VRChat Sex Worker Denied Entry to US over ‘Prostitution’(kotaku.com.au)
kotaku.com.au
VRChat Sex Worker Denied Entry to US over ‘Prostitution’
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2023/02/vrchat-sex-worker-denied-entry-to-us-over-prostitution/
55 comments
My cousin is a surgeon, and I'm pretty sure that he'd do that, and would barely be able to contain himself with delight if they asked him about it and he'd explain how he does it exactly and make it sound lie he's a serial killer extracting information for a cartel.
The issue is in the psychological problem of projection:
when you deal with people, it is an easy trap to believe that they share your traits. Among which, amount of intelligence ("how deep will you examine") and purposes ("why are you doing that").
Very bad trap: the other part easily will not understand nor care. Boars and bears will not play chess - and attempts are substantially soliloquy for your own whim.
If you want to take your risks, for the sake of "fun", good; if you do it because unwise, then you will soon learn by force.
when you deal with people, it is an easy trap to believe that they share your traits. Among which, amount of intelligence ("how deep will you examine") and purposes ("why are you doing that").
Very bad trap: the other part easily will not understand nor care. Boars and bears will not play chess - and attempts are substantially soliloquy for your own whim.
If you want to take your risks, for the sake of "fun", good; if you do it because unwise, then you will soon learn by force.
As John Scalzi said, "the failure mode of clever is asshole" - as in, how you are perceived, especially in low-context situations.
Certainly. I don't think he'd do it if he thought he was in actual trouble, like being interviewed by guys with machine guns in Mexico. But arriving back in the US? I can totally see him do that. Worst case he pulls out his passport, some poor officer sighs and wishes they didn't have to deal with idiots wasting their time and he moves on.
I have a different cousin who is a general physician, I can't imagine her pulling that. Not just because these kinds of pranks are much more common with men, but also because, from my experience, surgeons have a very specific type of humor and enjoy that kind of thing.
I have a different cousin who is a general physician, I can't imagine her pulling that. Not just because these kinds of pranks are much more common with men, but also because, from my experience, surgeons have a very specific type of humor and enjoy that kind of thing.
> Worst case
Worst case, the "funny man" will be surprised by the discretionary power of an officer that holds a "better be safe than sorry" stance.
Worst case, the "funny man" will be surprised by the discretionary power of an officer that holds a "better be safe than sorry" stance.
What are they going to do, deny entry to a citizen?
The absolute worst case is they make him sit around for a few hours and run the whole shebang including a cavity search to teach him a lesson, they're not shipping him off to Gitmo because he wasted their time. Most likely they don't want to waste even more time, they're professionals after all, and deal with that type of person all the time.
Or maybe it's the dumb joke that makes the officer snap and he pulls out his gun and starts shooting everyone. But I doubt it.
The absolute worst case is they make him sit around for a few hours and run the whole shebang including a cavity search to teach him a lesson, they're not shipping him off to Gitmo because he wasted their time. Most likely they don't want to waste even more time, they're professionals after all, and deal with that type of person all the time.
Or maybe it's the dumb joke that makes the officer snap and he pulls out his gun and starts shooting everyone. But I doubt it.
They could try charging him with a felony, for example 18 U.S.C. 1001 (lying to federal agents) - they might claim he was intentionally trying to deceive them into thinking he was some nefarious character when he actually wasn’t, thereby wasting their investigative resources meaning they couldn’t spend that time chasing the real “bad guys”. Maybe the prosecution won’t succeed, but they could always use it to make his life hell for a few months then move to dismiss. As a surgeon, he might not be allowed to practice his job while felony charges are pending.
I underwent surgery for hernia repair in January 2020, and while they wheeled me into the operating theatre, I sang "Like a Surgeon" for everyone and explained "Weird Al" to them, because they all swore up and down that they'd never heard of him.
And then denied entry. If that's funny for them, forced forced to go back, fine, but not everybody has the same level of financial independence to afford that.
[deleted]
Yeah, because the eventual explaination carries so much cultural respect and cache that they have that luxury.
on visa interviews they will drill down to get specific details, they want to know if you are lying.
this doesn't only happen on visa applications but may happen during visits too depending on the officer of course.
they will pounce any broad or ambiguous answer.
this doesn't only happen on visa applications but may happen during visits too depending on the officer of course.
they will pounce any broad or ambiguous answer.
A reminder that the law, and the bureaucracy, don't keep up with the latest social norms. This kind of work might be slowly becoming more socially acceptable, but it's easy for people who surround themselves with others who approve to forget that most of the world, even in liberal countries, still views it very negatively. Not judging, just worth pointing out. I sometimes see the same thing with drugs - people are surprised when their drug use causes them issues, because they think everyone just accepts in now.
Prostitution being acceptable is not a social norm except in one small fraction of the population. Most people still view it with revulsion.
It's so much more acceptable than it was even in early '00s. I'm right now at a standard tech conference, sponsored by a company with the goal of empowering sex workers through tech. Sex work is mentioned in the popular shows without being weird or the main topic.
It's of course generation and location dependent, but I don't expect any people in my circles to have a negative view on it.
It's of course generation and location dependent, but I don't expect any people in my circles to have a negative view on it.
It sounds like we're agreeing.
in the US at least. It's legal, taxable and socially acceptable in a lot of european countries.
Prostitution is closely tied with drug and human trafficking, even if it is “legal and taxable” kind, and most people here know that. It is definitely not socially acceptable because of that and the historical stigma.
>it's easy for people who surround themselves with others who approve to forget that most of the world, even in liberal countries, still views it very negatively.
Yes, but remember this happened in the United States, which is a country that recently banned abortion in many of its states. It is not at all a "liberal country", even though parts of it, and a significant part of its population, are quite liberal. In particular, the people working in jobs like customs and immigration enforcement are NOT liberal at all.
Yes, but remember this happened in the United States, which is a country that recently banned abortion in many of its states. It is not at all a "liberal country", even though parts of it, and a significant part of its population, are quite liberal. In particular, the people working in jobs like customs and immigration enforcement are NOT liberal at all.
How do you define "liberal"? Per my understanding, the United States and liberalism are almost synonymous. The US is basically the representative of liberalism on the world stage, at least that's how most of the world tends to think of us.
Economically? Perhaps. Socially? You could only say that if you're cruelly joking.
The two might be conceptually-separable but they tend to go hand in hand in practice. Although maybe you have some different things in mind by "socially liberal" than I do.
When I think "liberal" I think the liberal vein of natural rights philosophy - Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, et cetera - which implies a kind of unique anthropology in which man is no longer axiomatically communal, but first and foremost an individual without a common final end with his fellow man. This is the philosophical basis for both "economic" and "social" liberalism.
When I think "liberal" I think the liberal vein of natural rights philosophy - Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, et cetera - which implies a kind of unique anthropology in which man is no longer axiomatically communal, but first and foremost an individual without a common final end with his fellow man. This is the philosophical basis for both "economic" and "social" liberalism.
The US uses "liberal" to mean "progressive". In most of the world, "liberal" means something closer to "libertarian". It generally implies an interest in laissez-faire capitalism.
The US authorities can deny a visa or even entry for those already have a visa for petty, arbitrary reasons, including the suspicion that you might engage in "immoral activities". It does not matter whether it is legal in the US.
Other countries have similar rules.
Other countries have similar rules.
> might engage in "immoral activities"
So they can deny entry to gay tourists and that would be okay?
So they can deny entry to gay tourists and that would be okay?
If that's the view of the country, yes.
In a modern world view of course not but that's not what you saying.
Can I be pissed if a country like north Korea would do this? Yes. Is it in the right of the dictator of north Korea to decide this? Yes.
In a modern world view of course not but that's not what you saying.
Can I be pissed if a country like north Korea would do this? Yes. Is it in the right of the dictator of north Korea to decide this? Yes.
Which is as it should be. There is no right to enter a country if you are not a citizen, it's a privilege.
no it should not be like that.
the whole idea of sovereign independent nations that can exist isolated from each other is something that needs to go away. there should be free movement for everyone unless they are known criminals (in which case they should be in prison). people moving for economic reasons should be stopped by removing those reason (create better living conditions where they are). and everyone else should be free to move.
my family is now spread over three continents and as many nationalities. none of us have the freedom to move around to come together where we want. it's ridiculous.
national borders need to be removed. freedom to travel needs to be established and permission to settle should only be denied if someone isn't able to sustain themselves in the new area.
the whole idea of sovereign independent nations that can exist isolated from each other is something that needs to go away. there should be free movement for everyone unless they are known criminals (in which case they should be in prison). people moving for economic reasons should be stopped by removing those reason (create better living conditions where they are). and everyone else should be free to move.
my family is now spread over three continents and as many nationalities. none of us have the freedom to move around to come together where we want. it's ridiculous.
national borders need to be removed. freedom to travel needs to be established and permission to settle should only be denied if someone isn't able to sustain themselves in the new area.
What people seem to forget is that immigration needs to make a decision about visitors to their country in just a few minutes.
And they don't know you, they can only base it on what you tell them. Certain things will raise red flags and nobody in immigration got fired for denying someone entry.
For example Singapore has a problem with young girls from SE Asia entering Singapore to be sex workers (lots more money). So if you're a young, single woman coming to Singapore and don't have a good story as to why, they'll immediately assume you're at risk for overstaying and/or working illegally.
And they don't know you, they can only base it on what you tell them. Certain things will raise red flags and nobody in immigration got fired for denying someone entry.
For example Singapore has a problem with young girls from SE Asia entering Singapore to be sex workers (lots more money). So if you're a young, single woman coming to Singapore and don't have a good story as to why, they'll immediately assume you're at risk for overstaying and/or working illegally.
IANAL but it doesn't make sense that she would be banned over something that is legally not prostitution. She should have a lawyer file a court case. That's certainly not a "crime of moral turpitude." And prostitutes are banned for 10 years, and waivers are possible.
Details are here: https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030203.html
Details are here: https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030203.html
> She should have a lawyer file a court case.
IANAL either but court challenges to visitor visa decisions pretty much never succeed. The Courts are so deferential to the Executive on that topic, immigration attorneys will tell you it is a waste of your time and money even filing the case.
The one thing which can work sometimes, is if you can get your own government to raise the issue through diplomatic channels. However, unless you are someone very important, your own government probably can’t be bothered, and won’t see it as something worth spending diplomatic capital on.
IANAL either but court challenges to visitor visa decisions pretty much never succeed. The Courts are so deferential to the Executive on that topic, immigration attorneys will tell you it is a waste of your time and money even filing the case.
The one thing which can work sometimes, is if you can get your own government to raise the issue through diplomatic channels. However, unless you are someone very important, your own government probably can’t be bothered, and won’t see it as something worth spending diplomatic capital on.
Also not a lawyer, but reading the document, the language for a lot of this document is incredibly subjective and broad. Neverminding the fact that immigration office workers generally don't have to justify their position, very likely sex workers who never actually have physical contact with their clients would be subject to the conditions of ineligibility because of fairly prudish conditions on the immigration document:
(3) (U) Crimes Committed Against Person, Family Relationship, And Sexual Morality:
I think the main sections that might apply would be prostitution and lewdness. Prostitution doesn't require physical contact as I get it [0], and even acts meant to "satisfy a sexual desire" are counted. Lewdness I cannot find a specific definition of with a very quick search, but in general the language on what I can find focuses more on the public nature of "indecent" elements.
As I understand from the document later on you don't even need a conviction for the immigration officers to reject you, an admission is enough (see section 9 FAM 302.3-2(B)(4) (U) Admitting to Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude)
To be very clear, I think that the ruling on this case and such rules in general are absolutely ridiculous and puritanical, and should be removed as they are overly broad and group persons who don't bring risk with those who bring risk. I don't know the history of these rules, but I can imagine that a modern defense of the rules likely would include discussion points on preventing "sex trafficking", even though the person from the article likely is not related to sex trafficking at all.
I'm not sure a wrongfully rejected application for immigration is something you can sue over in general, and even if they could, I suppose that with the current law/rules presented by your document, it would be pretty easy to spin VRChat Sex workers as ineligible due to the extremely broad categorizations used for Sexual Morality.
Again, I must stress that I think including such clauses against "sexual morality" is very stupid and only serve as a means for individuals to weaponize their own agendas/morals legally speaking. The conditions for violating Sexual Morality even mention bigamy for some reason, and I honestly just cannot understand how that would be considered a concern for an immigration application.
I have no idea how it works for non-US Citizens if they want to sue the US government, but as a layperson I understand that even US Citizens cannot sue the government outright, there are a lot of caveats for the lawsuit to even be applicable.
This is really a sad example of poorly written law that punishes persons needlessly, and the persons punished likely have very little recourse :/
0 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prostitution
(3) (U) Crimes Committed Against Person, Family Relationship, And Sexual Morality:
I think the main sections that might apply would be prostitution and lewdness. Prostitution doesn't require physical contact as I get it [0], and even acts meant to "satisfy a sexual desire" are counted. Lewdness I cannot find a specific definition of with a very quick search, but in general the language on what I can find focuses more on the public nature of "indecent" elements.
As I understand from the document later on you don't even need a conviction for the immigration officers to reject you, an admission is enough (see section 9 FAM 302.3-2(B)(4) (U) Admitting to Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude)
To be very clear, I think that the ruling on this case and such rules in general are absolutely ridiculous and puritanical, and should be removed as they are overly broad and group persons who don't bring risk with those who bring risk. I don't know the history of these rules, but I can imagine that a modern defense of the rules likely would include discussion points on preventing "sex trafficking", even though the person from the article likely is not related to sex trafficking at all.
I'm not sure a wrongfully rejected application for immigration is something you can sue over in general, and even if they could, I suppose that with the current law/rules presented by your document, it would be pretty easy to spin VRChat Sex workers as ineligible due to the extremely broad categorizations used for Sexual Morality.
Again, I must stress that I think including such clauses against "sexual morality" is very stupid and only serve as a means for individuals to weaponize their own agendas/morals legally speaking. The conditions for violating Sexual Morality even mention bigamy for some reason, and I honestly just cannot understand how that would be considered a concern for an immigration application.
I have no idea how it works for non-US Citizens if they want to sue the US government, but as a layperson I understand that even US Citizens cannot sue the government outright, there are a lot of caveats for the lawsuit to even be applicable.
This is really a sad example of poorly written law that punishes persons needlessly, and the persons punished likely have very little recourse :/
0 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prostitution
The issue here isn't really that the border guards made a "mistake", but the fact that suspicion of being a prostitute alone is enough to warrant banning entry.
Wait what? If you are a sex worker you are not allowed a vacation in the US of A?
I would have expected this from Saudi Arabia, not from the country that produces the most amount of porn.
I would have expected this from Saudi Arabia, not from the country that produces the most amount of porn.
The US for reasons that are incomprehensible to most of the rest of the world (both liberal and conservative) distinguishes pornography from prostitution. Pornography is legal artistic expression whereas prostitution is a crime in law and against morality.
Certainly there are foreign porn stars who go to work in US. You do have to wonder what they tell immigration.
Certainly there are foreign porn stars who go to work in US. You do have to wonder what they tell immigration.
One is more scalable, doesn't normally imply adultery (and breaking marriages), and doesn't spread STDs to otherwise well meaning gentlemen, so arguably offers more benefit per unit of labor employed and is less socially disruptive. As far as contradictions go this one is more practical than incomprehensible.
>I would have expected this from Saudi Arabia, not from the country that produces the most amount of porn.
It does, but it's also the country that recently banned abortion in many states.
The US is an extremely schizophrenic country. Parts of it make Saudi Arabia look very liberal.
It does, but it's also the country that recently banned abortion in many states.
The US is an extremely schizophrenic country. Parts of it make Saudi Arabia look very liberal.
> Parts of it make Saudi Arabia look very liberal.
OK i'll bite, give us examples please!
OK i'll bite, give us examples please!
Any place where the FLDS is active.
Many liberal countries in Europe ban the prostitution from the women rights perspective.
Your idea is very American centric. Feminists in Europe don't see sex work as empowering but rather exploration by men.
Your idea is very American centric. Feminists in Europe don't see sex work as empowering but rather exploration by men.
Meanwhile, it's legal in both Netherlands and Germany.
Obligatory
https://youtu.be/IlbAMdDry4A
https://youtu.be/IlbAMdDry4A
Yeah.. it's a bit weird and seems "unfair" but at the same time the US and any country for that matter can deny entry for whatever they want. So while this is an interview edge case of hypocrisy. I don't see the point in complaining too much. It's not going to achieve much.
This is the first time I'm seeing the "private corporation" defense being applied to the government.
It's more common than you might think, things taken for granted like getting a passport for example is actually a privilege not a right. The same goes in this case for entry to a country..
in the united states maybe. ( https://www.swiftpassportservices.com/blog/are-u-s-passports... )
but generally no.
it's part of the human rights:
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
to exercise that right, a passport is necessary. so a passport is a human right. countries that deny that right to some of their citizens do not fare well on the democracy scale.
but generally no.
it's part of the human rights:
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
to exercise that right, a passport is necessary. so a passport is a human right. countries that deny that right to some of their citizens do not fare well on the democracy scale.
The analogy is apt. Nations are the property of their citizens, administered via their legitimate representatives in government. And property owners have the right to decide who can enter their property
That’s not nice.
Dolores French used to list herself as an entertainer on her US tax forms. She was a sex worker and advocate for the rights of sex workers.
Sometimes, less is more when dealing with a big bureaucracy. Don't lie, obviously, but I mean if a surgeon described his work as "cutting people open for a living" they might look askance at that too.