I am a US citizen living in the US. Though I am a legal adult and financially independent, I sometimes travel internationally with my parents. Once we arrive at our destination, my parents demand that I turn over my passport and withhold it from me until it is time to return home. This is unsafe ...
quick etiquette question (which I can go ask on the site if needed): is tipping drivers, hotel bellmen, etc... a few dollars in USD in Dubai: 1. perfectly fine, 2. not great, 3. extremely rude
@GayotFow i read your answer and it can be summarized easily: the tech community needs to organize and boycott the UK for tech conferences.
@GayotFow obviously the UK can enact whatever procedures it wants on its borders but if it decides they don't want to admit speakers to conferences then we shouldn't have those conferences there, easy
@chx I am staggered by all the controversy in the comments. All my allies have deserted me and left me hounded by my enemies. Take to mind that her narrative was totally massively disproportionate. Why all the controversy?
and obviously her answers to questions matter, but it seems like it should come down to a legal determination, not how polite she was or whether she made drawings while she was there
and a lot of us are prone to being testy, ill-spoken, and perhaps a touch "off" after a transatlantic flight, especially in Y, and being put in a holding room
doesn't your answer read that speaking for fee requires a visa?
"if something is not on the list, it does not mean the rules are unclear or confusing. It means it's not on the list, and therefore not a permitted activity. "
that's the thing, your answer says it comes down to "personal impact and articulation skills," but it should be a fairly straightforward determination whether her speaking for a fee in this way is permissible, whether she's articulate or not
So here's the scoop: if what she wanted to was permissible then she should've been admitted. If what she wanted to do was not permissible then she should've been booted promptly. Neither happened. People are confused and angry.
none of us were there, and we can only speculate based on the narrative how she behaved, but the refusal notice says she was refused because they weren't satisfied her paid speech was compliant with the rules. If she was refused because she acted like an idiot, aren't those are different grounds?
I do not understand the upvotes. The answer is long but it's not clear a) whether US nationals are permitted to speak for a fee in the UK b) if yes, then what should have been done differently, what paperwork is necessary. — chx7 secs ago
Neither are the rules clear: "An expert may give lectures in their subject area, if they have been invited by a UK Higher Education Institution; or a UK based research or arts organisation provided this does not amount to filling a teaching position for the host organisation."
what amounts to a UK based research organization?
this whole thing is really confusing.
I have an acquaintance who was scheduled to give a talk at a religious conference in the UK, who was likewise refused entry. In her re-telling, the small honorarium was the issue; I suppose this means her qualifications were acceptable. It was also suggested that the organizers knew they should have been helping to arrange a non-tourist-shows-up entry and were too lazy. — Andrew Lazarus6 hours ago
@chx Why make an exception? Why should the rules not apply to this person?
@GayotFow I really don't understand what you are trying to say
The question asks what is within the rules, and what isn't
and you then divert to saying that personal articulation is important
while insisting that the rules are clear - if the rules are clear, then unless your personal articulation is so bad that it gets you in trouble for something else
surely it doesn't matter?
Which of my answers get heavily upvoted seems really random and unpredictable
In the last few days, a friend-of-a-friend who was due to give a talk at a tech conference in the UK was denied entry at Heathrow and sent back. Their full story is blogged here. It seems that, in the last few days, the gov.uk guidance has been changed. (Compare the screenshot from this series of...
the blog is perfectly fine, but I know these kinds of tech people in real life, and they're very often unpleasant to be around
personally I would've simply said "I'm visiting for tourism and a conference" without showing the letter or explaining the arrangement in detail. Rule #1 of talking to immigration is not to provide any more information that explicitly requested
@CMaster you misunderstood. It's not one person but the whole airport situation. What about not handling travelers like a common criminal?
@CMaster the problem is , Gayot Flow said the normal detention rules apply and that's why they confiscate their prhones. Well then change the rules so that more human rules apply?
@CMaster Probably I have it all wrong, never seen it before, so of course my reaction is uninformed. I up voted your answer by the way and even made an edit to improve it (which I saw was rolled back).
@Jan It was avoidable and she could have been happily sent on her way to give the scheduled talk. It's the point everyone is missing.
When I read her blog, I extrapolated the event in my mind's eye
@GayotFow No, I got that point. I'm asking how she should have gone about avoiding it. Assuming she's already arriving at the immigration desk at Heathrow.
What I am trying to say: A) normal detention rules apply at the airport B) normal detention rules include confiscating a phone ===> Make an exception to detention rules so that B) doesn't happen at the airport
@JonathanReez her drawing of the room is fairly accurate. Not to scale but all the major parts are there. She didn't draw the actual interview room which IS bad
@chx ah! yes, so all those blogs are telling essentially the same narrative.
Innocent woman, travelling alone, starts getting a hard time from the IO just out of the blue
... and obviously 'feminism' is mentioned somewhere as the solution :)
from a comment in the blog:
*It’s a quota system. They target people they think can’t or won’t be able to fight back. Brown people fit this nicely in places like the UK and US. But in absence of enough brown people, they can go one rung higher on the social pecking order… And this is why human rights, intersectional feminism, etc matter. We can’t have some people “more equal than others.”*
@CMaster I think there was some vindictiveness in that, as @GayotFow says, minimal compliance - but I wouldnt be looking to do her any favours if I was the other party sat in the room with her, and thats an opinion based on reading her take on the events
@Moo No, I think thats just vindictive standard policy. But I don't see any reason that you can't arrange your own transport back - provided you're leaving promptly, or don't mind waiting at the detention centre until you do
That's the point where the IO should've said "OK, why don't you get some sleep before we do this"
She said she doesn't feel up to it and while her words are not printed I will presume she has mentioned she is sleepy and/or it's self evident someone coming from the US is so. Everyone is.
You can't spin this in a way that doesn't paint them inhumane, period.
@chx had she explicitly said she would like to sleep before the interview and was explicitly rejected, I'd agree with you. Although personally I don't understand how non-EU citizens can demand anything more than the right to get on the next plane back to their home country
The clear presumption is that detention will not be appropriate if a person is considered to be “at risk”. However, it will not mean that no one at risk will ever be detained. Instead, detention will only become appropriate at the point at which immigration control considerations outweigh this presumption. Within this context it will remain appropriate to detain individuals at risk if it is necessary in order to remove them. This builds on the existing guidance and sits alongside the general presumption of liberty.
professional evidence (e.g. from a social worker, medical practitioner or NGO) stating that the individual is at risk and that a period of detention would be likely to cause harm – for example, increase the severity of the symptoms or condition that have led to the individual being regarded as an adult at risk - should be afforded significant weight. Individuals in these circumstances will be regarded as being at evidence level 3
13. The presumption will be that, once an individual is regarded as being at risk in the terms of this guidance, they should not be detained. However, any risk factors identified and evidence in support, will then need to be balanced against any immigration control factors in deciding whether they should be detained.
and I have to admit (@GayotFow, preen your feathers!) that I read Travel.Stack not because I have anything to learn or anything to add, but because @GayotFow 's answers are so excellent to read...
Length of time in detention – there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period. What is a “reasonable period” will vary according to the type of case but, in all cases, every effort should be made to ensure that the length of time for which an individual is detained is as short as possible. In any given case it should be possible to estimate the likely duration of detention required to effect removal. This will assist in determining the risk of harm to the individual. Because of their normally inherently short turnaround time,
It doesn't matter how much of that is true if the following facts are true a) they confiscated her phone b) didn't tell her about her options regarding sleep before the interview. End.
@chx should it be different? the IO's are investigating a potential breach of UK immigration law (the fact that her visit potentially isn't covered by the visa she held or under any bilateral agreements), and unlawful immigration into the UK is illegal, so.... wheres the difference (and yes, Im being deliberately harsh)?
@chx no one I know is cancelling, no tech conference is cancelling - she fell foul of her own inexperience, that doesnt mean its going to have a detrimental knock on effect, especially as her experience was 5 months ago and since then I have attended 6 conferences with foreign speakers...
Easy to believe this. Done a lot of international travel, UK is #1 (by far) in petty, tiny Napoleons at the border.
https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4
I was planning on speaking at NDC London in January; thinking now maybe I should decline:
https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4#.dwk5jiioy
@chx no one I have seen tweeting in support of this is someone I have seen speak at a UK conference, and none of them are people I was ever likely to see speak
oh, and you have to be invited to speak at NDC, you dont simply get to "plan to speak".
