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.
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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.'"
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.
..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
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?...
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...
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...
> 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.
Please, please don't deny Trump access to international flights. We in the US do not want to be stuck with him either.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Well, there's Disneyland Paris, but...
...they might be on strike. :-D
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
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.
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.
If that's true, and it's the airline that denied them boarding, the airline should refund their money.
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...
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.
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
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.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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).
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.'"
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.
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...
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.
Yeah, the US lives on tourist dollars, we hardly have any other industry.
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
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.)
That's why I use MasterCard.
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?