US Passport Rules - Again

In message <hnnuqvkuelk4irsardein8igptjcj205ak@>, AJC
<ajc@wxs.nl> writes
>>Hmm, cultural issues arise once again. The average Brit associates the
>>taking of fingerprints with being suspected of a crime.
>
>Well this was covered recently on .air where we learned that
>Americans are quite used to having to have their finger prints taken,
>for example by their version of the DVLC.

On one hand, yes, they do take fingerprints for driving licences; but on
the other hand it doesn't get put on the licence itself, and the
agencies in question are quite separate and run by the individual states
and not by a centralised Federal organisation, so the use to which the
prints can be put is very limited.
--
Roland Perry

In message <1ee5rvktssh5mc7k3ckg84c4qg543bf9c1@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>Brits are cleverer than Americans, so don't need silly bits of paper
>to decide whether to let someone in or not...

Are Brits unique in employing people in business suits (rather than
paramilitary uniform) to man their immigration desks?
--
Roland Perry

In message <m9e5rvslvr8j0jvp3onmskqbispfjgntqt@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>As it happens, since people with diplomatic passports are not eligible
>for the visa waiver program anyway (for the excellent reason that they
>don't need visas as we know them), it doesn't matter whether or not
>Bush's daughters (there are two of them) have been naughty with regard
>to drinking regs...

Ah, so President's kids are Diplomats?
--
Roland Perry

In message <o2l5rvs8i63svf7mipm4bc8vp7cfda0dbn@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>Note that a whole bunch of people with the surname
>"Mountbatten-Windsor" are not "diplomats"...

That's a bit unkind to Phil the Greek....
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:12:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <1ee5rvktssh5mc7k3ckg84c4qg543bf9c1@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>Brits are cleverer than Americans, so don't need silly bits of paper
>>to decide whether to let someone in or not...
>
>Are Brits unique in employing people in business suits (rather than
>paramilitary uniform) to man their immigration desks?

In my experience, yes. That thought has occured to me before. This
raises a couple of questions, such as why wear a uniform, and why not
wear a uniform. I don't really have a strong view either way, though
maybe if I'm going to be refused entry I would prefer it to be by
someone wearing the uniform of the organization he or she represents,
rather than a cheap suit. I can't remember now, do HM customs officers
wear uniforms?
--==++AJC++==--

"AJC" <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:gji6rv4adlngh26ipo15quev1q65q5ghuj@...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:12:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <1ee5rvktssh5mc7k3ckg84c4qg543bf9c1@>, Malcolm Weir
> ><malc@gelt.org> writes
> >>Brits are cleverer than Americans, so don't need silly bits of paper
> >>to decide whether to let someone in or not...
> >
> >Are Brits unique in employing people in business suits (rather than
> >paramilitary uniform) to man their immigration desks?
>
>
> In my experience, yes. That thought has occured to me before. This
> raises a couple of questions, such as why wear a uniform, and why not
> wear a uniform. I don't really have a strong view either way, though
> maybe if I'm going to be refused entry I would prefer it to be by
> someone wearing the uniform of the organization he or she represents,
> rather than a cheap suit. I can't remember now, do HM customs officers
> wear uniforms?

Yes, they do.

I guess the difference is that the Immigration officers are behind a desk
and can be identified by their physical position, wheras the customs
officers couldnt be identified easilly as they are often standing chatting
in a group at the entrance to the customs hall, in a public position.

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jNJJ83rw6rs$EAg7@perry.co.uk...
> In message <m9e5rvslvr8j0jvp3onmskqbispfjgntqt@>, Malcolm Weir
> <malc@gelt.org> writes
> >As it happens, since people with diplomatic passports are not eligible
> >for the visa waiver program anyway (for the excellent reason that they
> >don't need visas as we know them), it doesn't matter whether or not
> >Bush's daughters (there are two of them) have been naughty with regard
> >to drinking regs...
>
> Ah, so President's kids are Diplomats?

You'd be amazed how easy it is to get an American Diplomatic passport :-)

But my understanding is that you are only supposed to use it when travelling
on official business, when on a personal visit the holder should use their
standard passport.

But the I95W form doesn't actually ask about previous convictions - so what
is this fuss about anyway ?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:23:13 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
<missltoemissltoe@m> wrote:

>
>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jNJJ83rw6rs$EAg7@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <m9e5rvslvr8j0jvp3onmskqbispfjgntqt@>, Malcolm Weir
>> <malc@gelt.org> writes
>> >As it happens, since people with diplomatic passports are not eligible
>> >for the visa waiver program anyway (for the excellent reason that they
>> >don't need visas as we know them), it doesn't matter whether or not
>> >Bush's daughters (there are two of them) have been naughty with regard
>> >to drinking regs...
>>
>> Ah, so President's kids are Diplomats?
>
>You'd be amazed how easy it is to get an American Diplomatic passport :-)
>
>But my understanding is that you are only supposed to use it when travelling
>on official business, when on a personal visit the holder should use their
>standard passport.
>

'Should' being the important word. There was a row here in NL
involving the wife of the former president of the European Bank. She
had a diplomatic passport only to be used when accompanying her
husband on official business. On behalf of some other organization she
visited Palestinian territory, and misused her diplomatic passport to
smooth her way through Israel, much to the annoyance of the Dutch
government.


>But the I95W form doesn't actually ask about previous convictions - so what
>is this fuss about anyway ?
>

But doesn't one of the forms you have to fill in on the plane require
you to declare any previous convictions?
--==++AJC++==--

In message <gji6rv4adlngh26ipo15quev1q65q5ghuj@>, AJC
<ajc@wxs.nl> writes
>I can't remember now, do HM customs officers wear uniforms?

I can't remember either. I've come to the conclusion that this must be
because some do (a fairly plain one) and some don't.
--
Roland Perry

In message <bovimp$1i3i4u$1@ID-201440.news.uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
<missltoemissltoe@m> writes
>But the I95W form doesn't actually ask about previous convictions - so what
>is this fuss about anyway ?

That's to fool you. You aren't allowed to use the form *at all* if you
have previous convictions. So it's moot (and called I94W, btw).
--
Roland Perry