Comment by paulsutter
10 years ago
This is a great article on how /not/ to talk to immigration officials, anywhere. I don't defend any heavy-handed attitude of the officers. It's just useful to understand the purpose behind the process.
> the young immigrations officer at LHR was very inquisitive about this old friend I was going to meet while I was in London for a conference: Who was he? Where did he live? What was our relationship? My awkward answers and copious fear sweating must have been unsatisfactory,...
The officer is trying to determine whether she is coming for a brief visit, or secretly planning to stay for a long time. That's their primary purpose in life. Expect these questions, and give the answers matter-of-factly.
> I just wanted to tell him what he wanted. But somehow that wasn’t enough. He tried to play games to prove something, but I didn’t seem to play along the way he hoped
It's an interrogation. Which is exactly like a game. It's their job. The secret trick is to tell the truth.
> I told him point blank: there is nothing I can tell you to make you happy. I have to be very careful what information I volunteer, because if I talk too much, you get angry. And now if I don’t talk enough, you get angry.
Translation, "I have something to hide and I just want to manipulate you". He doesn't want to hear what makes him happy, he wants to hear the facts. After this they really had no choice but to send her back, even if they were leaning the other way.
And yet, when you place someone in a position where they are tired and nervous, this is the sort of behavior you get. Whether or not they are innocent.
It's almost better to take as a cautionary tale about acknowledging your limits. Maybe asking for some rest and legal counsel could have helped. Maybe that would have angered them more.
And maybe her responses were very poorly considered and antagonistic. That, combined with the accidental violation of visa rules, seems like grounds for a brief delay and a fine. It doesn't seem like a good reason for a detention of many hours and deportation.
Yes - it's a great reminder to request legal representation. And it's true, nobody is their best when exhausted.
But violation of visa rules on entry results in being refused entry, anywhere you go.
I'm not saying that's good or right, I'm just saying that's how it works. You're asking permission to enter the country, and their job is to confirm that you're entering legally.
> He doesn't want to hear what makes him happy, he wants to hear the facts.
This is almost certainly not true (or he probably couldn't let anyone through according to protocol). They often just want to hear the right words spoken at the right times. See the top comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877590) as a blatant (but positive) example of this.
Aw, thanks bro, we're living in 1984 here but don't mind us! We're busy trying to decide whether the burgeoning police state will continue to get worse within the EU or whether we'd be better off to have a cheeky Brexit and risk the Tories going full nazi meltdown later. 'May you live in interesting times' indeed. Did you miss the bit about banging her up, infringing her rights, stealing her phone, raising his voice tut-tut, generally threatening and abusing her? All still illegal in the UK, well until DC says otherwise with a bit of late night emergency secret selectively applied retrospective legislation. And the secret trick? What do you think she was telling them? How about 'No comment'. You won't find this on uk.gov probably, you won't find anything of much utility, being a propaganda site, how certain people would like the law to be rather than how it really is, for now.
'Sorry ma'am you cannot have that visa, you'll have to get temporary visitor visa instead - please note you can't work, enjoy your HOLIDAY'. A civilised country wouldn't even need to interview her. They're not fit to control anything bigger than a cloakroom.
Immigration bureaucrats are just doing a job. It's up to us to change the parameters of their job. So far they're expanding into the actual country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU
Horseshit. As a Romanian my parents witnessed the absolute scumness of people taking pleasure in hurting others (we killed thousands of our own in communist prisons). If you don't realise that what she witnessed is in the same registry of a disgusting human trait, and not something to be defended, you're not only living in Fantasy Land, but also spreading dangerous bullshit.
Can you point out what has wrong with his assessment?
He plainly states that he is not defending anything. And is offering useful advice. Remember it the next time you need to cross a border.
I'll bite. The GP post is condescending and useless in my world. Yes, I can recline in my armchair and come up with certain parts in the (honest?) recapitulation of this crazy trip. That's not helpful and not useful.
I'm going to assume that the person in this article, after seemingly traveling around the world for conferences as part of her regular activities, has some basic understanding of what you should do at a border.
So here's what I see when I read the GP:
- Hah, bad luck. But it's on you.
- I wouldn't end up in this situation, because I know how the system works
- "The secret trick is to tell the truth." (Except that part of the interview goes wrong when she honestly cannot remember if she got paid 2 years ago and admits as much)
Getting back: What is wrong with that assessment? Basically everything, but mostly the tone and the attitude.
5 replies →