User:Kaet/VisitingUS

What I said

In wikimedia meetup 2005 I said

• User:Kaet Potentially anywhere, though I'd prefer Europe, but that's just be being lazy. I'd be most concerned with visiting the US, Egypt or China as I'd be concerned about government detention and stuff (I don't wanna go on a holiday and end up in prison!).

To which there was a (perfectly reasonable) reply.

• With the marginal exception of China, it's not at all likely that you'll be arbitrarily tossed in the slammer in any of those countries. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. doesn't lock up random tourists,

I beg to differ. A classmate of mine (read: a bunch of years back, in my secondary school days), of African ethnicity and German nationality went to the US to celebrate New Year's Eve in New York. This was WAY before 9/11. There were some crowd control issues, bad planning apparently, which resulted in a situation where there was a barrier that numeous folks flouted. My classmate flouted it too. Oddly enough, it was him who was picked and thrown into jail where he was mistreated. When he noted that he was German and questioned what was happening to him, the officer grinned at him and replied: "Welcome to America." It was only after a prolonged stay in jail, lawyer and diplomatic intervention and a white lie "This is Germany's best basketball player." that he was freed. I am not making this up (though it really does sound like straight out of a bad movie). The U.S. doesn't lock up random tourists? Yes they do! And unless they improve their human rights record I'd be weary of trusting U.S. authorities. Ropers 22:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By your own admission, then, your friend was not a "random tourist." He was a tourist who broke the law, and yes, we arrest people for that.

And ESPECIALLY so if they're black.

I can't speak to any allegations of abuse, but these are hardly restricted to the United States.

This very same rethorical maneuvre is also frequently used by Holocaust deniers: "Others did bad things, too, so we/the Germans can't be blamed." It's a logical fallacy. You can be blamed for your faults, period.

Second thought, you're right of course: allegations of abuse are no longer restricted to the United States because the U.S. have successfully exported them.

(Be "weary" if you'd like, however.) Austin Hair

and unless you're doing something shifty like traveling from Pakistan on a Syrian passport you have no cause for concern.

Excuse me? WTF is "shifty" about Syrian nationals travelling from Pakistan to the US? If all Syrian nationals have been proven to all be criminals then I must have missed that in the news. Such mass-prejudice is wholly unacceptable and I resent hearing any of such shite! Ropers 22:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Far be it for me to prejudge an entire country, and in fact I said absolutely nothing of the sort.

Yes you did. You stated that merely travelling on a Syrian passport from Pakistan to the U.S. was "shifty". Except for dual citizenship you have thus implied that each and every single citizen of Syria ought not to be trusted to travel freely, which is an enormity in terms or prejudice against a person, simply on grounds of where they happened to have been born and bred. You don't know anything about your assumed Syrian traveller. Maybe they're emphatically pro-American. You're not even giving that person a chance to become your friend. That IS prejudicing an entire country.

(Hint: If you're not giving a person a chance to be your friend then don't be surprised if they become your enemy.)

That said, Syria is a nation hostile to the United States,

Excuse me? Did Syria declare the U.S. to be part of a mythical "Axis of Evil"? Or was it the other way around? More like the United States are hostile to Syria.

and adhering to the M.O. of an Islamic terrorist

Hang on. Who's "adhering to the modus operandi of an Islamic terrorist"? The Syrian traveller? All Syrians and/or the majority of the Syrian people? Or the Syrian government? Is travelling on a Syrian passport (which is the only passport that Syrian citizens have at their disposal) "adhering to the modus operandi of an Islamic terrorist"?!?

(NB:You probably should have said "Islamist terrorist", but I'll let that lapse of political correctness pass.)

is going to (rightly) raise a red flag

If "raising a red flag" means being extra cautious and extra diligent in face of a difficult political situation (while assuming good faith and remaining friendly, courteous and helpful), then I wouldn't find any fault with that. However you didn't say that earlier on. You said that travelling from Pakistan to the U.S. on a Syrian passport was in itself "shifty", which it is not. It is perfectly reasonable that people from all countries should expect to be permitted to travel freely to all other countries, and be welcome as guests for the duration of their stay and pursue whatever legal business or pleasure they desire while in the country they are visiting. I really shouldn't have to say this because it's painfully obvious.

—guilty or not. Austin Hair 19:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Such a naive dichotomous classification is fundamentally unhelpful. Real life is not a playschool game where you are either with the blue team or the red team. There are many shades of gray between black and white and a "guilty or not" model will likely lead to massive mistakes down the line because it is simply insufficient for purposes of getting a handle on what is a very complex reality. Ropers 19:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Even if you did find yourself on the wrong side of steel bars, I imagine your government would intervene in short order, and if not, we'd orchestrate a WikiBreakout.)

Why I said it

Normally, this wouldn't concern me. But if there was a wikipedia meetup I'd probably take along some wikipedia stuff I've been doing, or want to discuss it, or work on it, at the convention. Unfortunately the things I tend to edit tend to be frowned upon by foreign governments, particularly if they are scanning for "national security" type things.

Here's an example, to show I'm not just a paranoid freak. The page I'm ediging at the moment is on biochemistry, muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. At the moment my bookmarks list is filled with stuff on atropine, scopolamine, acetylcholineesterase, Cholera Toxin extract, experemental biochemical procedures, clinical indications and treatments, syntheses for bioactives, and so on, and I don't mean stuff of of CNN, I mean proper scientific papers, and so on. The subject itself, a backwater of biochemistry, is innocent enough, but I've no Univeristy biochem affiliation, I'm studying no course, teaching none. I also draw lots of chemical diagrams for wikipedia, including ones for pages on illegal drugs and pesticides, and correct some facts on those pages, and extend them. If you search hard enough in my wikipedia directories you'll probably find stuff on PBO and Organophosphates and Carbamates from the past.

I know that in the US you've got first ammendment rights, but as a foreigner, even one on a British passport, I don't know that I'm safe. I know that there are Britains being held without trial over there, so it's clearly no blanket exemption (nor would I expect it to be). So, if I go I don't know I'd be comfortable bringing along any material, or discussing much what I've been doing. Which makes me sound like a paranoid freak, I know but whilst it's unlikely it's kind of a big downer if it does happen. I know that people have been held for having stupider things in their posession recently, and they've been let go again with apologies, but it kind of puts a damper on your holiday! Even being held for twenty four hours by immigration, which a friend of mine travelling on a UK passport, born in London, with better reasons and affiliations than me was recently, because of apparent "war on terror" related things found on his laptop (concerning cryptography). He was let off with full apologies (they had to get a guy who knew about these things flown in from somewhere) but it still puts a damper on a holiday!

I'm not saying this to get across some point, or whatever, I'd love to visit the US, I've always wanted to go to New York and Las Vegas, and Atlantic City too, but I don't think I can really feel safe there at the moment particularly with any wikipedia stuff along with me.

Commnents?

Are my worries founded?

Now that you've explained more fully, I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't think you have cause for concern. The contents of your laptop aren't routinely subject to intense scrutiny, and even with plainly visible chemistry-related documents featuring lots of diagrams and pictures I think you'd be okay. Working on the statistically likely assumption (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you're English and white, responding to any hassles with a polite but curt explanation—in your poshest accent, of course—that you're a chemical engineer should be enough for the guys at passport control. You could even tell them that you're meeting some colleagues from the Wikimedia Foundation, prestigious research organization that we are, and we'd be sure to vouch for you.

That having been said, I'm not pushing for a U.S. meet. One of the chief goals of such an event is to promote and publicize international involvement, and it's paramount to that goal that we have as many non-American attendees as possible. Plus, I'm planning a trip overseas next Summer/Fall anyway, and it would be personally convenient if they could coincide. Austin Hair 23:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

After reading the Patriot act, I would rather not go to the US as well. I'm not very afraid to travel anywhere, but for some reasons I'm hesistant to travel to the US. On the other hand, I must say many Americans are friendly, warm and open people who are great to go along with (I met a lot of them). It's the big-brother-is-watching-you-mentality of the government that is scaring me... Bontenbal 10:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (A dutchman)

It's the big-brother-is-watching-you-mentality of the government that is scaring me - Pfft - a hasty generalization. The patriot act, in fact, while widely reviled, only directly effects a very, very small number of people. The vast majority of travelers to the US would never notice. On the other hand, if you want to talk about Big brother, then consider the England, where they really *do* have cameras on every corner. →Raul654 06:26, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I just want to second what Raul says here. I think that the Patriot Act is scary and bad, but it's important to remember that it is scary by American standards. Americans are notably paranoid about government; it's part of the national sense of life. Therefore, when you read the media here, you see a lot of ranting against the Patriot Act, ranting that I mostly support, but realistically speaking it has close to zero impact on day to day life, and would not in any way affect tourists even with strange documents about chemistry. However, I'm not in favor of a meeting in the U.S. for the completely different reason that one of the main reasons for this is to get a lot of mixing between different language wikipedias, a lot of idea sharing, and realistically a meeting in the U.S. is going to be extremely en-centric just because of the cost of overseas travel. I fully support the idea of having a U.S. meeting, a big one, in 2006, but I also think we need to generate a culture of face-to-face meetings locally first. The Europeans are far ahead in this. Jimbo Wales 14:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At hmm, the first sentence of Wikipedia's article on the subject reads: "This law provides for indefinite imprisonment without trial of non-U.S. citizens whom the Attorney General has determined to be a threat to national security." Of course it doesn't impact your life, but your US-citizen, and I'm not. I don't wanna be locked up without a trial! I don't know what you read there in the States, but the US has pushed for measures to collect data on all passengers travelling to the US, including, for instance, the food they want to eat in the plane... And you don't call that Big Brother?? Bontenbal 11:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)