand the fourth better than many around here, does that make me Speech-Boy, or Religion-boy? It does seem to make people think I am in love with NSA, but that is mainly that I can read and understand the fourth amendment, whereas many here think that the fourth prevents even legal warranted searches.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  95. Re: Get the f*** out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuba is a first world utopia?

  96. Re: Get the f*** out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm offering a $1,000,000 reward to anyone who can find a comment on this article that actually relates to the article's content.

  97. Re: Get the f*** out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cubans have longer life expectancy than the US, though both are lower than most European countries

  98. Saving Them a Little Trouble by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    They were flying to Los Angeles on a trip to visit Disneyworld.

    Looks like they were just trying to save the family a little trouble since Disneyworld is located in Florida.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  99. The DHS no-fly list strikes again! by anti-disney · · Score: 1

    Nothing like planning on taking a trip by airplane and once you get to the airport being told you won't be flying. You ask why and the only thing they can tell you is you are on the no-fly list but cannot tell you why you are deemed a threat to national security and cannot be allowed to fly. It sounds like one of the family members happened to have a similar name to someone on the no-fly list and as a result of this stupid list, they cannot fly. You can challenge this but chances are you will be in an uphill battle since you have no idea why you are on this list in the first place and they cannot tell you because it's "classified". They are spared the disappointment of going to Disneyland but I'm sure that Disneyland wasn't the only thing planned for during their trip to the United States.

  100. Re:#standwithtrump by hucker75 · · Score: 1

    Good grief, someone sensible on Slashdot. It's quite odd since most of you are atheists, that you tolerate religious morons.

  101. Re:#standwithtrump by hucker75 · · Score: 1

    "I'd imagine that they'd like our government out of their countries." Which is no reason to let them into the US. The US is in their countries BECAUSE they keep invading. And I don't see Americans going over there and trying to change their laws.

  102. Three Stages of Islamic Jihad by David Wood on Yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to David Wood, there are three stages of Islamic Jihad (posted at YouTube as

    Title: "Three Stages of Jihad"
    Author: Acts17Apologetics
    Date: January 1, 2012
    Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw
    View count: 386,451

    )

    Stage 1: Stealth Jihad
    Stage 2: Defensive Jihad
    Stage 3: Offensive Jihad.

    1) Stealth Jihad.

    Wood (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=2m46s): When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can't possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are commanded to promote "peace" with non-Muslims and to preach a message of " tolerance". For instance, when Mohammed and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca, they criticized the beliefs of the polytheists, but they did so peacefully. The revelations Mohammed received during this time proclaimed a future judgement from believers; Allah will ONE Day punish those who reject Mohammed , but in the mean time, to each his own, "Live and let live; co-exist":

    ( https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=3m32s )
    Qu'ran Sura 109:
    You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion"

    Wood (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=3m44s) Muslims in the West point to passages like this as evidence that Islam is inherently peaceful. But we know from Muslim sources that while Mohammed was calling for religious tolerance in Mecca, he was already planning to conquer the world in the name of Allah. He even tried to lure Pagans to Islam by promising them victory over the non-Arabs.

    (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=4m8s )
    "The History of Al-Tabrari Volume 6: Muhammed at Mecca" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887067077?keywords=at-tabari&qid=1450977578&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1) , page 95

    Abu Talib sent for the Messenger of Allah, and when he came in he said "Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you, that you should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god."

    "Uncle", he said, " shall i not summon them to something which is better for them than their gods"?

    "What do you summon them to"? he asked

    He replied., "I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs."

    Abu Jalh said from among the gathering "What is it, by your father? We will give you it and ten like it".

    He answered, "That you should say, "There is no deity but Allah."

    Wood: (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=4m57s ) "Think about this for a moment. Mohammed is walking around Mecca calling for peace and tolerance. But behind closed doors, he tells the entourage, join me and we'll rule over the non-Arabs, Jews, Christians, Persians, etc. These groups aren't attacking Mohammed at all and he's already planning to conquer them. What does he need in order to subjugate the non-Muslims? He needs an army. And so he asks his tribe to convert to Islam. Now how many times have we seen Muslim groups in the world today calling for tolerance in public, but saying something very different in private? It goes back to Mohammed.

    Wood: ([https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=5m34s] One of the key features of Stage One is "taqiyya" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya ): concealing Islam's true intentions in order to protect the Muslim community. This was eventually made explicit in Sura 3:28 :

    (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=5m48s)
    Qur'an 3:38: "Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security".

    Wood (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=6m2s) : "Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with non-Muslims unless they are outnumbered and they feel like they are in danger from a stronger advers

  103. Pot calling kettle back by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Your Beliefs Doesn't Make You A Better Person, Your Behavior Does.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  104. OPEC Oil by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Since 1971 OPEC colluded and pegged/selling crude oil exclusively in US$, resulting in friction between Islam and the West;
    http://www.zerohedge.com/print...

  105. There's more to this story than you'd think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mohammad Tariq Mahmood and his family were probably prevented from boarding a plane to Disneyland at Gatwick airport last week because a Facebook page linked to his address contained positive references to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and because his brother was previously prevented from entering Israel,

    http://www.businessinsider.com/mohammad-tariq-mahmood-family-kicked-off-plane-to-disneyland-2015-12