"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 09:26:06 on Sat, 24 May
2008, Goalie of the Century remarked:

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months
ago, for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa
appointment in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to
fly to Belfast and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half
ago, you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no
more than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

AND

[snip lots of unusual things for someone living in UK]

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.

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.

In message , at 11:20:22 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".
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 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?

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

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 20:13:51 on


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.

Yes, I'm sure that must be the explanation. Once the real-time finger
print scan has cleared, they stop bothering to ask me any more
questions. Presumably the computer tells them that I'm a fairly regular
(but not too frequent) visitor who doesn't overstay or commit any
crimes, so they just smile and welcome me. Before finger print system, I
had to answer at least a couple of questions.

Of course, South Africa is now even more relaxed -- no visa required, no
forms to fill in, no questions asked, no finger prints or pics. As a
British citizen, it's now quicker to clear arrivals in Jo'burg than in
London.

Recliner wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:

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?

As long as you are not getting paid specifically in the US for attending
the conference or delivering said speech, I believe you do not need a
visa. Those are pretty much reciprocal arrangements between US and the
Visa Waiver countries, and the same rules apply in the reverse
direction, except oddly for going to Belgium, where technically if a US
citizen goes for a business meeting and stays more that 7 days they are
supposed to get a visa. But AFAIK that rule is mostly ignored. and has
probably been rescinded by Belgium since when I became aware of it a
year or two ago.

Recliner wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 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?

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


I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message

Recliner wrote:

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


I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

I also had 'unlimited' visas in the old days, but it turns out they
weren't. My 10-year UK passport was extended (because of a strike in
the UK passport office), but when I next went to the US, the immigration
officer cancelled my visa as it was over ten years old. Apparently
'unlimited' visas actually lasted ten years. I don't know if they still
do that.

On May 25, 11:49 am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message



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

I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

I also had 'unlimited' visas in the old days, but it turns out they
weren't. My 10-year UK passport was extended (because of a strike in
the UK passport office), but when I next went to the US, the immigration
officer cancelled my visa as it was over ten years old. Apparently
'unlimited' visas actually lasted ten years. I don't know if they still
do that.

That's interesting - I thought the deal used to be that if you had a
new passport you could also bring the old one with the unlimited visa
and it'd be accepted.
Tim

In message
, at
04:01:41 on Sun, 25 May 2008, TimB remarked:
I thought the deal used to be that if you had a
new passport you could also bring the old one with the unlimited visa
and it'd be accepted.

You are correct. The other story wasn't quite right.
--
Roland Perry