Who is going to the USA, who has changed their travel and what will you do differently?

[p--and--t]

While my plans for US travel remain unaffected, it is important to be aware of what might happen if you get selected for removal in the US.

This is an eye-opening read: Australian with working visa detained and deported on returning to US from sister’s memorial

This just reinforces our and our friends view that we will not be travelling to or via this country for at least 4 years maybe for a lot longer if the constitution is bypassed (as they intend) by the current administration.

 

[n7of9]

If a white man with a valid working visa was deported, why would anyone continue to think it won't happen to them?

 

[NinnyPoo]

I have just returned : Arrived at LAX and it was actually almost friendly. Departed from DFW , though they dont really care on leavers.

I have a standard ESTA , which I renewed in March. I have been to the US over 20 times and I am in my 50s.

My son works in the US on an H1-B visa and has left and returned since the new admin came into office. No issues (used JFK airport)

My perception, is low level functionaries within the state apparatus target those that meet their perception of being "different" to what is the status quo. I feel for trans people who really could be targeted. The regime then empowers these people to use their most base level biases and feel they are not subject to any disciplinary action. The rights of non citizens pre arrival into the US is also very limited.

 

[Forg]

If a white man with a valid working visa was deported, why would anyone continue to think it won't happen to them?

I sorta understand it … it’s a risk calculation, there are still thousands of people successfully entering the US every hour, and there’s more chance a planned trip to the US is going to be irretrievably broken as a result of sudden illness for example.

It’s not a place I want to go at the moment, for both “personal safety” and “political disagreement” reasons; but I do understand the attitude of others.

 

[levelnine]

If a white man with a valid working visa was deported, why would anyone continue to think it won't happen to them?

I don't think that's the right question.

Being selected for secondary questioning and deportation could happen to anyone (except, for perhaps, a diplomat or someone with broadly equivalent status).

It is a question of likelihood. The chance of receiving this treatment still appears to be low, even though it also appears to be higher than it was under the previous administration.

If border officials really ramped up these practices such that it became something like a 1:50 chance of being deported, I think most people would reconsider their travel to the US in all but the most pressing of circumstances.

 

[offshore171]

While my plans for US travel remain unaffected, it is important to be aware of what might happen if you get selected for removal in the US.

This is an eye-opening read: Australian with working visa detained and deported on returning to US from sister’s memorial

This story feels a bit embellished I have to say.

“the official told him his visa had been cancelled and that he was banned from entering the US for five years, including as a transit passenger.”

The reference to “transit passenger” is suspect.

This is not a thing in the US. All incoming passengers must clear immigration annd formally enter the country, even if immediately connecting to another international destination.

 

[Forg]

This story feels a bit embellished I have to say.

“the official told him his visa had been cancelled and that he was banned from entering the US for five years, including as a transit passenger.”

The reference to “transit passenger” is suspect.

This is not a thing in the US. All incoming passengers must clear immigration annd formally enter the country, even if immediately connecting to another international destination.

While I did see that, I also though it was a much faster way to say he can no longer go anywhere via the US, without needing to go into the whole thing about how they don’t allow people to enter their airports without entering their country. Most people in Oz who’ve gone to northern hemisphere places have likely gone through airports like Hong Kong or Singapore where they didn’t need to go through immigration as they’re not leaving the airport, so they may not know the US doesn’t roll that way.

But additionally there’s every chance the wording was re-written by AI and only given a cursory read-through prior to publishing.

 

[levelnine]

“the official told him his visa had been cancelled and that he was banned from entering the US for five years, including as a transit passenger.”

The reference to “transit passenger” is suspect.

This is not a thing in the US. All incoming passengers must clear immigration annd formally enter the country, even if immediately connecting to another international destination.

Why is the reference to 'transit' even remotely suspect?

The official is referring to what is on the US Customs and Border Protection's own website:

'Yes. Eligible nationals or citizens of countries that participate in the VWP require either an ESTA or a visa to transit the United States. If a traveler is only planning to transit through the United States en route to another country, when he or she completes the ESTA application, the traveler should enter the words "In Transit" and his or her final destination in the address lines under the heading “Address While In The United States.”'

What the official told the person is correct and uses terminology that the US Government itself uses.

 

[offshore171]

Why is the reference to 'transit' even remotely suspect?

Putting it together with some of the more outlandish claims in the article, the article feels like “rage bait”.

What really happened probably lies somewhere it the middle.

 

[levelnine]

Putting it together with some of the more outlandish claims in the article, the article feels like “rage bait”.

What really happened probably lies somewhere it the middle.

The fact that you doubted the story on the basis of incorrect information makes me suspect that you read this article with a preconceived notion that it was 'rage bait' and are grasping to find anything that supports your preconception.

 

[Quickstatus]

preconceived notion

Worse is believing all media articles to be correct when only one side of the story is told. The best preconceived notion is to doubt any story without corroboration.

 

[levelnine]

Worse is believing all media articles to be correct when only one side of the story is told. The best preconceived notion is to doubt any story without corroboration.

When would you be willing to change your mind and be open to the possibility that they are reporting actual events?

After 50 stories? 100? 1000? Never?

 

[Quickstatus]

After 50 stories? 100? 1000? Never?

It's not the number. It's corroboration of the narrative from other sources. The other side of the story is also important. Remember there are always more than one side to a story.

 

[levelnine]

It's not the number. It's corroboration of the narrative from other sources. The other side of the story is also important. Remember there are always more than one side to a story.

Did you see the other side of the story?

'A Department of Homeland Security media representative replied that the department “cannot answer questions on something we cannot verify the veracity of”.

“Just like I cannot confirm the existence of big foot.”'

 

[Quickstatus]

Did you see the other side of the story?

What is the other side of the story. That homeland security does not make specific comments is hardly a surprise but it is not the "other side of the story".

The other side of the story is what Homeland security has on him that we don't know about.

What about Bigfoot?

 

[offshore171]

The fact that you doubted the story on the basis of incorrect information makes me suspect that you read

Don’t take it personally, I am absolutely not having a go at you. Rather just posting my impression of the article.

My feeling is that it has been wildly embellished as rage bait. Anonymous traveller, who declined to contact DFAT, so there is no record there. Some of the alleged quotes from the US officials are just cartoonish. No corroboration from DFAT or US sources. His partner is too busy with work right now to see him?

Rage bait works - it’s their most read story.

Another telling of a story like this could be that of a traveller who breached a visa condition and then became abusive when detected by authorities.

Now that version may be equally embellished.

As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[levelnine]

The other side of the story is what Homeland security has on him that we don't know about.

Therefore, my earlier question to you about numbers is absolutely relevant.

If we never get the other side of the story for the reasons you mentioned, at what point do you start to think the stories might be accurate?

Another telling of a story like this could be that of a traveller who breached a visa condition and then became abusive when detected by authorities.

Same question for you.

 

[p--and--t]

Interesting that Smart traveller has significantly upgraded their advice in recent weeks with more warnings than many other countries. Additionally stories coming out from several countries of similar behaviour /incidents but we still get "nothing to see here" comments. Where there is smoke......


Edit: I just viewed an interview with US Nobel Laureate in Economics (which I can't post here) who among other things says the obvious change in attitude of US border authorities toward valid passport and visa holders is discouraging US tourism and bad for the economy.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

I will not comment on the politics of the current administration but will make some remarks having recently travelled via the US to/from international destinations. As some of you are aware, I'm Canadian, and one of the things us Canadians love to do is to travel via the US internationally as fares tend to be a hell of a lot cheaper than flying direct. Most recently I flew to South America to visit my girlfriend, and booking less than 3 weeks out (and in need of earning Qantas SCs) American offered a decent open jaw between Toronto to Santiago and Curitiba, Brazil back to Toronto so I booked it (this by the way was after the tariffs on Canada and the president's numerous remarks on the 51st state).

Flying to the US from Canada I wasn't worried as the CBP are not allowed to detain anyone at a pre-clearance facility. And surprisingly my interaction with the border was the smoothest it ever was (I have Global Entry). All they asked was purpose of travel, and I just stated connecting via US to international destination and that was it. On the way back from Brazil, I was a little concerned because CBP can detain you if arriving into the US from abroad and there were reports of people being detained (or worse) at CBP facilities. As a precaution, I had the Canadian consulate on speed dial and WhatsApp should anything transpire (realizing it was less than a 0.001% chance of that happening but that is still more than 0% risk I had under sleepy Joe). Surprisingly, this interaction with CBP was even smoother, they just asked if I had anything to declare, I said no and that was it.

What I will also note is the immigration hall both at Toronto's pre-clearance and at Miami were eerily quiet and the border officers did not look like they were enjoying their work, but maybe that's me inferring something that isn't there.

To the question of this thread, my rule now is, the US is not my travel destination, although I may transit through it. I was planning on spending a week in Hawaii or Puerto Rico and now that's off the cards. There's too much uncertainty travelling to the United States right now, with rules constantly changing.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Quickstatus]

at what point do you start to think the stories might be accurate?

It's never the number. The point is this story is only one side of the story. There is no reason why I should believe his side or any side for that matter. Again what does Homeland Security know about him that we don't?.