At the US London embassy the ticket-based queueing system was well organised,
there was free coffee, the consular staff who interviewed me were good-humoured
and my passport was returned with a fresh visa just three days later.
But as I filled in the application form before my embassy appointment, I
wondered what the point was of asking “Do you seek to engage in terrorist
activities while in the United States?” when those who plan to do so will surely
click “no”.
Why are some of the questions so imprecise? For example, on the form I had to
fill in (as a journalist, I require a particular type of visa), I was asked if I
had ever been responsible as a government official for “particularly severe
violations of religious freedom”. What does particularly severe mean? Are mild
violations of religious freedom acceptable?
Or take an example from the Electronic System for Travel
Authorisation
(Esta)
form that visitors with a US visa waiver complete (this includes tourists from
many European and some other countries): “Have you ever been arrested or
convicted for an offence or crime involving moral turpitude?”
What is a crime involving moral turpitude? Does agreeing
to accept someone else’s speeding points count as moral turpitude when an
opinion
poll by the AA motoring organisation suggested 300,000 people in the UK had
done that?
And, finally, how did US visa application forms come to be such a curious
agglomeration of questions?
My first query – whether miscreants are likely to answer incriminating
questions truthfully – is one nearly every visa applicant asks. “Clients
constantly say: ‘Are you kidding? Does anyone answer ‘yes’?’” says Kehrela
Hodkinson, a London-based US immigration lawyer.
It is also the easiest mystery to solve. The point of asking these questions
is that, if you answer them untruthfully, you have obtained a visa by fraud or
misrepresentation and can be deported if you are found out, either on this
visit, or if you subsequently win the right to live in the US.
My query about the imprecision of some of the questions
has a less precise answer. There have been many academic discussions – and even
an
entire book – on what moral
turpitude is.
There is no statutory definition of the term. It is up to
judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to decide what it means, Mary Holper
of Boston College Law School says in an
informative paper. When
deciding whether to deport someone, judges have to assess whether the crime in
question offends the “moral standards generally prevailing in the United
States”. This, Prof Holper says, “casts judges in the role of God”.
In cases over the years, fraud, theft and many sexual offences have been
classed as involving moral turpitude. Assault has been, too, “when the offence
has an aggravating factor such as a deadly weapon”, Prof Holper says.
As for severely restricting religious freedom, the
US Commission on International Religious
Freedom, a statutory body, says only one person has ever been barred on
those grounds:
Narendra
Modi, tipped by many to be the next Indian prime minister, for his alleged
complicity in the deadly 2002 anti-Muslim riots in his home state of Gujarat.
(He denies responsibility.)
The reason US visa forms seem such an odd accretion of questions is that is
what they are. They have been added to over the decades to confront whatever
danger the US was dealing with at the time.
Prof Holper points out that “moral turpitude” was
introduced into US immigration law in 1891. Questions about issues such as
prostitution go back to before visas existed, as do many health questions.
Officials at Ellis Island used to keep visitors out because they had
tuberculosis, says Muzaffar Chishti of the US-based
Migration Policy Institute.
Are the visa forms an effective way of keeping undesirables out of the US?
“If we’re interested in keeping people who mean to do us harm out, it’s not very
effective,” Mr Chishti says. Biometric screening, databases and finger printing
are far more useful, he says.
-------------------------------------------
Letters in response to this column:
I disagree, the bureaucrats processing the forms are no doubt bored to death and would likely miss a telltale 'yes'. Then when said terrorist act ocurred, ICE would not be able to deport because the person hadn't lied on his application.
As an aside, I wonder if there have ever been any meaningful prosecutions for lying on an application. If you commit a terrorist act and get caught you are going to jail anyway whether or not your visa application was truthfully filled out. The whole exercise seems pointless.
On the other hand the forms all over the world seem to ask similar things these days.
"Have you committed or do you intend to commit acts of espionage contrary to the interests of the UK? If Yes, please give further details in the box below ". No wonder they couldn't catch Kim Philby!
At an airport, I was once asked: "Could anybody have tampered with your luggage without your knowledge". I truthfully & logically answered: "I don't know, how could I tell?", and was then subjected to further questioning.
On the other hand, once when entering the USA, I was asked if my luggage contained any cooked meats, hams etc. I thought this to be strange, but they opened the case of the person in the next queue to reveal lots of salamis & black puddings therein. So perhaps the questions are indeed products of practical experience.
I am not sure of the reason for thatl check but understand that it was illegal to enter the U.S. in order to undertake a sex change operation. So visa questions are one thing...
"Among professional and senior manager groups the percentage who would report a point-swapping attempt to the police drops to 11% but rises to 16% among skilled manual and service workers. Among the unskilled, unemployed and those on state pensions, 20% would inform the authorities."
I recall something similar recently where a study showed that drivers of expensive cars committed more traffic offences than drivers of less expensive vehicles.
The FT really should be investigating causes behind the apparent lack of morality among the better off and well-paid company executives as it seems to be an important but little-mentioned facet of our unequal society.
No lie.
The point you're echoing was pretty apparent in the article - that’s the inconveniently detailed ream of text that droops wearily below the headlines, obsucring our view of all the interesting adverts and links ;)
Many countries Customs form have a number of tick boxes of tedious questions (to the innocent), but it is required for the same probable reason I have raised above. Do you agree?
btw, to indicate how welcoming the govt is, they call "aliens" those who would typically be called expatriates in other countries. Ermm...English is the first language in the US still, right?
In a nation of institutions, run by laws, you need facts to establish a 'probable cause' to start an investigation, and 'beyond reasonable doubt' to complete a prosecution. That application form you mention is first step, an important step, in that long legal journey, in the imperfect real world we live in.
As far as weird questions are concerned, let me assure you, after having been to over 125 countries, that we Americans face weird questions and interviews too from others. In Tanzania, after my last philanthropic trip there, I was interviewed for 25 minutes, where the border official was interested in my opinions on 'how he, the immigration official, can solve his troubles with his ever complaining and unreasonable girlfriend.'
In either peace or war time, have you ever been involved in, or suspected of involvement in, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?
Provide details of the war, humanity or genocide crime.
Have you ever been involved in, supported or encouraged terrorist activities in any country?
Provide details of the terrorist activity.
Have you ever been a member of, or given support to, an organisation which has been concerned in terrorism?
Provide details of the terrorist organisation.
Have you, by any means or medium, expressed views that justify or glorify terrorist violence or that may encourage others to commit terrorist or other serious criminal acts?
Provide details of these terrorist views.
He was called in to the embassy for an interview. They asked him, "Well, are you active?". He said, "well I'm an old man, so I can't be really.". They said "Are you notorious?" (really). He said, "Well you'd know about me if I was, wouldn't you?" (imagine this in a Welsh accent).
They let him in -- probably because his birth name on his passport wasn't the name he was generally known by. He was actually a leading member of an admittedly rather small CP at the time, but I don't think he posed any danger to the US state.
My fiancee went through the immigration process a few years ago in the USA to seek permanent entry thereto for her mother. Documentation requirements quite onerous, although reasonably so, but otherwise straightforward. The USA government website is very good and the people who perform the processing also do a prompt and very good job.
Regarding the word "turpitude", regrettably no etymological connection to turpentine, which derives from the name for a tree. Turpitude derives from Latin turpis, "shameful". No further etymology for turpis or possible cognates in other Indo-European languages that I can readily find.