HELP! Can we go to Florida with a former convict??!!

Baz-Bee

smam21 wrote:

oh my goodness, I was there!
Ok, I can't be sure what department he spoke to or got put through to, but I assure you that is how it happened, which just demonstrates how strongly the american government feels on this issue! I'm afraid you will have to take my word for it.

I have no reason to make this up. I posted as this topic has actually affected a family holiday. Please remeber there is an incredible wealth of information on people nowadays, and this conviction also came up on a recent crb clearance the individual was required to do. Please bear in mind the ammount of info the individual had to give over the phone was not just his name, obviously.

The family member did not just go through the motions and apply for a visa but caleld the relevant agencies to see what would be the case. Obviously if he had he may have been lucky and got through the system fine as I' m sure lots of people are. But at the time, we had heard this report that people will criminal rcords had to apply for a visa so were very very worried.

I do not want to cast doubt upon what your relative's motives were, but did you actually hear what was said on the other end of the phone line, or indeed who the relative was actually speaking to? Most unusual if you did.

The US Authorities DO NOT have routine access to the UK Criminal Records. And even if they did they would not discuss the contents of such records over the telephone with person or persons unknown. You would be requested to submit for an interview. And, if they do have access to such detailed records why do you think so many people cannot obtian details of their own convictions themselves? And, if the US Embassy/Authorities have access to all of the UK information why do they require you to bring a MOC with you when you attend for interview?

The bottom line is that the US do not have access to the UK records except for specific items as I posted earlier. Indeed, the UK Government would be in breach of their own legislation if they made all records available. I suspect that, for whatever reason, your relative had an ulterior motive as to why they did not wish to travel?

Furthermore, the US will normally grant Visas to anyone who has previously had a conviction if they consider they pose no further threat. That would be decided at the interview and not during a phone call. So, either your relative is still considered by the US to be an active criminal who poses a threat to their society, or as I suggested above has more sinister motives for not wanting to travel. You must know whether they are still an active criminal who poses a threat or is it something else?

I am sorry, but your explanation just does not add up to scrutiny!

TimC

Cardew wrote:

Baz-Bee,
Bravo, I agree 100% with what you say, and it should to be stated again and again. Too many people get misleading advice and go to a lot of unnecessary trouble and expence obtaining a Visa that is not needed.

This subject usually generates a response; see the other current thread on this subject. More usually it is the opinion(totally unsuported by any regulation)that any traffic offence that goes to court means you need a visa.

It also often seems to produce unhelpful, and in my opinion incorrect, statements such as alanrowell’s

“To the US government he has served a jail term, therefore he is a criminal.
Visa definitely needed”

e.g. a personal interpretation of the regulations stated in an authoritative manner.
Or perhaps alanrowell can produce a regulation to support his statement?

As you say the only question you need to answer is that on the I-94W which you quote in full. The other thread gives links that show examples of crimes that involve moral turpitude; and these are serious crimes. Even manslaughter and a fourth conviction for driving under the influence are not crimes involving moral turpitude.

It seems to me the man in question can quite clearly answer ‘No’ to the relevant question on the I-94W.

Personally I do not recommend that anyone should lie on the I-94W and in this case he is not lying. However what possible chance is there of the US authorities finding out(even if they wanted to) about a 25 year old case involving non payment of a fine for a civil offence.

Cardew - all of what you say makes sense, however this is your interpretation and opinion of the regulations ~ I fully sympathise with people travelling taking the safe route of obtaining a visa, as being refused entry would most likely wreck very expensive family holidays - something you wouldn't want to risk. The whole thing is very confusing, and seems to be an example of a little, or even a lot of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

The majority of visitors to the US, would read the Visa Waiver form on the aeroplane, and not understanding what constitutes moral turpitude, read on and see the bit about length of sentences and correctly assume it meant serious offences, and happily and honestly answer the question and not have a problem.

However, those who do a bit of research before they travel become thoroughly confused. The US embassy website states that minor traffic offences are not an issue - unless they resulted in an arrest and/or convictions. See here where it states

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 would be to apply for a visa.

These statements are not the regulations, but an interpretation of them, however there is no definition of minor and there is conflicting information, so the web-legal team jump in with opinions, and the embassy give a stock answer of if in doubt apply for a visa. It is not a massive leap from this statement to assume that Fixed Penatly Notices that don't result in an arrest or court conviction are okay for the VWP, but the same offences committed prior to the introduction of the Fixed Penalty Scheme that were dealt with by a court, and resulted in a conviction would require a visa. This puts us where we are - until the US embassy clarify the requirements.

Myself - my original trip to the US was on a UK Government sponsored visa, subsequently I've been 5 times on the VWP - and I have a magistrates imposed speeding conviction that predates all of my travel! I've honestly answered the questions on the VWP form every time, and until recently I've been in blissful ignorance of this potential problem - and I will continue to travel on the VWP - but that is my decision.

The original poster? If there is no conviction, or arrest then both the embassy website interpretation and the wording on the Visa Waiver seem to indicate that a visa is unneccessary - good luck whatever you decide!

Uncle_Cuddles

It's just me being paranoid!

My father in law is on jury duty in a couple of weeks!

bj-sailaway

This issue has been pondered to great extent in a previous thread. Anyway, a colleague works on IT security and information access for Government bodies. He laughed at the thought of the Yanks having free reign on our records. The system is based on fear and trust. Your father in laws conviction is at worst a spent one. These types of offences disappear from the national computer system after 10 years. Don't give them all your hard earnt cash, just sign the form and have fun!

Cardew

TimC wrote:

However, those who do a bit of research before they travel become thoroughly confused. QUOTE]

TimC,
I do not think there is a single thing in your Post that I disagree with. The wording in the regulations are a joke; and of course I am only giving my interpretation of the regulations; and I loved the ‘web-legal team’ phrase!

There can surely be no doubt it is not the intent of the USA to require a visa from anyone convicted in a court of a parking offence 40 years ago; or someone who challenges a parking fixed penalty notice and winds up with a conviction in court.

Also the VWP applies to other European countries who still have court convictions for minor traffic offences. If we British cannot interpret the regulations when we(almost) speak the same language, what chance have those with a different Mother tongue.

We really must apply common sense to this issue.

My objection is to those who seem to delight in any opportunity to interpret regulations to the maximum possible disadvantage(schadenfreude?) and baldly state on web sites that if you were convicted in a court you need a Visa. Or those making statements (as on this forum) like the US Embassy has routine access to 30 year old records of a minor conviction and that automatically stops a visa being issued.

TimC

Cardew wrote:

I do not think there is a single thing in your Post that I disagree with. The wording in the regulations are a joke; and of course I am only giving my interpretation of the regulations; and I loved the ‘web-legal team’ phrase!

Cheers - we're in violent agreement!

Cardew wrote:

My objection is to those who seem to delight in any opportunity to interpret regulations to the maximum possible disadvantage(schadenfreude?) and baldly state on web sites that if you were convicted in a court you need a Visa. Or those making statements (as on this forum) like the US Embassy has routine access to 30 year old records of a minor conviction and that automatically stops a visa being issued.

Absolutely ~ 'tis typical scaremongering and power tripping through the old 'proof by blatant assertion' technique.

alanrowell

The point is that we do not know the quality of the information the US has - mainly because there's no guarantee that the information even reached UK computer systems.

There is a way by which you can find out what is known about you which is included in the link to the US Embassy.

You might consider it schadenfreude but the US regulations do make it clear that UNDER US LAW you have to get a visa to visit the US if you have ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude.

Any ambiguity is because US & UK law don't map neatly onto each other, so the US Embassy has to adopt the Worst Case Scenario approach otherwise it would be failing in it's duty, thus their statement that you have to get a visa even if you have been arrested and not cautioned or convicted is because they can't guarantee that that arrest will nor show up as a crime of moral turpitude on US systems.

Would you prefer people to go to the US and then get deported because their little mistake 30 years WAS recorded

nelly_2

you havent time for a visa now anyway it takes 12 weeks.

I had a drink driving offence and found out about this visa thing a week before i went so i just ticked no, i must admit i was flapping but there were no problems, i have since been back also with no problems.

Cardew

alanrowell wrote:

The point is that we do not know the quality of the information the US has - mainly because there's no guarantee that the information even reached UK computer systems.

There is a way by which you can find out what is known about you which is included in the link to the US Embassy.

You might consider it schadenfreude but the US regulations do make it clear that UNDER US LAW you have to get a visa to visit the US if you have ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude.

Any ambiguity is because US & UK law don't map neatly onto each other, so the US Embassy has to adopt the Worst Case Scenario approach otherwise it would be failing in it's duty, thus their statement that you have to get a visa even if you have been arrested and not cautioned or convicted is because they can't guarantee that that arrest will nor show up as a crime of moral turpitude on US systems.

Would you prefer people to go to the US and then get deported because their little mistake 30 years WAS recorded

Alanrowell,
What a strange post! It strikes me as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

Of course you need a visa if you have ever been arrested; regardless of any action taken afterwards. Ditto if you have ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. Notwithstanding the poor wording in the various regulations and I-94W, I suggest that there is absolutely no ambiguity on those points.

Perhaps you can point to anything in this thread by myself(or others) that inferred otherwise.

As you are well aware, I was talking about definitive statements of which yours earlier in the thread was a good example. Despite it being explained that it was a Civil offence and there was no arrest or conviction you came out with this:

“To the US government he has served a jail term, therefore he is a criminal. Visa definitely needed”

Note: “definitely” not ‘in my opinion’ Do you still stand by that? if so on what grounds?

Your last sentence perfectly illustrates your approach.
Perhaps you can show where I advocated covering up a 30 year old “mistake”? Indeed if you look at my initial post I said “Personally I do not recommend that anyone should lie on the I-94W and in this case he is not lying.”

Backbiter

There is a clear discrepancy between the US embassy guidance about being 'arrested' regardless of whether any charges let alone convictions ensued; and the question on the green immigration form asking about 'convictions' for crimes of 'moral turpitude', whatever that is.

Over 20 years ago a college friend of mine who'd just graduated with a law degree and was about to embark on a career as a solicitor was arrested and taken into custody simply because he was staying in the same guest house as someone who'd got drunk and fallen over in public (the officers just saw the opportunity to put the frighteners on a group of students). He didn't drink himself, had done nothing wrong, wasn't suspected of anything other than associating with a drunk student, and practically had a breakdown as he saw his legal career seemingly go down the tubes. He hadn't committed any crime of moral turpitude nor was he ever charged or convicted.

Does he now need to get a visa to enter the USA?