Have you ever smoked weed? Answer this question and you could be banned from US(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Have you ever smoked weed? Answer this question and you could be banned from US
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pot-border-banned-waiver-1.3752278
73 comments
Summary: Don't confess to a federal crime when being interrogated by border patrol and expect zero consequences. This applies to all nations.
Aaaand this is why I don't even want to try visiting US, despite being offered to talk at conferences about my product. I'm using a false name on Facebook and HN, which makes me afraid of any agent asking "Have you ever impersonated someone" or "Have you ever committed a crime against US interest". I just dread the TSA. Plus I carry nudes on my laptop, which despite the male models probably being above 24, I can't prove aren't below 18, and even though I could clear my HDDs, I might as well do business with a freeer country.
The only limitation is, given I'm French and we've just had our "9/11"-type terrorist attacks, I'm afraid we might progressively set up the same extreme police system. If we do so, I'd like to apologize in advance in the name of the people of my country...
The only limitation is, given I'm French and we've just had our "9/11"-type terrorist attacks, I'm afraid we might progressively set up the same extreme police system. If we do so, I'd like to apologize in advance in the name of the people of my country...
While I'm no fan of the TSA, this seems quite extreme. The chance they would look at your hard drives is nearly 0% and most countries have some insane policies that outsiders could harp on as a reason to not visit and to "do business with a freer country." To each their own, but avoiding a major country because their border agents hassle someone every now and then seems way too limiting to me.
Keep in mind that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has condemned France over their use of torture in pursuing marijuana convictions. France will also somewhat arbitrarily define cases as "drug use" vs "trafficking" since possession for use is ill-defined. Many consumers get tried under trafficking laws because they get caught purchasing, for example, and under trafficking laws they will get much more serious penalties including being banned from the country in many cases. Don't forget you can also be detained for four days without a lawyer while they investigate.
Some more info at http://www.drugtext.org/European-Drug-Laws/chapter-4-france-... if you're interested.
France has a lot of great things going for it so I try not to let bad laws, border agents, etc. spoil my time there.
Keep in mind that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has condemned France over their use of torture in pursuing marijuana convictions. France will also somewhat arbitrarily define cases as "drug use" vs "trafficking" since possession for use is ill-defined. Many consumers get tried under trafficking laws because they get caught purchasing, for example, and under trafficking laws they will get much more serious penalties including being banned from the country in many cases. Don't forget you can also be detained for four days without a lawyer while they investigate.
Some more info at http://www.drugtext.org/European-Drug-Laws/chapter-4-france-... if you're interested.
France has a lot of great things going for it so I try not to let bad laws, border agents, etc. spoil my time there.
TSA would have no authority to do this, but US CBP, also under Homeland Security, absolutely does this at borders.
This is a bit of a false equivalence.
As he's French he broadly has no choice but to live within the laws of his state - he can campaign against them but for as long as he's there he's under them, and moving to another jurisdiction is not that easy. Whereas, he chooses to go to the USA and fall under their border controls - he's making the statement that he won't choose to do so.
While he's likely to be unnoticed by his existing state, border controls have a much higher chance of capturing interest and the outcomes are uncertain (at least in part because you're not a citizen and the way of working will feel 'foreign')
While it does sound a bit extreme, I can personally say I don't like visiting the USA any more because of the border controls. I'd probably try ad put business in Canada because of the extreme way in which the USA now treats foreigners. It can be very uncomfortable, difficult and aloof. Unless you've actually come under the purview of the TSA as a 'foreigner' it's hard to have a sense of how poorly they treat people and the general arbitrary nature of control [0].
[0] That is not to say that other countries are much better. As a UK citizen I'm pretty clear that we treat external people coming in completely differently to our citizens - and having been involved in visa applications for employees have found some of the ways in which "my government" treated people totally embarrassing.
As he's French he broadly has no choice but to live within the laws of his state - he can campaign against them but for as long as he's there he's under them, and moving to another jurisdiction is not that easy. Whereas, he chooses to go to the USA and fall under their border controls - he's making the statement that he won't choose to do so.
While he's likely to be unnoticed by his existing state, border controls have a much higher chance of capturing interest and the outcomes are uncertain (at least in part because you're not a citizen and the way of working will feel 'foreign')
While it does sound a bit extreme, I can personally say I don't like visiting the USA any more because of the border controls. I'd probably try ad put business in Canada because of the extreme way in which the USA now treats foreigners. It can be very uncomfortable, difficult and aloof. Unless you've actually come under the purview of the TSA as a 'foreigner' it's hard to have a sense of how poorly they treat people and the general arbitrary nature of control [0].
[0] That is not to say that other countries are much better. As a UK citizen I'm pretty clear that we treat external people coming in completely differently to our citizens - and having been involved in visa applications for employees have found some of the ways in which "my government" treated people totally embarrassing.
You've both captured my situation properly, and I didn't know what mrgordon mentione. Thank you!
There is no graph of speaker,conference edges that crosses an ocean in which this isn't an issue. Yes: it can be a bitch to get into the US to speak, even at serious academic conferences. I have friends who've been turned away at the border. But the same goes for US->EU, US->UK, US->JP, JP->EU, and even US->CA in one case I'm familiar with.
Major international border crossings just suck a lot.
Major international border crossings just suck a lot.
I think you're being paranoid. Unless your product is aligned against US interests (or you're Middle Eastern), no border guard is going to care about a French national going to a conference. You're not impersonating someone by using a pseudonym, nor are you committing a crime against US interests. The TSA is obnoxious but ineffective. No one is going to detain you over your pornography unless they want to detain you anyway, and there's no clear reason why that would be the case.
He is not: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5497556/sf-author-peter-watts-found-g... or http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186. Anyone, anywhere can be attacked by U.S. border "guards" for any reason, including white Canadians. It is a nearly law-free zone.
I read the first link and it didn't seem entirely clear cut to me that Watts hadn't done anything to incite the episode. Even assuming he hadn't, he was convicted by a jury of ordinary civilians so apparently they empathized with the border guards.
Obviously it goes without saying that its a real shame things could escalate that quickly and I'm not saying the border patrols shouldn't be ashamed.
Obviously it goes without saying that its a real shame things could escalate that quickly and I'm not saying the border patrols shouldn't be ashamed.
It seems extremely clear that Watts could have avoided this incident. While the details of the altercation are not unambiguous, Watts was not spontaneously assaulted by an officer: the most charitable possible interpretation is that he angered a border guard by behaving in a non-compliant fashion. Even if one was to accept that the border guards escalated the situation far beyond what was appropriate, it is apparent that, had Watts not inexplicably refused to comply with a legally-appointed officer, he could have almost certainly avoided this outcome.
One can certainly come away from this story with a reasonably justified degree of suspicion towards border security. But the most obvious lesson is that belligerence towards officers is almost certain to make a situation worse.
One can certainly come away from this story with a reasonably justified degree of suspicion towards border security. But the most obvious lesson is that belligerence towards officers is almost certain to make a situation worse.
The TSA isn't the border patrol/customs. They're airport security.
How do people not get this?
The commenter doesn't live in the US. God forbid he makes a minor mistake about a foreign country's federal security structure.
Is it so unreasonable to expect someone afraid of what "they" might do to know who "they" are?
"They" in this case is all the people involved between the cabin door of the aircraft and the exit door of the airport.
As a prospective visitor to your country it doesn't matter which official designation "they" have. It only matters what the outcome will be for me.
Whether the extraordinary reduction and enhanced interrogation is done by one arm or another of your government is irrelevant. That it happens is all that matters.
As a prospective visitor to your country it doesn't matter which official designation "they" have. It only matters what the outcome will be for me.
Whether the extraordinary reduction and enhanced interrogation is done by one arm or another of your government is irrelevant. That it happens is all that matters.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah, these honest people deserve what they get! They should have known we only allow liars into our great country.
personally i'd probably prefer a liar than someone who lacks the common sense to ixnay on (regionally) legally taboo matters with a law-enforcement figure. Especially when the figure has a reputation like the TSA or border patrol.
Liars can be exposed; I don't know how to teach common sense.
I hope one day it's not like this , but treating authority like they are your buddies having a casual chat is unwise on many levels, and not just in the U.S.
Liars can be exposed; I don't know how to teach common sense.
I hope one day it's not like this , but treating authority like they are your buddies having a casual chat is unwise on many levels, and not just in the U.S.
I agree that in a world where authorities have such individual power over people, lying is a good idea. But there's no law of nature that says we need to have authorities like that. There are plenty of ways to limit people in positions of power. So let's focus on how we can fix the system instead of justifying why the honest people who are caught up in it deserve what they get.
It seems clear that there was no confession of a "federal crime." It is not a crime, federal or otherwise, of any jurisdiction in the United States, to have once smoked cannabis in Canada.
Which is fine - if you have a deeper understanding of the US laws than most non US citizens. As far as I (from the UK) had read in the news it was legal in a lot of states and so my understanding was it was legal and fine. I didn't realize it was illegal at a federal level.
The thing to remember is that, regardless of the views of any particular constituent of the the USA, at the federal level the country is downright hysterical about all sorts of things, including drugs.
To be fair, it's only a federal crime when actually committed in the U.S. (Unlike some of the laws that are enforced extraterritorially.)
I've been to 50+ countries and find the US is uniquely awkward about that kind of stuff. I mean using drugs outside of the US isn't a federal crime as far as I know for instance.
I don't know, but I have heard you are barred from entry to Canada if you have ever gotten a DUI, so I don't think it's unique.
[deleted]
Keep in mind too that making false statements, even a simple denial, to a federal agent is a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
Unless you are a politician. Then of course they won't bother you.
I remember a friend asking me if I could check the visa application process to the U.S. because he didn't really understand. The form was DS 160, if I recall.
Here is a sample:
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/jamaica/231771/PDFs/DS-160...
Some questions from page 38:
"Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the last 10 years?"
"Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?"
"Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?"
I mean, I'm sure there's a rationale behind these questions.. maybe in a "plausible deniability" way.. but they're funny.
The problem is that sometimes, one cannot know if they violated a law. There was a video of a lawyer asking people not to talk to the cops where he addressed this point.
Here is a sample:
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/jamaica/231771/PDFs/DS-160...
Some questions from page 38:
"Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the last 10 years?"
"Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?"
"Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?"
I mean, I'm sure there's a rationale behind these questions.. maybe in a "plausible deniability" way.. but they're funny.
The problem is that sometimes, one cannot know if they violated a law. There was a video of a lawyer asking people not to talk to the cops where he addressed this point.
Lying on DS-160 was the reason the Feds managed to initially arrest 9/11 attacker Zacarias Moussaoui [1]. It is significantly easier for cops to prove you lied to the US Government and detain/deport/ban you from entry if you're an alien than to try to prove criminal intent, etc. and that's why DS-160 has all those seemingly weird questions.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Capture>
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Capture>
>Lying on DS-160 was the reason the Feds managed to initially arrest 9/11 attacker Zacarias Moussaoui.
"Because it was clear at that point that Moussaoui was in the country illegally, the INS agents arrested him."[1]
[1] <https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0606/chapter4.htm>
Yes lying on the DS-160 is probably a reason to arrest Zacarias, but that is not what happened.
"Because it was clear at that point that Moussaoui was in the country illegally, the INS agents arrested him."[1]
[1] <https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0606/chapter4.htm>
Yes lying on the DS-160 is probably a reason to arrest Zacarias, but that is not what happened.
It's so if they have a good reason to investigate you enough, and any of these is false, they can charge you with perjury even if they can't get anything else to stick.
That's why I added the remark on the possibility of being unaware you even committed the deed.
Here's the video of the lawyer about this issue:
https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=5m46s
The video is worth watching from beginning to end. The second part includes the cop's perspective.
Here's the video of the lawyer about this issue:
https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=5m46s
The video is worth watching from beginning to end. The second part includes the cop's perspective.
The best part of those questions is the screenshot on page 39, with the "EXPLAIN" textfield.
I'm struggling to think of any explanation one might offer that would do any good whatsoever (although I realise that isn't their primary intent)
Seems like they don't have the Moral Turpitude[1] question on there though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude
I'm struggling to think of any explanation one might offer that would do any good whatsoever (although I realise that isn't their primary intent)
Seems like they don't have the Moral Turpitude[1] question on there though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude
The first one is particularly puzzling, given that prostitution is not completely illegal throughout the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Sta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Sta...
They might turn them into the best thing since sliced bread... multiple choice questions.
I wonder what would be the perfect visa application form and if there can be a universal visa form? If the powers that be could agree on a set of information every country needs and you could autofill it with your browser, or have a profile on the website of an international entity that mediates that.
I wonder what would be the perfect visa application form and if there can be a universal visa form? If the powers that be could agree on a set of information every country needs and you could autofill it with your browser, or have a profile on the website of an international entity that mediates that.
Why doesn't anyone ever think of the pimps, spies and terrorists who want to comfortably practice their trades in the US without being warned that the US is not keen on such activity?
There's a Zappa piece from "Yellow Shark" about this - "Welcome to the United States."
The headline is click-baity, he can still come to USA but has to apply in advance to a costly permit. Canada throws similar hissy-fit when dealing with Americans or Green card holders with DUI record.
Yet another reason I believe it is not unethical to lie to bureaucracies.
No, but in the U.S. It is a crime. Which is why you don't talk to cops.
Welcome to the court-based country which is the US.
You are expected to be serious when answering on the visa waiver whether you will kill people when in the US, and some more ridiculous questions like this one.
Why? The only reason I can imagine is that when you are arrested after blowing up a bomb you cannot say that you did not expect this to be illegal.
I am missing a question on my plans to run naked on the street or publicly pee.
Who maked the call for the ban? Is it the border agent or did it go through a process?
AFAIK, any border agent can place a five-year ban on you for any reason, including no reason whatsoever.
The moral of the story is that you should always follow the unwritten rules of interacting with border agents (Which you always should, when interacting with any people who have absolute power over you, and no accountability.) And hope that you don't run into this guy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ex-u-s-office...
The moral of the story is that you should always follow the unwritten rules of interacting with border agents (Which you always should, when interacting with any people who have absolute power over you, and no accountability.) And hope that you don't run into this guy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ex-u-s-office...
And what are these "rules?" Don't do or say anything stupid?
Answer the question they asked, not the question you think they asked. Don't volunteer any extra information. Don't admit to any criminal activity. Know the exact address that you are travelling to. Take off your hat, and your sunglasses. If it's dark, and you are travelling by car, turn on all of your cabin lights.
If you have anything interesting in your passport, or in the luggage they searched, you may be asked questions that will try to catch you in a lie. "So, how do you like working at Facebook?" "I work for Microsoft, Sir, it's pretty good."
Be polite and deferential, but not friendly. Keep your answers short and to the point. Be white. Don't look nervous.
Follow these simple steps, and the overwhelming majority of the time, you'll be just fine [1].
[1] If you are traveling as a speaker to a conference, or for a work function, my understanding is there is a separate set of incantations that you should invoke.
If you have anything interesting in your passport, or in the luggage they searched, you may be asked questions that will try to catch you in a lie. "So, how do you like working at Facebook?" "I work for Microsoft, Sir, it's pretty good."
Be polite and deferential, but not friendly. Keep your answers short and to the point. Be white. Don't look nervous.
Follow these simple steps, and the overwhelming majority of the time, you'll be just fine [1].
[1] If you are traveling as a speaker to a conference, or for a work function, my understanding is there is a separate set of incantations that you should invoke.
It's not that he can't enter the US. It's just that he has to file an extra form and pay a fee.
The legal situation around marijuana in the US sucks. It may be legal at the state level where you live, but it's still very much illegal at the federal level and in theory you can spend a year in federal prison on the first offense for any amount.
The legal situation around marijuana in the US sucks. It may be legal at the state level where you live, but it's still very much illegal at the federal level and in theory you can spend a year in federal prison on the first offense for any amount.
On a side, and just out of curiosity: has there been any thought in the US so far about prosecuting the doctors that liberally hand out certificates for the use of medical cannabis? Because it is clear that anybody can get one, so the doctors must be making a false declaration.
[deleted]
[deleted]
jedmeyers(1)
"I will neither confirm nor deny any prior illegal activity."
And then they can just send you on the first flight back home.
How about “No, I don’t remember doing anything like that, ever” ?
The form only has check boxes for yes or no. And the right answer for all questions is: no
If you want to get into the country.
If a person lies to a US government, that’s a felony:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
If I were that Canadian, I probably wouldn't lie either.
If I were that Canadian, I probably wouldn't lie either.
If you need to lie on that form, maybe you should not try to enter the US. I never tried, but I'd be curious to know what happens if you say yes on any of these questions. Are you still allowed into the US? Which questions are ok to answer with yes?
I lie to my government all the time.
How about "No sir, never."
Border guards aren't stupid. They know when you're being evasive, and they'll ask followup questions.
Anyone who claims to have never committed a crime is almost certain to be either lying or wrong.