Do I need a visa to get into the USA if I have speeding convictions

cubegame

scottishperson2 wrote: »

Maybe you should stop posting infactual information on websites that will end up costing people a lot of worry and a lot on money. I also know I am right.

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities? "

Now point out in that where it states an arrest means you cannot use the VWP.

The two links I posted were US government websites which suggested this is the case.

You are confusing an application for an ESTA with VWP as I pointed out initially.

Regardless of whether you are right or not, if I was reading this discussion as a third party I would probably take the advice of a US government website (infactual or not) over the opinion of an anonymous internet poster.

And to clarify for the OP:-

Original_US_Government_Source_and_not_a_random_internet_opinion wrote:

Travelers with arrests/conviction(s)

Under United States visa law people who have been arrested at anytime are not eligible to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program(VWP); they are required to apply for visas before traveling. If the arrest resulted in a conviction, the individual may require a special restricted visa in order to travel. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to United States visa law. Therefore, even travelers with a spent conviction are not eligible to travel visa free; they must apply for B-1 or B-2 visas. If they attempt to travel under the VWP, they may be refused entry into the United States.
Traffic offenses

Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified. If you are not sure whether or not you are eligible to travel visa free, the only way to resolve this question is to apply for a visa.

scottishperson2

cubegame wrote: »

You are confusing an application for an ESTA with VWP as I pointed out initially.

Regardless of whether you are right or not, if I was reading this discussion as a third party I would probably take the advice of a US government website (infactual or not) over the opinion of an anonymous internet poster.

No, I'm not. I even pointed out to you the FAM manual which verifies that I am correct.

I would actual take note of the question you are being asked on ESTA, which you seem to be confused with and are avoidiing answering.

Please stop posting infactual comments on websites on topics you know nothing about.

scottishperson2

Heres the question once more for you, as you seem to be blind to it

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities? "

Now point out in that question where you would have to declare a single non-CIMT arrest, or even multiple arrests where confinement was less than 5 years.

THAT IS THE QUESTION BEING ASKED HERE AND IS BASED ON THE FAM MANUAL. Read FAM or at least try to answer that question.

cubegame

I started my participation in this thread by discounting the ESTA as a qualifier for eligablity for the Visa Waiver Program.

You haven't offered any reason why the ESTA qualifies successful applicants as eligible.

I will quite happily acknowledge the ESTA only asks about crimes of moral turpitude.

However, an immigration officer who meets you at your port of entry is entitled to ask questions over and above those asked on the ESTA. One question you might be asked is "Have you been arrested?". Answering yes to this question will not lead to a debate about whether the crime is moral turpitude or not. It will lead to refusal to enter the USA under the VWP.

Again. ESTA is not the VWP.

End of.

scottishperson2

cubegame wrote: »

I started my participation in this thread by discounting the ESTA as a qualifier for eligablity for the Visa Waiver Program.

You haven't offered any reason why the ESTA qualifies successful applicants as eligible.

I will quite happily acknowledge the ESTA only asks about crimes of moral turpitude.

However, an immigration officer who meets you at your port of entry is entitled to ask questions over and above those asked on the ESTA. One question you might be asked is "Have you been arrested?". Answering yes to this question will not lead to a debate about whether the crime is moral turpitude or not. It will lead to refusal to enter the USA under the VWP.

Again. ESTA is not the VWP.

End of.

Sorry, that is just absolute Bull**** and is so wrong as to be laughable.

I have NEVER read such garbage in my life.

Do you even know what FAM is, or what the criteria is for visa free travel to the US.

Looking at what you just wrote there its obvious to me, as well as everyone who knows even a little about this subject, that you are wrong.

cubegame wrote: »

I will quite happily acknowledge the ESTA only asks about crimes of moral turpitude.

That statement alone shows you don't know what you are talking about, or have never read or understood the questions on ESTA.

Just to remind people

cubegame wrote: »

One question you might be asked is "Have you been arrested?". Answering yes to this question will not lead to a debate about whether the crime is moral turpitude or not. It will lead to refusal to enter the USA under the VWP.

:rotfl:

cubegame

cubegame wrote: »

End of.

:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:

scottishperson2

You have been proven to be wrong, please do NOT post infactual information on topics you obviously know nothing about, especially as this can have adverse effects on others.

For any person reading this, read the information i have provided, and follow the links. Ignore cubegame posts as they are wrong.

scottishperson2

We'll try once more with this, here is the question on ESTA

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities? "

Now point out in that, or even in any US Law, where it states an arrest means you cannot use the VWP.

cubegame

scottishperson2 wrote: »

You have been proven to be wrong, please do NOT post infactual information on topics you obviously know nothing about, especially as this can have adverse effects on others.

For any person reading this, read the information i have provided, and follow the links. Ignore cubegame posts as they are wrong.

Sorry but there was me thinking I was posting facts directly quoted from US Government written sources. I will accept that you are right. You are the grand master of all that is wise on the internet. Again I am sorry. I wish I could do something to recompense you for my ignorance.

Oh wait, I'll tell you a story…..about a lady called Janet and her husband John.

Janet and John have just booked a dream US holiday. After much scrimping and saving and anxious peering into the bottom of their whiskey bottle full of change they scraped together the £6000 that kind Mr. Jones the travel agent wants.

Mr. Jones is talking about Visas. He’s offered to help them sort out the internet form they must fill out. Kind Mr. Jones.

There are a lot of questions and lots of big words but very soon Janet is happy in the knowledge she can go to America.

But wait. John is not sure about one of the questions…….after all, he was arrested at the village horticultural show after that unpleasantness with the Vicar’s wife, the cucumber and the Dundee cake. Janet spares John’s blushes and says they will come back later.

Luckily Janet and John are both silver surfers. The laptop comes out and google is brought out……..John finds a forum where someone says he’ll be ok…..he confidently goes to the clever American website to fill his internet form like Mr. Jones did earlier.

John is poised to click "send" when Janet storms in……she’s been silver surfing on the iPad. She’s found a US Government website (“Look John, it ends with a dot gov”). This website says John has to go to London and see a stern man in a grey suit and a drab office. He has to convince the man that the incident which so marred the Upper Bottingbury village show of 2008 doesn’t mean he will be a danger to Americans who are naïve in the way of inappropriately shaped fruits.

But says John, this man on the internet…..he uses big words……and he says it’s ok and the American government is wrong.

Janet mentions the incident that happened the last time John trusted that nice Guatemalan man on the internet which ended up involving fifteen national police forces, a Nato emissary and a rather embarrassing afternoon at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

John studies his feet intently, mumbles a quiet apology and books a train ticket to London.

TO BE CONTINUED

scottishperson2

cubegame wrote: »

Sorry but there was me thinking I was posting facts directly quoted from US Government written sources.

No, you weren't. Its obvious you know nothing about this subject just by your replies, and there are massive errors in what you say. You are now just making a fool of yourself.

Now, as you obviously don't beleive facts, heres a couple of lawyers who may be able to shed some light on your problem of understanding

http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article13.htm

http://www.fongandchun.com/lawyer-attorney-1422915.html

Ever noticed, by the way, how the question is asked on esta

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities? "

It doesn't say

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities? "

Ever wondered why that is?

You seem to think that the question on esta is less stringent that what CBP ask, whats the point of the question on esta then. You'd realise that if you managed to read FAM, but that requires a bit of work.

An arrest and/or a conviction does NOT automatically make you ineligable to use the VWP, only certain arrests/convictions/multiple arrests do. If you do NOT meet the requirements on the question below (here it is again so you can again not read or understand it) then you can't use the VWP

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities? "

then you need a visa or waiver then visa (I won't over fill your head with what a waiver is, the clues in the name though)