Kicked out of the US: 33 hours of hell | Hacker News Reader

Kicked out of the US: 33 hours of hell

nzherald.co.nz

135 pointsbillforsternz87 comments

I read a lot of posts like this where someone makes a mistake (stupid or not) and ends up in a jail cell for extended periods of time. Aside from the notoriously inhuman behavior of US border security (I'm an American and am treated better at foreign border crossings than at my own country's), the facilities should not be humiliating and scary.

I understand that they can't be admitted to the nearest best western, because the could be a flight risk or a security threat (in some very unlikely scenario). But there's no reason why an airport holding area can't both a) look like a spartan hostel dorm room † and b) be secure. Families with children should stay together, if possible. Separating couples by gender isn't so scary if both partners arrive in a nice dorm room, they know their partner is safe. Dim lighting at night means that people could still be monitored, if truly necessary, and get a good nights sleep. Only dangerous, unruly, or mentally unstable detainees should be kept in jail-level security conditions. Lying on a visa application does not warrant prison treatment.

I know someone has to pay for this, but as someone who travels internationally I'm happy to have my taxes spent in this way... there's a reciprocal quality: I may make a mistake on a form or apply for the wrong visa, and I want to be treated with dignity when that happens.

† http://aspiringbackpacker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Hos...

>But there's no reason why an airport holding area can't both a) look like a spartan hostel dorm room † and b) be secure.

Heck, real prisons for murderers in Nothern Europe and Nordic countries often look better than Best Western rooms...

Many people understand the visa waiver program to mean "America has no immigration laws which apply to white people." This is not actually what the visa waiver program means.

Many countries are pretty lax with regards to people immigrating to the country to work. The United States has fallen into a weird equilibrium where working illegally is very, very common and, since the polity hates this fact, also very, very illegal, but only enforceable against people who mostly follow the rules. If you're reading this and don't hold a US passport, you probably mostly follow the rules, so you need to be very, very careful to not violate immigration law when coming to the US.

And the law does not mean that "you made something wrong therefore we have the right to treat you as shit".

And by the way, that is not what is discussed in this thread. These people made a mistake when getting the visa, and instead of getting an error, they were put in jail 33 hours. Not everyone that makes a mistake with the visa is a terrorist or an illegal worker. Probably most of them aren't.

So I spent about 60 seconds doing research. The J-1 visa they initially applied for is a work visa (or study visa). The ETSA they came on is for visa-waiver (tourism.) Most countries are going to be very unhappy if you apply for a work visa, don't get it, then show up anyway and say you're just a tourist. Non unreasonably, they assume you're lying. This isn't just a US thing.

It seems that your 60 second research missed the point that the ESTA is also valid for business purposes.

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/

And the fact that you cannot ask for ESTA if you already asked for a J1 is not explained in that site.

Besides it is crazy that instead of displaying an error when they asked for the ESTA, they were put in jail for 33 hours. The worse part is that some people do not see anything wrong with that...

Sorry - your response doesn't cut it. The ETSA and the J-1 infrastructure obviously can talk - how else would the border agent know to arrest you? If it can talk, then why doesn't it tell you that you're breaking the law, if it's so gosh-darn clear with 60 seconds of research? Remember - you're a local. Tourists are not.

Potential tourists see these articles and factor them into their travel plans, usually by not going to the country in question. If it was Venezuela putting people in prison for not following an obscure visa-rule, I doubt you'd be justifying it so happily.

Indeed, I've loved Australia, Asia and Europe, but I'll never set foot in US, despite multiple business conferences which happen nowhere else. I picture the agent asking: "So, you're not using your real name on Facebook. Would you agree that your are impersonating your identity against a US company?"

I think the point is they were treated horribly. They made a mistake, but it was a clerical error. Seriously in NZ you could shoot someone in the face at the airport and not get treated like that. It's a very different way of life here.

They knew they weren't tourists. They applied for a tourist visa in lieu of the proper visa. They may not have been aware of the consequences but they were aware that their actions didn't represent their actual intent. If I visit Canada and steal socks from a department store, I might not be aware of the penalty, but I am aware of the crime.

ESTA is not a tourist visa. It's is a visa waiver program with somewhat limited business related entitlements.

They didn't apply for a tourist visa. I repeat, they didn't apply for a tourist visa.

If I cross into gang territory I might get shot. It's their turf and perhaps I should research the area to stay safe. That is my personal responsibility to stay safe. But that in no way would take any blame away from the gang members shooting me. In the same way these tourists are at fault, but perhaps there are lessons for US border security too? I'm sure tourist dollars are worth something to the US economy. It might be worth nurturing the tourist experience, to coax more people into the US.

Actually, they never said it's "in lieu of proper visa". It may be, but that's not what they wrote.

The only indication about any work may be the "colleagues-not-to-be", but that may well be just a description related for the J-1 process, not their later situation. If they already had friends in the US, what's wrong with deciding to just visit them anyway on the visa waiver? (and not going to work)

I might not have read it correctly, but I didn't spot the point where they said their J-1 was not approved - just that it was in progress (and from what I hear, months-long approval processes seem pretty common in the States).

The two countries whose visa process I'm most familiar with in this situation are Singapore and Australia. I've hired many foreigners into Singapore on Employment Passes (the H1-B equivalent) and in some cases, they came in on a tourist visa whilst their EP was in progress (testimony of our hiring speed rather than the Singaporean administration, which delivers the thing in 7 working days).

Similarly, when I applied for Australian PR, which takes quite a bit longer than Singapore, the embassy specifically told me it was fine to travel in and out of the country during the application, and I did so on the usual visa waiver whatever it is called.

I once was cornered - in a polite and friendly manner - by an Australian immigration agent in Singapore on my way to Perth, who for all intents and purposes looked like a perfectly normal, unarmed civil servant in a suit, and who was wondering why I kept popping in and out of his country. Satisfied with the explanation he let me continue after 2 minutes. And if you think immigration is a hot topic in the US, you should see Australian news at the moment...

I've also held two work visas in Switzerland despite owning an "inferior, work-stealing frontalier" (not my words, those of the more right wing protectionists) French passport and I regularly fly in and out of the country without any issues.

Therefore, this story strikes me as an illustration of how bad the backend/IT/processes for immigration are in the US. The main failure point was a lack of communication, with the airline as well as with the travelers. All airlines flying to Singapore and Australia check your visa situation (as in, ask to see the visa and scan it) before you check in precisely to avoid these problems. One also has to wonder the wisdom of not allowing visa types to overlap conditionally, since other countries seem more than able to cope; and whether failing to obtain a work visa really ought to be grounds for exclusion from tourism travel.

> All airlines flying to Singapore and Australia check your visa situation (as in, ask to see the visa and scan it) before you check in precisely to avoid these problems

And I got burned by this. Wasn't aware that you need this waiver/visa thing. Got to the check-in gate about 30 minutes before they close and got rejected. Called friend in Sydney to quickly apply online. Got confirmation of application from where it normally takes about 20 minutes to get visa. Showed it to airline lady, so she called Australian border/customs where she was informed that process might take up to 9 days. Hence I wasn't allowed to even check in. I begged to do something and they just blabbered about systems not allowing them to do it. 8 minutes after registration closed I got my visa and obviously wasn't allowed to fly that day. This was Emirates airlines by the way.

When I got to Sydney next day I was questioned by a smug fatlus about what I am doing here. I could see satisfaction in her face when she asked me how I am flying back. She though 'now I got him'. Turns out I had tickets booked with different airline via different city. Asked to scan my phone for CP and drugs. Asked my friend contact details and if I can prove I am currently employed.

Entry to NZ was ok, but you could see people are intimidating. To be honest all borders I ever seen look intimidating. UK now has these spinning lights on top of their cameras that create this feeling of being surveyed. My home country agents were also incompetent not being tell the difference between my GFs passport (Taiwan republic of China). She also got bad treatment on UK border. My treatment upon entering US was intimidating as well, but fortunately short.

I also witnessed bias to uniform. Pilot found someones phone just before agents desk. Agent said in this ridiculous blockubster-marine-like voice "Sir, I will have to ask you turn off the phone". He managed get it thru to the guy in front, but you can bet your balls he would be pushed to the ground if he wasn't wearing his uniform.

> I might not have read it correctly, but I didn't spot the point where they said their J-1 was not approved - just that it was in progress (and from what I hear, months-long approval processes seem pretty common in the States).

A J-1 is initiated from a host institution, similar to how a company needs to file a Labour Condition Application (LCA) before they can hire a H1B/E3 etc.

That provides you with the invitation, and you take that and all supporting evidence to a US embassy in your country of citizenship and they assess on the spot whether to approve or deny the visa.

They either couldn't get sponsorship from a host institution, or the consulate officer rejected the application because of some other criteria.

There's not really a "months-long" approval process.

Fair. I'm not familiar with US immigration beyond anecdotes from my network.

From first contact to goes-through-the-door-of-your-office, how long would you say it would typically take to hire a Vietnamese or Chinese citizen into your SF company? Singapore's figure is 7 working days and I've done it in 36 hours.

Also, judging by the words "colleagues-to-be" they intended to work on their visa waver. This is illegal as well so even if they've got in they could have been deported later and banned from the US. The whole write up can be summed as "What do you mean 'Ignorantia juris non excusat'?!"

Not allowing entry isn't an unreasonable thing to do. It's a failure of procedure that these things are able to happen so easily. If your systems and laws make it easy to unintentionally break the law you should fix that.

The problem is also the way the US does these things. The amount of hostility and the way they treat people.

Can you give an example of a country where the laws are hard to break unintentionally or otherwise? I know only one, Somalia, because there are no laws. So I don't think I'd like you "fixing" this.

As for this case I am pretty sure their intent was to break the law, they just did not expect the consequences. They did try to get J-1 so they knew they need a visa for their visit and a waiver is not enough. They went without a visa anyways, probably hoping to talk their way through the immigration, feigning ignorance.

>Can you give an example of a country where the laws are hard to break unintentionally or otherwise?

Any country without a jumbled mess of a legal system?

www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842

Australia: laws are hard to break because their IT is efficient. And they're awesome characters.

I reckon you have a point: So many people come to US with the intent of lying to the border agent, getting a tourist visa and working. Border law isn't shoplifting or traffic law.

So, if, for example, I drive drunk in Australia (easy to do) I am not breaking any laws? Or don't pay taxes? I find this hard to believe. No matter how efficient the IT some laws are easy to break. You probably meant just the immigration laws, which was not what I asked.

>The whole write up can be summed as "What do you mean 'Ignorantia juris non excusat'?!"

Well, ignorantia SHOULD be "excusat" in some cases.

That idea of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" ("you're not excused for not knowing the law") is one of the worst and most undefensable aspects of the legal system, especially since modern law has become so vague and all-catching.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389...

It should be checked on a case by case basis, and actual ignorantia should be taken into account and count as a reason for a lesser penalty.

So? If I apply for a work visa and get denied, am I forbidden to spend some holidays in the US as well? If that's the case, the application form for the ETSA should include a question "have you recently applied for a work permit before this application?" and if the answer is yes, reject it, saving hassle for everybody involved.

It does essentially have that question.

My anonymous friend always goes to USA on the ETSA, puts business as the reason for travel, and works there (not a new job though, just the same job they already do from overseas). Although he too has been detained for random stupid reasons, never for more than 6 hours, and of course has had his luggage gone through 2-3 times each trip.

I understand your point but it's worse than guilty until proven innocent then, you are guilty whatever happen.

The ETSA shouldn't be any less valid just because you applied for a visa (denied or not) first. As far as I understand the visa was still being processed too.

This is horrific. Eventually the product will become so bad that, at the margin, foreign tourists will cease to be interested in it and take their (NZ) dollars elsewhere.

Though I've had a nasty experience at Canadian immigration. Once I was invited to speak at a University of Ottawa law school event but neglected to bring the invitation letter. I was directed to secondary screening and spent what seemed like hours there before being allowed to enter the country. At one point a Canadian immigration official said they couldn't find any record of the conference, but as far as I could tell they were looking at the main school's web site, not the law school's. Sigh. Ironically the event was sponsored by the Canadian federal government...

At least it wasn't 33 hours of hell.

Investigating suspicious claims when people arrive at immigration control is perfectly reasonable; if you claim to be speaking at a conference but they can't find any indication that said conference exists, holding on to you for a while makes sense. I hope that, even without your invitation letter, you eventually managed to put the CBSA agents in contact with someone who could verify your bona fides and they let you into the country though?

To me, the largest problem with the reported story isn't that they weren't allowed into the US -- applying for a work visa, then trying to enter as tourists when you don't get the work visa is definitely suspicious behaviour -- but rather that they were kept in jail until they could be deported. These were not dangerous individuals; they could easily have been told to go find a hotel and stay there overnight but report back to be deported in the morning.

Which, incidentally, is exactly what happened to a BSDCan attendee a few years ago when he was deemed inadmissible to Canada a few years ago: "You're not allowed in, but it's too late to send you back tonight and you seem harmless, so we're going to give you a 24 hour pass. Be back here at 9 AM tomorrow."

> Investigating suspicious claims when people arrive at immigration control is perfectly reasonable

Not knowing how to Google isn't.

On one hand, this account sounds overly dramatized (and quite rude calling the officers "broom pushers"), and it's hard to feel sympathy for people who take the privilege of international travel too lightly by not researching the relevant visa regulations (especially when it's a journalist of all people).

On the other hand, US immigration and customs officials really do seem heavy-handed, and seem to revel in treating every tourist who filled out a form incorrectly or misunderstood some rules as the next Bin Laden.

Now it's just a TV show so I don't know how "cleaned-up" it is, but if you watch "Australia Border Patrol" they seem to have a much better relationship with their visitors. Many episodes have people arrive flouting quarantine rules or misrepresenting themselves still get let in, possibly just with a fine, since they get a change to explain themselves calmly and correct their mistakes and the officers come across as trying to help people rather than trip them up.

> and it's hard to feel sympathy for people who take the privilege of international travel too lightly by not researching the relevant visa regulations

Really? I travel internationally quite often. I'd never dream of "researching the relevant visa regulations". For example, my wife and I have twice booked river cruises through Europe, entering half a dozen countries each time. We did book through a travel agent, and I just assumed we would be fine. And we were. In my experience going from one first world country to another tends to be very low friction. The USA is becoming an increasingly huge outlier. I haven't been there for a while but actually I probably would do some visa research before going these days. Although having said that if I'd obtained an online visa waiver I'd consider that to count as sufficient research.

I completely agree with you. As a US citizen, I've found it easier to get through customs in France than to get back into the US.

I find that fact completely astounding.

The US seems to enjoy having overly complex processes and stupid rules for things.

I mean Canada has a ton of red tape too (the passport system is horrendous). I just seem to run into these things more in the US.

> take the privilege of international travel too lightly

That's a weird expression. You mean too lightly compared to one country's overreaction of 9/11? Everything is light compared to that.

As for Australian border, I've seen people going in, just paying the fine for whatever was not right (like too much tobacco in the luggage) and getting in without much problem. I've also had the "pleasure" of being told that's the last time I'm allowed in as a tourist. All of those interactions were a lot simpler than every one of my arrivals to the US where people saying "you can go" were way worse worse than people saying "there's a problem" in other places I visited.

"one country's overreaction of 9/11"

There is not any evidence that 9/11 has anything to do with this - this sounds more like a regular limitation of work rights issue. Hacker news regularly has stories about the difficulty of navigating the US work rights regime.

Deportation and visa issues - sure. But I only started to see the stories about bad treatment and jail-like airport detention centres after the overreaction. Were there any known ones before?

>"who take the privilege of international travel"

The "privilege" huh?

US immigration is really terrible. My first time through I was shocked at how unfriendly and inefficient the system was. It made a big impact on how I viewed the country.

This happened to my friend's parents because they misunderstood a visa form.

The whole system needs an overhaul. Voters never see the effects of the immigration laws the politicians write. I'm Canadian, but I've worked in the US in the past and make frequent shopping trips (like most Canadians). Many times I've gotten the secondary inspection treatment -- the technique is to try to ruffle your feathers. You always come out feeling violated, but that's the system.

I'm sympathetic towards the border guards that have to enforce rules that barely make any sense. They have limited information and antiquated computer systems, yet they have to filter millions of people a day, to "protect" the country. Illegal immigration is a thing and so is smuggling, and terrorism.

> Voters never see the effects of the immigration laws the politicians write.

Politicians rarely do that either. I wish they all got a heavy accent, put on an agal and did a few trips for comparison.

I up voted, because this does seem wrong, but this lady is overly dramatic in my opinion.

As usual with dramatizations of poor policy where the treatment of people is concerned: response on both sides was over the top. Obviously immigration reform is needed. Obviously immigration workers and the security they employ are more tough than they need to be. The problem with this article is the author dehumanizes them because she feels superior to them and more importantly aggrandizes her suffering as if it is comparable to any one of the analogies she draws, let alone all of them.

She spent the night in a jail cell and it was uncomfortable. She was treated like a criminal (ignoring the fact that she was, in fact, a criminal, accidentally or not). She was not, however, treated like anyone typical in Nazi Germany. She certainly wasn't treated like anyone was sticking it to PhD students out of jealousy (how would they even know, especially given the number of people they have to process through customs in a day?) Making the comparison like she is diminishes the actual terrors and actual social dichotomies faced by people that are in no way deeply concerned about not having a cell phone for a day.

> She was treated like a criminal (ignoring the fact that she was, in fact, a criminal, accidentally or not).

No. Simply making a mistake on a visa application is not a crime, nor is overstaying a visa. It counts as "Unlawful Presence", which is a civil offense; in order to rise to the level of a crime, it must be "Improper Entry", which involves crossing somewhere other than a designated border crossing, deliberately lying on application forms, or the like.

One thing that people really need to be aware of in immigration law is the difference between an unlawful act and a crime. Lots of rhetoric about immigration talks about how people are already criminals for being in the country undocumented, when in fact they have violated no criminal statues, merely civil.

Actually, I think that this may not have even constituted unlawful presence; since the author was not yet technically in the country until exiting the airport, she was essentially just turned away at the border (with a brief detention for practical reasons). Note that I am not a lawyer, and not all that familiar with immigration laws, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt; but I am certain that there's a very big difference between civil and criminal violations, and committing a civil violation does not make one a criminal.

> Actually, I think that this may not have even constituted unlawful presence; since the author was not yet technically in the country until exiting the airport, she was essentially just turned away at the border.

Yup, it's officially referred to as "Denied Entry". You never enter the country, officially.

> (with a brief detention for practical reasons)

If there was a return flight 4 hours later, they would have been put on that. The fact that the timing didn't line up was unfortunate, but as you say, it's practical.

I'm willing to concede the term "criminal" in exchange for "unlawful entrant" in this instance. Using "criminal" is actually a bit more than what was deserved for describing both her treatment and her infraction. At the time it seemed to flow better, but I'm all for accuracy.

Actually, I can't think of many other civil offenses that warrant detention; so it is somewhat out of place that a civil offense such as using the wrong type of travel authorization by accident results in treatment that is generally reserved for people who have (or are suspected to have, with reasonable suspicion) committed a criminal act. Complaining about treatment that is generally reserved for criminals, or those strongly suspected of being criminals, for a simple bureaucratic error, is a fairly reasonable complaint.

This whole situation occurred because a convenience feature, which allows you to do a fully automated system to get an approval to board a plane to the US, didn't actually properly check for the legality of entering, so they were only ever determined to be using the wrong type of authorization once they had already arrived, leaving no choice but to detain them at the airport in order to deport them. And this is a pretty crappy situation; a very difficult to navigate bureaucracy, that seems to offer a convenience feature to allow an easy way around it, and then makes you waste a flight and be detained for a day just to be flown back again because you're not an expert on the intricacies of immigration law, is a pretty crappy system.

I agree that some of her rhetoric may have been a bit over the top, but it is a pretty awful situation to have been put in, and it seems like there would be much, much more efficient and humane ways of working around it.

I agree with all of your points. Very salient. Though, judging by a lot of (presumably) American's comments on this thread, this is the way American's want it. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the intricacies of the law, and a general nastiness that if you fall afoul and are treated harshly, like a criminal, then it's your fault.

I guess it makes sense. The country hasn't become a prison state with the highest incarcerated population in the world by thinking clearly and acting commensurately.

I'm agreeing with you that "criminal" was too strong a word. I edited a couple words in to see if that could be made more clear. (I also agreed from the get-go that the immigration system needs reform. It's one of the worst in the world by any measure.)

Yeah, I got that you were agreeing about the word "criminal"; it just sounded like you were objecting to her using the term "criminal" for her treatment as well, and I was pointing out that since this is one of the few ways in which a civil offense can lead to detention, that that's actually not as bad a characterization as I think you were making it out to be.

Anyhow, sounds like on the real issue as opposed to arguing semantics, we're in fairly strong agreement. This immigration system is baroque, inhumane, inefficient, and the results actually run counter to what the system is supposed to be doing.

False statements on a visa application is a federal offense and grounds for inadmissability. Presumably they clicked "no" to "have you ever been denied a visa" when in fact they had.

I wouldn't presume anything. There are lots of reasons this could have happened, and not just due to lying on the application. Perhaps they had not been denied the J-1, but were just having trouble meeting all of the requirements in time; a J-1 visa requires a whole lot of paperwork, including from sponsoring organizations, and if some of that was taking longer than expected and may not have been done in time, they may have just thought "oh, we can do the ESTA and stay for 90 days with no visa, during which we can work this out", when in fact that is not allowed.

You are talking about a crime. You don't get to make presumptions to show guilt.

I don't think you understand how different this is to the way things are done in NZ. Our police are polite and friendly. To be treated like that would have been a shock.

I'm from NZ, our police are great. I just think one day without your cell phone is not the same as treated like a nazi prisoner.

Yeah fair call. But if we were to think about this in terms of user experience, I think there would be a different tone. If you're web form turns customers away, you work your butt off to change things. But for some reason if your border security outrages writers, to the point that they write articles like that one, people say tough luck you should have researched the rules.

How about if you apply for the two visas and it's such a big problem you warn people during the application process. This would be like have a form the blanks all the fields on submit and only tells you the required fields after you have failed to fill them in.

You've obviously never had to spend a night in jail.

US Immigration is heavy handed, some of my aged relatives have entered with valid multiple entry visitor visas, and still have been questioned for 3-4 hours by rude agents.

This couple made some stupid errors though, mainly they were clueless about how rigid the system is.

9-11 obviously changed the US system for ever. Now there is talk of amnesty for people who never filed a single form (sneaked across the border), while those who followed the rules to a T, or at least applied for some visa get treated like this. As a legal immigrant, I am honestly conflicted about amnesty for illegals.

This person is pretending to be a fake victim. The situation they created for themselves is their responsibility. If they'd taken responsibility for making sure they are not breaking the law, they wouldn't have broken the law. I believe they are lucky to have been deported so speedily. Also the question they were asked -- "Why didn't you try harder for the J1?" is totally legitimate. Acting privileged and entitled to special treatment because they are "from NZ" is just acting privileged and entitled, instead of choosing to take responsibility to ensure they'd actually get the visa it worked for them to have. Also, planning to have "colleagues at Northwestern" and be on a tourist visa is clear indication that they weren't planning something which was going to work, and that they knew this. These people were just gambling the small probability they wouldn't get picked up, and then when they get caught, they try to incorrectly blame "Homeland Security" for their situation, instead of taking responsibility for having applied incorrectly. Unfortunately, this choice to disown responsibility and pretend you are powerless is a common deluded attitude. People get themselves into all kinds of messes and then blame everyone except themselves. "The law must be rewritten for me" is just an egomaniacal delusion of privilege and entitlement.

Have you ever connected to an open wifi before? Have you ever played a poker game with friends at home for money? Have you ever sung happy birthday or Christmas songs in public? Have you ever taken a pee outside? Have you ever failed to update your drivers license when you move? Have you ever Jay-walked?

If you have you should be locked up, quite frankly! And don't go pretending you don't know about the eight thousand pages of obscure statutes that apply to you every day. Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

What else would you expect?

Just stop going to the u.s. Frankly, the place is a dump and its people are ignorant and crude. I never thought I'd have an unironic conversation with someone arguing against the existence of evolution until my last trip to the u.s. They are superstitious and even the most liberal of them has politics to the right of your government's fascist wing, and a bizarre attitude toward sex where their behavior is nothing like their rhetoric.

That's a pretty broad brush to paint a country of 350+ million citizens.

Just do a search on 'u.s. Education decline'.

Sure, there are always individuals that buck the trend but overall the u.s. Is an embarrassment and getting worse.

Anecdotally, I am in the Midwest twice per year and have to listen to people complaining about the Jews and the niggers, and about various conspiracies about global warming, and how there's no way we're descended from monkeys.

I don't hear any of at shit where I live in Europe, except for some of the racist stuff but in a more nuanced manner.

F'en BS. You visit the "Midwest" twice a year and there's just people throwing out ethnic slurs all over the place? And the most "liberal" people you're talking to are far right fascists? Sorry, simply BS.

Stop making stuff up. You're not impressing anyone with your nonsense. I await your even more strongly worded rebuttal to being called out. I'm sure it will be super convincing.

This is rural MN and NW WI, but even then do you find it hard to believe? 45% of Americans believe in creationism and the u.s. has some of the worse race relations on the planet. What sort of bubble do you live in?

I've spent significant portions of my life in rural MN as that's where I was born. I'm in rural MN and WI for 2-4 weeks a year now. My father is buried in a speck on the map that has no stoplights or stop signs. So no bubble at all.

I understand anti-Americanism plays really well at a lot of places online though. So keep the shtick going, I'm sure you'll impress someone.

What's anti-American? Do you mean the racism? Or being against racism is anti-American?

Sounds like the bible belt[1]. Come visit the rest of the US, it's a vastly different experience. Not that we don't have our share of issues, but explicit hate speech is vastly reduced, people believe in climate change and evolution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt

Creationism is prevalent across the US.

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/my-backyard-creationism-...

Even if you were correct about the midwest, it's not where most Americans live. It'd be like generalising about Europe from visiting Belarus.

So nuance makes it better.

Also, I have to call bullshit. Unless you are hanging out at a Klan rally, or maybe your relatives live in a trailer park, the likelihood of hearing any of that is slim to non-existant.

You live in a bubble. I can confidently say that you are ignorant.

http://www.rt.com/usa/majority-americans-racist-poll-378/ http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-h...

This would be Switzerland that passed a law against building minarets, didn't give all women the vote until 1989 and hates Balkan immigrants with a passion?

"I don't hear any of at shit where I live in Europe"

Didn't Europeans murder millions of people within living memory, and isn't there active "ethnic cleansing" going on in the Balkans even as we speak?

Yeah. "Nuanced".

"...the place is a dump and its people are ignorant and crude."

Really quite shocking how you didn't make more friends here, with such a sunny disposition and open-mindedness.

I'm wondering why this person's anger and outrage is so special, she gets her own article in the newspaper.

When people are jerks and rip me off - no one makes me a news article. And that's the problem, in the eyes of the law - you're not this VIP.

I understand her frustration in getting turned around. The rules are the rules. You wasted money on a ticket by hoping you could work on a tourist visa. No, you don't get "let off" or special treatment. Always double check to make sure you are using the correct visa!

Anyone who wants to see customs in action, I recommend the reality TV show "Border Security", they are in UK, Canada and Australia: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=border+security.

US Immigration has been throwing the book at people way, way before Bin Laden. Sorry your feelings got hurt. Next time, pay attention.

Alternative solution where they don't just try to piss off as many people as possible:

- automatically stop people from getting visa waivers if they applied for J-1

- save space in detention

- save the time by not dealing with such cases at the airport

- prevent people from getting treated badly

- prevent articles like this from being written

Or you know... keep throwing the book. That works very well as you can see.

Yeah why would you want to fix the system and make it easy for people to do things correctly and detect when they have made a mistake. Oh no wait that's actually exactly what you'd want.

They didn't make a mistake. They clearly were aware that a J1 and a visa waiver weren't the same thing. These were supposedly educated people. Why did they think the J1 existed? I would be slightly more sympathetic if their first language wasn't Ebglish and they weren't highly educated.

NZ has three official language Ebglish is not one of them.

Sorry too hard to resist the cheap shot.

Edit: Sorry this is not meant to offend, I just thought it was funny.

I love the "U.S. Immigration is harsh and mean" meme generally promoted by Canadian, West European and Aussie/NZ folks. Yet, it is interesting how those people conveniently ignore how ridiculous and politically motivated the UK system is. For example, allowing in radical Muslim clerics yet banning an American radio talk show host. Or limiting Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei's visa not because of anything intrinsic about him but because of Beijing's feelings. Ai Weiwei is being treated unequally compared to other Chinese visitors. UK immigration also has targeted certain nationalities for deportation to fill charter planes. Let's not forget about the bloody nonsense at Calais. Then we have Australian immigration policy as well.. This anti-US tripe is getting old. The original author's comparisons to Gitmo were also inappropriate. She wasn't getting water boarded and Jack Bauer wasn't sent to beat her. She was detained because of a visa irregularity that she herself was the cause of. It wasn't a clerical error; she knowingly attempted to enter the country under a false pretense: she wasn't a tourist and she knew it. Sorry for the harsh treatment but it doesn't compare at all to the treatment migrants receive in Calais or when they are captured at sea by the Italians. The fact is that all immigration situations are rather tough all over the world -- especially in countries with extremely high demand and histories of overstays, fraud and abuses.

So rather than insisting that your country tries to actually do well you would rather point a finger at someone else to say they are worse?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com