View Single Post
  #68   Report Post  
Old May 24th 08, 08:17 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london,misc.transport.urban-transit
Roland Perry Roland Perry is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,125
Default TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail

In message , at 20:13:51 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.


One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".


It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?


Immigration rules are a bit like that. Underlying them is the concept of
protecting jobs, so a sales presentation for a foreign company is more
likely to be acceptable than going over to give a sales presentation for
a local company.

Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory).


Yes I have (had) one of those.

Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but very
tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of visiting
the US (between once and seven times a year, always on business), the
immigration staff actually got friendlier after the introduction of
fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually spend less time with the
US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.


Maybe that's because they believe they already have enough information
about you, whereas previously people arriving were virtually a clean
slate.
--
Roland Perry