Customs & literary oversight

Post #151,929 by rcareaga 4/20/04 12:47:03 PM Reply	Customs & literary oversight - followup Read it and beep: British writer Ian McEwan was "erroneously" prevented from entering the United States on March 30 at the Vancouver, B.C., international airport and has received an "extremely rare" letter of apology from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. William S. Heffelfinger III, deputy assistant commissioner for the office of field operations, wrote to McEwan in a letter dated April 12: "Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience and delay the refusal process caused you. Be assured that this erroneous refusal will not impact your future applications to the United States." Furthermore (with emphasis added) McEwan had been refused admittance to the United States largely as a result of the size of the speaking fees he was to receive during his visit. Visitors are allowed to receive honoraria for appearances before academic groups in the United States, but immigration officials at the Vancouver airport ruled that the size of McEwan's speaking fees ($5,000 in Seattle alone) were too large to be considered "honoraria." Subsequent research at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Field Operations revealed that, as attorney Renison had insisted, no current regulations stipulate the size limit of an allowable honoraria. As Heffelfinger wrote to McEwan in his apology letter, "You should have been found admissible." [link\|http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/books/169725_mcewan20.html\|http://seattlepi.nws...725_mcewan20.html] For my part, I just want to add nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #151,931 by drewk 4/20/04 12:58:02 PM Reply	Question Can I bring an Indian programmer over for several months, and provide an honoraria in exchange for his writing some software for me? Would he qualify for the same visa as McEwan or would he need an H1B? Keep in mind that software vendors cite copyright in the course of protecting their works, so programmers are in fact authors. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,932 by rcareaga 4/20/04 1:10:14 PM Reply	Take it up with the lovely and personable Danielle Sheahan, spokeswoman for the office of field operations in Washington, D.C., ... the one who researched the McEwan matter. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #151,933 by Silverlock 4/20/04 1:14:14 PM Reply	Nope. Not unless you wanted to give him a honoraria for speaking about his work. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,934 by Yendor 4/20/04 1:23:32 PM Reply	So I could then... ...Have this guy work for me for 6 months for free. Have him give a verbal presentation to the other programmers in the group, and pay him $50,000 for that presentation as an honoraria? -YendorMike [link\|http://www.hope-ride.org/\|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
Post #151,937 by drewk 4/20/04 1:35:56 PM Reply	You're getting it Maybe even have regular presentations. No sir, they're not status meetings, they're verbal presentations. And if some lowly customs worker thinks that this was not the intent of the law and challenges our interpretation ... why we'll just mock that poor uneducated sod for not recognizing that loopholes exist to be exploited. Anyone smart enough to see that the law is somewhat vague deserves our respect and admiration for figuring out how to exploit those weaknesses. And our heartfelt apoligies for forcing him to explain himself. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,944 by Silverlock 4/20/04 2:31:48 PM Reply	You could try I don't think the IRS would let you though. You seem to be straining mightily to twist this into something it's not. Pray continue, I can always use the amusement. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,948 by drewk 4/20/04 2:50:06 PM Reply	I don't think so You seem to be straining mightily to twist this into something it's not. An author was stopped for coming into the country on a tourist visa when he was actually coming for business purposes. Turned out he was exploiting a loophole in the law, in that the size of an "honoraria" was not defined. By the same logic, anyone who makes a living as a writer can come here to work as long as his salary is classified as "honoraria". And since software is protected by copyright, it seems programmers can be called authors. No, I don't in any way advocate trying this. Just pointing out the confluence of two loopholes.[1] [1] Don't like the term "loopholes"? How about "interpretaions of the law"? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,956 by Silverlock 4/20/04 3:36:42 PM Reply	I don't agree. I followed the arguments about this when Rand first brought it up. I thought it was silly then. I think it's silly now. Trying to compare the programmer with the author is stretching it mightily. If the author had come here to write while under contract and was paid to do that writing, you might be able to compare them. But even that is silly. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,977 by altmann 4/20/04 4:51:04 PM Reply	Missing something "Visitors are allowed to receive honoraria for appearances before academic groups in the United States..." And from Another Scott's post: "Participating in conventions, conferences or convocation of fraternal or social organizations; i.e.: Not businesses. -- Chris Altmann
Post #151,945 by pwhysall 4/20/04 2:33:33 PM Reply	Nononono. He'll follow you around for six months looking at everything you do, then you get fired. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,960 by drewk 4/20/04 4:00:49 PM Reply	Just realized something While writing a followup to silverlock I remembered something. When you first posted this and several people pointed out that the author was in fact traveling on a tourist visa, your response was basically, "Oh, that's not what I was talking about. I was mocking the customs agent for asking if his novels were fiction or non-fiction." If your point was that the customs agent didn't know what "novel" meant, how are you in any way vindicated that the customs department has decided his visa was valid? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,992 by rcareaga 4/20/04 6:15:48 PM Reply	Why quote when you can paraphrase to your advantage? Beats me. It suits drewk's purpose to represent me as saying "Oh, that's not what I was talking about. I was mocking the customs agent for asking if his novels were fiction or non-fiction." What I actually posted in this connection was while many, many customs folk over the years have impressed me with their professionalism (which is seldom encouraged, usually ignored and occasionally punished by their masters) there's also a certain hard core of ignorant, officious, narrow sensibilities who revel in the inflexible exercise of the powers their offices bestow upon them—the worst sort of small-town cop mindset—and it was this side that was delectably on display when the question of whether McEwan was in the habit of writing fiction or nonfiction novels was posed. Incidentally, it was almost certainly a customs inspector, and not an agent who interrogated McEwan: the two are very different animals, and it's a tossup which class of employees is the more affronted (they're both exasperated) by being confused one for the other. For the rest, it is not a matter of my "vindication." Without having met the individual inspectors but with damn near thirty years' experience of the class behind me, I repeat that the aforementioned small-town cop mindset was well-limned in this vignette. But if you feel that our brave sentinels are insufficiently thuggish, I wish you the joy of the type on your next inbound passage. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #152,074 by drewk 4/21/04 11:12:25 AM Reply	Okay, then, I'll quote [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150302\|Post #150302] Although Truman Capote attempted to get the notion of the "nonfiction novel" accepted a generation ago, it never really caught on, and so for the inspector to put it the way he did would be akin to...oh, I don't know, perhaps to asking McEwan whether his laptop computer used integrated circuits or vacuum tubes. Particularly in view of my long professional association with this crew, it struck me as delightfully droll and all too characteristic of a certain subset of the class. [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150418\|Post #150418] The boxter had no difficulty in identifying the intent of my original post and followups: stated clearly that he knows the custom types upclose and personal and got a giggle over the Sgt Friday types dealing with an artist. I don't fault the inspectors, or any average citizen, for not knowing McEwan from McKuen\ufffdfor my own part I know the former largely from book reviews, having read just one of his novels\ufffdwhereas I do find their apparent lack of awareness that "novel" is a more specific term than "book" richly comic, and thought to share it with my droogies here. It's hard not to read into that the inference that denying entry was somehow related to not knowing that novels are fiction. That makes him one of the "hard core of ignorant, officious, narrow sensibilities who revel in the inflexible exercise of the powers their offices bestow upon them -- the worst sort of small-town cop mindset". But it turns out entry was denied because the inspector/agent believed that the honoraria qualified as salary, and McEwan should have had a work visa. And that is an issue I belive lawyers (and certain HR drones) would love to debate. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,962 by Another Scott 4/20/04 4:08:59 PM Reply	The Visa Waiver Program sounds screwy. [link\|http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html#7\|Visa Waiver Program FAQ]. What Do I Need to Enter the United States under the VWP? To enter the U.S. under the VWP, travelers from participating countries must: Be a citizen of a Visa Waiver Program country; Have a valid passport issued by the participating countrythat is valid for six months beyond your intended visit; Have a machine-readable passport (MRP), following the required due dates for MRPs explained above; Be seeking entry for 90 days or less, as a temporary visitor for business or pleasure. You will not be permitted to extend your visit or change to another visa category under the VWP. Visitors for Business - Here are types of activities permitted as a business visitor: - Participating in commercial business transactions which do not involve gainful employment in the U.S, for example, negotiating contracts or consulting with business associates You cannot receive a salary or wages from a U.S. source. - Participating in scientific, educational, professional or business conventions, conferences or seminars; - Conducting independent research; - Appearing as a witness in a court trial. Visitors for Pleasure - While this is not a complete listing, here are types of activities permitted: - Visiting friends and relatives, touring or vacationing, visits for rest; - Visits for medical treatment. - Participating in conventions, conferences or convocation of fraternal or social organizations; - Amateurs participating in sports, musical, and other events or contests, who will receive no money or other remuneration in return; If entering by air or sea, have a round-trip transportation ticket issued on a carrier that has signed an agreement with the U.S. government to participate in the VWP, and arrive in the United States aboard such a carrier. Hold a completed and signed Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94W, on which he/she has waived the right of review or appeal of an immigration officer\ufffds determination about admissibility, or deportation. These forms are available from participating carriers, from travel agents, and at land-border ports-of-entry. You must have no visa ineligibilities. This means if you have been refused a visa before, have a criminal record or are ineligible for a visa you cannot travel on the Visa Waiver Program without a visa. You must apply for a visa to the U.S. Entry at a land border crossing point from Canada or Mexico is permitted under the Visa Waiver Program. It seems to me, from my reading of this but IANAL, that he should have been admitted. But since he (likely?) signed the I-94W, he signed away his appeal rights. He was lucky that he had enough friends to get the decision reversed. Most people wouldn't be so lucky. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!