Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

What the fuck, State Department?

  • Mar. 1st, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Angry Young Meredith
I did not realise, until [info]evelien mentioned it, that if you are a non-US citizen and are travelling to the US, even if you are a citizen of a country covered by the Visa Waiver Program, you must now apply for entry to the US online at least 72 hours before you travel. Yes, even if you are only there for a short time. Yes, even if you are only transiting through the US on your way to another country -- that's right, even if you never leave the airport.

Seriously, State Department, what the fuck? US-VISIT wasn't enough of a pain in the ass, so you shut it down and put together an even more annoying program?

I do have to wonder how long this is going to last; this will without a doubt increase the number of deportees (thanks to people who don't find out about the need to apply for authorization, or who forget to do it, or who don't realize that infants who are flying without a ticket still have to have an authorization, &c, &c), and the airlines are going to be extremely nonthrilled about having to mule them all back home.

It's not quite clear from the ESTA website what the goals of the program are. The FAQs seem to indicate that they're trying to keep out people who have been convicted of crimes of moral turpitude and people with communicable diseases. Fun fact: six of the eight communicable diseases that are grounds for denying someone entry to the United States are sexually transmitted diseases. This includes HIV.

Now, I don't know about the rest of y'all, but it has never been my experience that foreign nationals view the US as the place to go on mad fucking sprees. Denying an HIV-positive person the ability to enter the US simply because of his or her medical condition is discrimination, plain and simple, and it just isn't right. There is a DHS "final rule", issued last October, which specifically applies to HIV+ folks, under which they can enter the US for a mere 30 days, rather than the 90 days that everyone else gets on a nonimmigrant tourist visa, but this is small comfort: HIV+ foreign nationals are considered second-class persons under these rules.

Here, incidentally, is where things get interesting. The State Department's page on Classes of Immigrants Ineligible to Receive Visas cites Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Sec. 212(a)(1)(A)(i) states that any alien "who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance, which shall include infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome" (emphasis mine) is ineligible for admission to the US. HowEVah, if you check out Section 212 on the USCIS website, the bit about AIDS isn't there; it's replaced by a footnote. Turns out that the bit about AIDS was amended out on July 30, 2008.

So, in other words, (1) the State Department isn't keeping its own public information documents up to date (no surprise), and (2) the Department of Homeland Security is issuing its own prejudicial rules, simply because it can. Section 305 of H.R. 5501 removed the language about HIV, passed the House and Senate and was enrolled as Public Law No. 110-293. The jackasses at DHS turned right around and turned it into a rule under colour of their own authority, and that rule affects everyone just as much as a law passed by Congress does.

I bitched a lot during the last eight years about the ridiculous power grabs the executive branch has pulled, and this is just another one of them. AIDS activists, gay-rights activists -- if you aren't pissed off about this, you should be. The DHS's style of thinking is benighted, anti-factual and just plain wrong: they're acting like they think HIV can be contracted from casual contact, which is just as absurd as a frat boy who thinks he can catch "the ghey" from talking to a gay man at a bar. We deserve better from our government.

And just remember, folks: this is a "rule" we know about. The DHS and the TSA have a whole laundry list of "secret rules" which they still enforce, as John Gilmore and others have learned to their peril.

Demand transparency from your government. They're supposed to be of, by and for the people. It's up to us to keep them that way.

Comments

( 31 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]amarafox wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 04:19 pm (UTC)
Wow.. that really pisses me off.

A lot.
[info]maradydd wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 04:25 pm (UTC)
ESTA doesn't apply to Canadians. But it's still bullshit.
[info]amarafox wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 04:36 pm (UTC)
Yeah. And the HIV thing really bugs the crap out of me.

Like seriously 100% bugs me.

Edited at 2009-03-01 04:37 pm (UTC)
[info]akumadaimyo wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 08:51 pm (UTC)
HIV isn't only a gay thing, what about druggies who have it?(I'm assuming a lot of people are only seeing the HIV thing as an anti gay thing) I'm less inclined to feel sorry for the druggie HIV people but still, why are people with HIV banned from coming into the US? Unless they bleed on me and I also have a open cut or something it's not like I'm going to get it.
[info]amarafox wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 11:32 pm (UTC)
No, I don't see it only as an anti gay thing. There are also people who've had blood transfusions, or some kind of contamination beyond their control.

I just think it's appalling in general.
[info]bigby wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 01:35 pm (UTC)
There are parts of the world where the rule statistically bars most groups of more than a few individuals from entering without leaving someone behind.

Swaziland 26.01% 2008 est.
Botswana 23.09% 2008 est.

That DHS found a way to retain the rule after it was removed from law really bothers me.
[info]enochsmiles wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 07:37 pm (UTC)
That DHS found a way to retain the rule after it was removed from law really bothers me.

It should, but at the same time, it shouldn't surprise you. Nearly all of our current anti-drug regulation is managed that way -- Congress has handed its law making authority over to "executive agencies" with no checks and balances. Seriously, if it's too much work for Congress to make laws, then we have too many laws.

[info]bigby wrote:
Mar. 5th, 2009 03:19 am (UTC)
You are right. Not a surprise that DHS is playing the game too. The DEA managed to get away with so much and they didn't have falling towers and Osama the boogieman to point to as why we should roll over and let them.
[info]jordan179 wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 04:35 pm (UTC)
Which Administration came up with these rules?
[info]maradydd wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 04:39 pm (UTC)
ESTA went into effect January 12th, 2009, and the DHS "final rule" about HIV was last October. So this was all under Bush II; ESTA squeaked into effect eight days before Obama's inauguration.

However, it is worth noting that most of the people responsible for making and enforcing these rules still have their jobs.
[info]lightning_rose wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 08:12 pm (UTC)

The first US HIV travel ban was instituted by the Reagan administration in 1987, and codified into law by Clinton in 1993.

http://the-aids-pandemic.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-travel-ban-on-hiv-infected.html
http://positivelife.org.au/talkabout/2008/aug-sep/us-ban-hiv-positive-travelers-be-lifted-not-yet

How those bans were implemented, and what (if any) exceptions have been made, I do not recall.

[info]maradydd wrote:
Mar. 3rd, 2009 10:36 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the info!

Still, the whole thing makes me sick. In 1987 I was still in elementary school, and they were already telling us in health class (in public school!) that HIV can't be transmitted by casual contact.
[info]evelien wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 06:20 pm (UTC)
I would have totally forgotten to apply, if my friend hadn't reminded me.

The funniest question to me is when they ask you if you were affiliated with the Nazis.

Oh and when you go apply online, there's a pop-up that says "There is no expectation of privacy when you use this computer system. blablabla DHS may conduct monitoring activities without further notice."

[info]akumadaimyo wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 08:52 pm (UTC)
Huh? Why do they ask if your affiliated with Nazi's?
[info]maradydd wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 09:00 pm (UTC)
Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (which has been in effect since 1952, though has been amended a few times) specifically says that anyone who was a Nazi or a Nazi collaborator any time between 1933 and 1945 can't come to the US.
[info]akumadaimyo wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 09:04 pm (UTC)
Would not most of them be dead by now anyway? I thought they meant modern day Nazi for a minute there. I don't like the skinhead/white supremiscist types but they should be able to travel too.
[info]maradydd wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 09:08 pm (UTC)
Most of them probably are, though the law may very well remain on the books long after anyone who actually fits that description is dead. :P But, no, it only applies to people who were Nazis within that very specific timeframe (there are actual dates but I forget what they are).
[info]evelien wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 12:26 am (UTC)
the specific question is:


C) Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved , in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?
[info]aryll wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 05:02 am (UTC)
I have to wonder why people ask questions they're never going to get an honest answer to, at least from the people the question would seriously apply to. "Yes, I'm a spy and a terrorist, why do you ask?"
[info]evelien wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 10:41 am (UTC)
Whenever we had to fill in the green forms on the plane, there's always been one person joking: are you a terrorist... yes.... oops, I'm sorry stewardess, I messed up, can I get a new form?
[info]vatine wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 07:01 pm (UTC)
Yes, even if you are only transiting through the US on your way to another country -- that's right, even if you never leave the airport.


To be fair, that has always been the case, since US airports do not (in general) have separate airsides for international and domestic flights, so immigration is between "deboard incoming flight" and "transit check-in". Having done transit flights (several times) though Copenhagen, you never leave airside while in transit and thus do not pass an immigration point.

On no European airport have I (yet) seen a mixed domestic and international airside, while in my limited experience of US airports, at least one of the two had it (Charlotte is definitely mixed, harder to say with Dulles).
[info]maradydd wrote:
Mar. 1st, 2009 09:10 pm (UTC)
Wait, so if you're from a country with which the US doesn't have a visa waiver program, and you want to fly somewhere and the only way is through the US, you have to have a US visa in order to fly at all?
[info]vatine wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 10:53 am (UTC)
Yep. Fan-fucking-tastic, isn't it? You pass through immigration, then pick your luggage up, pass throuhg customs, then hand your bags in at the transit check-in (it's land-side, for some reason) and then go through airport security again.

It does mean that when you come in on a domestic flight, you don't have to do any extra passing-through as you go from your domestic to your international flight, though and separate domestic/international airsides would require you to do that, so the down-side for americans flying in and out of the US is probably minimised that way, but for anyone having a flight that just transits the US, it's a pain.
[info]enochsmiles wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 07:39 pm (UTC)
Yes. Same with most countries. Your American Passport Privilege is showing.
[info]evelien wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 12:31 am (UTC)
https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-Level_Online_Help_1.htm#disorder

not sure if you can see that but that has all the info. I suppose the only good thing about it is that it's valid for 2 years.


"Currently there is no fee to apply for a travel authorization. However, there may be an application fee in the future." great.

Edited at 2009-03-02 12:32 am (UTC)
[info]songblaze wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 02:00 am (UTC)
Um, I don't know if you're aware of this, but it is extremely hard in most countries - including the US - for a person with a significant disability to get a visa other than a tourist visa.

I can't say I'm surprised that it has been extended to other catagories of people who have experienced discrimination.

Perhaps I'm just a little cynical on the whole thing.
[info]maradydd wrote:
Mar. 3rd, 2009 10:39 pm (UTC)
Huh. I guess we're spoiled here; in .be the conditions they're most concerned about (if the info on the form that your doctor has to fill out in order for you to get a medical certification) are syphilis and hepatitis. Nothing on the form about long-term disabilities at all.

Note, also, that the HIV thing for the US is specifically for tourist visas.
[info]barbarienne wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 05:01 am (UTC)
And yet they permit thousands and thousands of US citizens to return home after they have been overseas to countries well known for their unregulated sex industries.
[info]enochsmiles wrote:
Mar. 2nd, 2009 07:40 pm (UTC)
Well, yes. "They" have to.
[info]bigby wrote:
Mar. 5th, 2009 03:25 am (UTC)
They wouldn't want to loose their favorite vacations spots would they??
[info]hkneale wrote:
Mar. 3rd, 2009 11:20 am (UTC)
Oh, that is nucking futs!
( 31 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2009
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow