American Vias

Marty_J

FH_Brit wrote: »

You are mistaken, ALL embassies in UK are considered foreign soil.

I've already provided one link that shows that the US doesn't consider its embassies as being US soil.

Did you know that the US Embassy in Morocco is the "only building on foreign soil that is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places"?

Interesting fact that.

You'd think they'd know it was actually US soil, but apparently not. You should write and tell them. I'm sure they'd appreciate it. They might even give you a medal.

That is why DPG (Diplomatic Protection Group [Met police]) officers are always OUTSIDE (on UK soil) an Embassy (or Ambassadors residence) as the country concerned have their own protection/security services inside. That is why inside the US Embassy the "guards and security" are allowed to carry weapons (not loaded but ammo nearby in "relax" security state & "loaded & ready" in heightened states).

When I was there a few weeks ago, there was an English police officer standing against the wall of the building, past security, well inside the grounds. He had a very big gun.

You dont get your passport stamped when you go to France/Spain etc etc - don't mean it aint foreign!

The US is part of the EU now?

AND above all - it's a reciprical arrangement under the Vienna Convention therefore UK embassies around the world are on "UK Soil"!

Ah, that's the convention that states in Article 21.1 that the host county has to "facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way." [emphasis mine]

Something of a paradox, no? How can the host country find premises on its territory if said premises are magically not its territory? Once they've found someplace, do they have to start looking all over again?

And there's Article 23.1 which states "the sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased" [emphasis mine]

Countries can lease their own territory now? Whom do they lease it from, themselves? Surely whomever they lease it from owns it?

And who could forget Article 27.1, where we learn that an embassy needs the permission of the host state in order to use a wireless transmitter? Odd that countries have to get permission to do things on their own soil now.

Or there's the classic Article 41.3 where we're told that the "premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention".

Seems a funny thing to say if its the sending country's soil. Surely that can do whatever they like on it?

Of course, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Article 1(i) states that "the "premises of the mission" are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission." [emphasis mine]

Now, where in this convention does this "reciprical arrangement" [sic] appear?

It's a rather elusive beast, isn't it?

Marty_J

FH_Brit wrote: »

It is true however, if you are all on the same booking and/or from the same family and/or staying at the same accomodation.

There's nothing in US law that says if you're on the same booking as, related to, or staying with, someone who is found inadmissible, then you're inadmissible too.

You might however, find yourself coming under extra scrutiny.

and Visa/VWP or whatever - The Homeland Security Dept. (Formerly INS) can refuse entry to ANYONE - NO VISITOR has a right of entry = END OF STORY!

The Department of Homeland Security was not "formerly the INS", but I'm probably splitting hairs again.

It's worth pointing out though that if you have a visa, you're entitled to appear before a court to contest your removal, whereas if you enter under the VWP, you waive your right to do so.

Christa1

Does anyone know how long it takes to get a visa should one be needed?

omelette451

Christa1 wrote: »

Does anyone know how long it takes to get a visa should one be needed?

Once you've had the interview at the consulate it's usually all sorted within two to three days, plus another day in the postal system. The lengthy part is the wait for an interview slot: currently London is working to a timescale of 38 (calendar) days for visit visas, 3 days for student visas and 40 days for everyone else, so unless you're a student or can jump the queue by booking a slot that someone else has cancelled (which happens fairly often but you have to keep ringing a premium rate phoneline to find out what's available) you're looking at anything up to six or seven weeks in all. Belfast usually has shorter queues than London, though apparently not at the moment.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wait/tempvisitors_wait.php

PolishBigSpender

FH_Brit wrote: »

You are mistaken, ALL embassies in UK are considered foreign soil. That is why DPG (Diplomatic Protection Group [Met police]) officers are always OUTSIDE (on UK soil) an Embassy (or Ambassadors residence) as the country concerned have their own protection/security services inside. That is why inside the US Embassy the "guards and security" are allowed to carry weapons (not loaded but ammo nearby in "relax" security state & "loaded & ready" in heightened states).

Actually, the principle is that while UK officers don't serve inside the embassies, they would be formally invited in by the Ambassador in the event of need. It's a legal fiction and it works - and for that reason, you're wrong.

Vienna established that the host country may not enter the embassy without permission. If doesn't make the embassy United States soil - it merely means that diplomatic proceedures have to be followed. If you'd actually read the Vienna Convention, you'd understand this.