Calls for Cameron to step in after US bars British Muslim family from Disneyland trip

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And did the family joke about blowing things up and killing people?

If not, your reference is hardly relevant.

The Japanese artist was refused a visa, not stopped from boarding a plane - your straws really are being grasped at...

They were ALL people who were BARRED from entry into the US and they were ALL not Muslims. I'm sure that there are MANY other examples out there but nobody is that bothered because they are not Muslims.

If you need a visa to enter the US, then lack of one prevents you from going.

denied a US visa, barring him from attending a conference on public art and activism at the University of Washington,

In this case it may well have been if they had been truthful, they might have succeeded with a full visa application.

They weren't just going to Disneyland, they were going to visit family probably for an extended period.

[Osem]

Does anyone seriously think Cameron can do anything about this policy? Is he going to be asked to 'intervene' every time someone or other falls foul of it or only when the circumstances suit one agenda or another?

[techguyone]

Not my words but certainly my sentiment. from here

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thr...248609/page-16

I see a report in the Torygraph saying that the entire group was NOT banned from travelling, as the claims of the group go, one of the adults had been banned from entering Israel and that one of the minors had links to terrorist websites on his facebook page.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...im-family.html

Meanwhile, US Department of Homeland Security officials confirmed to CBS News on Wednesday that the incident occurred, but disputed allegations that all eleven family member were denied permission to board the flight.

A DHS source told CBS News that one of the brothers was refused entry into Israel two years ago, and his teenage son's Facebook account has links to terrorist websites.

Now, it is common for you to be refused entry to various countries if you have already been barred from entry to another country, and having any sort of links to terrorist websites on your facebook, for whatever reason, is frikking stupidity in the highest degree.

Now that tells me that they were not refused entry as a group, but two were due to their own actions. It also tells me that this had eff all to do with them being muslim, and everything to do with previous actions by two of the group.

So you can huff and you can puff as much as you like, but in this case it looks like you're barking up the wrong tree

Looks more like the same old feeling that the Muslim chap in the news was trying to inflame the unfounded issue of Muslims being victimized.

I'm not trying to be PC, simply measured. I think that things are going too far with people being terrified to speak the truth. Moderate Muslims need to step up to the plate and either support and facilitate being inclusive or not. It's an unfortunate fact that the public in the west is being manipulated by the shouty bearded types, in so much as the public won't generally say what they feel, as they will be branded either a racist or victimizing Muslims.

Yet again, a cry from someone who claims to be victimized makes international news. Now it comes to light that there were links from his IP address to radical Islam. Well done the USA for denying him entry. What pees me off is that true injustice gets eclipsed by the shouty bearded types claiming victimization.

It's now become fashionable and in some cases a knee jerk reaction to stand behind any perceived injustice towards a Muslim regardless of the facts.

Equality and inclusiveness is what makes us different from the psychopathic apocalyptic death cult that ISIS truly is. Unfortunately, that very value is being used against us. Fortunately in the west you have freedom of speech but I find it harmful, to say the least, when people get dragged into a perceived and und unfounded claim of ... It's because he is Muslim.

As I said earlier, I thought there was more to this than met the eye.

We now have facts, rather than the smears put about by Katie Hopkins, which were (from your first link)

An email sent from your computer sympathising with Al Qaeda Mahmood? Computer says no. -
no evidence to back this up in the article, just her saying some intelligence had been received - no source for the intelligence.


Detained in Tel Aviv and ejected from Israel.
I know two people (one English and one Scottish) who have been detained in Israel and ejected - they were over there helping out in the Palestine refugee camps, and have since been to the USA,

I think the US government has done the right thing, but the information put forward for Katie Hopkins at the time was a farrago of innuendo and bull.

[Taf]

Sovereign countries have the right to bar entry to anyone they like (or dislike) for whatever reason they see fit.

I was barred from entering Israel because I had previously visited Egypt. Then I was barred from visiting Egypt again, as I had "travelled to Israel".

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Taf

Sovereign countries have the right to bar entry to anyone they like (or dislike) for whatever reason they see fit.

Exactly. At least they're trying to police their borders unlike here where every Tom, Dick and Abdul can just waltz in.

I was barred from entering Israel because I had previously visited Egypt. Then I was barred from visiting Egypt again, as I had "travelled to Israel".

I remember advice from when I travelled to Egypt and Israel was to have two passports one used for each country so they couldn't see each others stamps.

[Ignitionnet]

I think something that should be remembered in situations like this is that entering the USA, and indeed most other countries, isn't a right that is rescinded it is a privilege that may or may not be granted.

An ESTA does not grant right of entry to the USA - it states very clearly when you apply:

It is important to mention, that a valid ESTA does not guarantee automatic entry on arrival. The final decision to determine whether entry is permitted lies with the border control authorities at the Customer and Border Protection.

I must try and find Stella Creasy's interview on the news. It was apparently rather embarrassing viewing, her having vehemently accused the US of discrimination. Being a social justice warrior occasionally backfires profoundly.

[Osem]

So, IIUC, the upshot of all this is that an entire Muslim family has NOT been banned from going to the US. Certain members of the family were banned and the rest decided not to go. Of course I totally understand why they would no longer want to go but that's not quite the same as the whole family being banned is it.

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

As I said earlier, I thought there was more to this than met the eye.

We now have facts, rather than the smears put about by Katie Hopkins, which were (from your first link) I think the US government has done the right thing, but the information put forward for Katie Hopkins at the time was a farrago of innuendo and bull.

I used what was available at the time. as I DID state in the post. They just happened to be the first, sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

The fact that those 'smears' have now been put forward by many other sources would rather suggest that they weren't in fact... smears at all.

I DID ask that you didn't refuse facts because you didn't see eye to eye with whoever posted them.

[Ramrod]

So Breitbart (and Hopkins-(very strange woman btw)) were correct?

[ianch99]

There would be none of this mess if the US stated the reason why entry was refused. They have every right to refuse entry but they also have a reasonable duty to explain why. If they came across as fair and reasonable in explaining the reasons in the first place then this would have never made the news in the way it has ..

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

There would be none of this mess if the US stated the reason why entry was refused. They have every right to refuse entry but they also have a reasonable duty to explain why. If they came across as fair and reasonable in explaining the reasons in the first place then this would have never made the news in the way it has ..

The officials would not be given the info. That is the case in this country as well. It would lead to endless arguments about whether something was true or not at departure or wherever. Data Protection rules would stop officials who didn't make the decision to know the reasons why. Eg if the local council has made a decision, a receptionist at the council is not going to know why.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

The USA is allowed like any other country, to inforce the laws of THERE land.

I just wish the British Government would do the same.

Its like in some countries, there are strict laws concerning drugs and alcohol etc, and yet Brits go there and break them. And then ask the British Government to help them - WHY.

If you break the law in that country, then you pay the price.

there again this country is too soft. Any overseas person breaks the law in THIS country, will probably get prison - which we will pay for. Then released to do it again

---------- Post added at 22:31 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/incom...-visa-10650217

Nearly the same topic. Answers please on a postcard to Arthur

Same point, same reason. Visa cancelled and not allowed to fly

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The officials would not be given the info. That is the case in this country as well. It would lead to endless arguments about whether something was true or not at departure or wherever. Data Protection rules would stop officials who didn't make the decision to know the reasons why. Eg if the local council has made a decision, a receptionist at the council is not going to know why.

Not so sure, If you arrive at our borders and you are refused entry by Customs, I would like to think that they say more than "No, you can't come in" and that's all ..

Also, given the current climate, it would be in the interests of the USA to be transparent and release a statement from Homeland Security when these events occur ..

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Not so sure, If you arrive at our borders and you are refused entry by Customs, I would like to think that they say more than "No, you can't come in" and that's all ..

Also, given the current climate, it would be in the interests of the USA to be transparent and release a statement from Homeland Security when these events occur ..

This incident though wasn't the US CBP making the decision but instead the DHS. CBP wouldn't have known the reason behind the decision all they would have got was an alert stating no to this person/group who they would have passed onto the airline as a no fly order on that person/group.

CBP = US Customs and Border Protection
DHS = Department of Homeland Security