VRChat Sex Worker Denied Entry to US over ‘Prostitution’
kotaku.com.au
kotaku.com.au
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.
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.
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, the "funny man" will be surprised by the discretionary power of an officer that holds a "better be safe than sorry" stance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Other countries have similar rules.
So they can deny entry to gay tourists and that would be okay?
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.
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.
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.
Details are here: https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030203.html
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.
(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 :/
I would have expected this from Saudi Arabia, not from the country that produces the most amount of porn.
Certainly there are foreign porn stars who go to work in US. You do have to wonder what they tell immigration.
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.
OK i'll bite, give us examples please!
Your idea is very American centric. Feminists in Europe don't see sex work as empowering but rather exploration by men.
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.