This isn't related to the Patriot Act. It's just enforcement of pre-existing immigration laws. And it has nothing to do with her being a journalist, per se. The point is she was trying to use a tourist visa for business travel. That has always been against the rules. It's just being enforced more strictly now. The immigration people sound like they were a bit nasty, but only after she pulled her "How dare you touch my private things." News bulletin for her: they search you at Heathrow too (although they are nice about it). I was pulled aside gingerly there (you know, with that slightly tense "don't make any sudden moves" manner), and my luggage was completely disassembled. (Turns out my Palm pilot and a roll of quarters intercepted in such a way that it looked like a gun.)
Yes, but unfortunately, if you read the article, it points out that the only countries which have "rules" on journalists requiring visas to come in and do their work are ... well, shall we say "not the most free" (in fact, I think they're in the Axis Of Evil).
Derek: She doesn't know what she's talking about. Here in Japan we require a visa for journalists. I can understand that she is pissed, but perhaps the Guardian should have assigned a person not personally involved to write this story (and research it), or at least do a sidebar about visa requirements. You have to remember that in Europe you can travel anywhere almost as if the countries were like U.S. states, so a journalist with little experience outside of Europe might have unrealistic expectations about how easy it is to cross borders in the rest of the world.
And equating the level of freedom in the U.S. with Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe is silly. No place is perfect and it's great that you want to improve things, but let's not go hyperbolic.
Never let it be said that I don't change my mind. Charlie's comment was well-founded, they probably should have let someone else write the story, because she didn't do much in the way of fact-checking, for instance, to see if even her own country required journalists to get a visa:
Now, admittedly, were she travelling to the UK for an assignment (as she was travelling to the US for an assignment) and not just "being based in the UK", she would probably not have needed one:
"Correspondents visiting the UK for short-term assignments (i.e. for 6 months or less) can be considered as business visitors provided they qualify as such."
... but even then, it's just a much-easier visa to obtain.
So the sky is not falling, we just probably treated the offender "a lot more like shit" than most other countries would (at least, that's my impression from watching how UK immigration works)
I can, people with nasty attitudes working at LAX.
No wait, everyone in LA has a nasty attitude. (I know, cheap, but still is funny). ;-)
This isn't related to the Patriot Act. It's just enforcement of pre-existing immigration laws. And it has nothing to do with her being a journalist, per se. The point is she was trying to use a tourist visa for business travel. That has always been against the rules. It's just being enforced more strictly now. The immigration people sound like they were a bit nasty, but only after she pulled her "How dare you touch my private things." News bulletin for her: they search you at Heathrow too (although they are nice about it). I was pulled aside gingerly there (you know, with that slightly tense "don't make any sudden moves" manner), and my luggage was completely disassembled. (Turns out my Palm pilot and a roll of quarters intercepted in such a way that it looked like a gun.)
"This has always been against the rules".
Yes, but unfortunately, if you read the article, it points out that the only countries which have "rules" on journalists requiring visas to come in and do their work are ... well, shall we say "not the most free" (in fact, I think they're in the Axis Of Evil).
I think that's the point.
Derek: She doesn't know what she's talking about. Here in Japan we require a visa for journalists. I can understand that she is pissed, but perhaps the Guardian should have assigned a person not personally involved to write this story (and research it), or at least do a sidebar about visa requirements. You have to remember that in Europe you can travel anywhere almost as if the countries were like U.S. states, so a journalist with little experience outside of Europe might have unrealistic expectations about how easy it is to cross borders in the rest of the world.
And equating the level of freedom in the U.S. with Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe is silly. No place is perfect and it's great that you want to improve things, but let's not go hyperbolic.
Never let it be said that I don't change my mind. Charlie's comment was well-founded, they probably should have let someone else write the story, because she didn't do much in the way of fact-checking, for instance, to see if even her own country required journalists to get a visa:
http://www.britainusa.com/visas/other_show.asp?SarticleType=25&Other_ID=329
Now, admittedly, were she travelling to the UK for an assignment (as she was travelling to the US for an assignment) and not just "being based in the UK", she would probably not have needed one:
"Correspondents visiting the UK for short-term assignments (i.e. for 6 months or less) can be considered as business visitors provided they qualify as such."
... but even then, it's just a much-easier visa to obtain.
So the sky is not falling, we just probably treated the offender "a lot more like shit" than most other countries would (at least, that's my impression from watching how UK immigration works)