U.S. governments (state and federal) are sometimes too heavy-handed

[Swammerdami]

I just read this amazing story in The Guardian. (And once again I'm bemused that a non-American news source is the way to learn what's happening in America.)

I'm not going to summarize the story — it would be better for participants to read it in all its exasperating detail — but the Australian tourist Jack Dunn was detained in Honolulu for attempting to enter U.S. territory without being in compliance with a little-known (and arbitrary) rule. (The rule is becoming better-known in Australia as several Australians have been sent back at border checkpoints for the same reason.) He was handcuffed, cavity-searched, placed in federal prison for 30 hours and then deported back to Australia. Not only did the lost time and money inconvenience Mr. Dunn, but the experience has given him panic attacks.

Especially ridiculous is that Mr. Dunn could have complied with the rule by simply booking an airplane flight but, locked in a prison cell, was not allowed the necessary telephone or Internet access.

I have personally suffered from high-handed nonsense by the U.S. government, but nothing remotely comparable to Mr. Dunn's mistreatment. Any other examples?

The government in the Kingdom of Thailand has its own problems and stubbornness, but there is very often a willingness to bend the rules — and No, I'm not speaking of corruption or bribery. However "bending the rules" is a notion totally alien to some U.S. institutions.

 

[TV and credit cards]

1.4 million Australians visit the US each year. This did not slow even through the dark years of the previous administration. I'd venture to guess most of them managed to get the entry requirements right or this would become a worthy news story. Mr. Dunn's issue seems to be is lackadaisical attitude towards entry. That he was country hopping should have set an alarm in his mind. I mean, you're not Phileas Fogg.

I would say Mr. Dunn's main issue according to the story is with DFAT but in that 1.4 million Australians seem capable of getting it right, maybe not so much. I think this is all on Mr. Dunn. Further, if this was such an issue, I'd say DFAT would have it listed on this Smartraveler.
The rules are massive and can be intimidating. This Smartraveler should be boiling it down and keeping it up to date. Of course, one has to have the presence of mind to refer to the website in the first place.

"Arbitrary" you say. Back in the day of my working Passport/Visa Services at PERSUPDET, Subic Bay, I can assure you, these rules are not arbitrary. The State Dept puts out entry requirements to and from all countries. Health information, risk assessments, even indicated when there was a lack of information available. It used to be a box of large laminated cards. Now I guess it's on the internets.

Of course he was cavity searched upon entering the detention facility. It is for the safety of the guards and other prisoners.

For federal workers, bending the rules should be totally alien at the worker bee level, even at the immediate supervisor level. Only management should be making judgement calls and this depending on the type of incident. Following the rules and knowing your limitations in dealing with situations is called professionalism.

 

[barbos]

It's about illegal immigration. Tourists have to have return tickets. It's been that way since forever.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dunn, 23, had spent more than half a year saving for his trip, and by May had enough for a three- to four-month adventure. He planned to start in the US to see the NBA playoffs, then spend most of his trip backpacking across Mexico and South America.

Sounds like they saved his life. Backpacking alone in Mexico?!

 

[Swammerdami]

It's about illegal immigration. Tourists have to have return tickets. It's been that way since forever.

Did you read the article? All he needed was an out-bound ticket. A flight to Costa Rica would have been OK, but not Mexico because Mexico is adjacent to the U.S. I'll guess this "gotcha" affects rather few travelers, especially since they might plan on doing the U.S.to-Canada or U.S.-to-Mexico leg by land. (Indeed Mr. Dunn might have preferred to go to Mexico by land but was informed he needed an out-bound ticket.)

The rule sure seems arbitrary. I suppose a U.S.-Mexico ticket is slightly cheaper than U.S.-Costa Rica if he planned to throw that ticket away. OTOH, he might have researched more carefully if he'd intended to overstay illegally.

1.4 million Australians visit the US each year. This did not slow even through the dark years of the previous administration. I'd venture to guess most of them managed to get the entry requirements right or this would become a worthy news story. Mr. Dunn's issue seems to be is lackadaisical attitude towards entry. That he was country hopping should have set an alarm in his mind. I mean, you're not Phileas Fogg.

He claims that the relatively obscure requirement was not easily learned. He didn't want to buy a South_America-to-Australia ticket in advance because many backpackers want to "play it by ear" — he didn't know when or from where he would fly home. (Maybe he even dreamed of meeting a hot European girl and following her back to Spain.)

I once traveled Paris-to-Bangkok one-way with no Thai visa. I understood that showing enough cash to buy an outbound ticket would suffice at BKK passport control; in fact I was admitted without question or comment.

On another occasion, Northwest Airlines was about to refuse me entry to a BKK-bound flight because the ticket was one-way. That time I DID have a visa and showed it to them. I guess I'd have been turned away without it. :-(

The airplane explained to me that they had to check because they'd have to pay for the return trip if I were denied entry! (I wonder which airline failed to check Mr. Dunn's documents, and whether they were liable.)

 

[bilby]

For federal workers, bending the rules should be totally alien at the worker bee level, even at the immediate supervisor level.

This may qualify as the scariest thing I have ever read.

Understanding the reasons behind a set of rules, and applying those rules flexibly to comply with their spirit and purpose, is the essence of civilisation, and the inflexible application of rules because they are the rules is the root of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism.

 

[TomC]

For federal workers, bending the rules should be totally alien at the worker bee level, even at the immediate supervisor level.

This may qualify as the scariest thing I have ever read.

Understanding the reasons behind a set of rules, and applying those rules flexibly to comply with their spirit and purpose, is the essence of civilisation, and the inflexible application of rules because they are the rules is the root of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism.

I quite disagree.
Feeling entitled to change the rules without oversight is the root of corruption, cronyism, and bribery.

If worker bee says to his boss, "It's a little different this time. How about this?" that's completely different from "Dude, I could use some help myself. Got an extra $100?"
Tom

ETA ~Back when I volunteered at an organization that helped recent Mexican immigrants acclimate to the U.S., one thing that was hard to get across was "don't try bribery". Mexican culture was different. Here, offering a cop a piece of ass or $100 will just make things worse.~

 

[Swammerdami]

Mr. Dunn claimed that he could have saved his entry by booking a plane ticket, and after one kind guard lent Dunn a U.S.-simmed phone or such he was in the process of doing so. But a nasty guard came along and confiscated the phone before Dunn could complete the booking and thereby make his U.S. entry compliant . I'll assume this account is true. (Was it fact-checked?)

Understanding the reasons behind a set of rules, and applying those rules flexibly to comply with their spirit and purpose, is the essence of civilisation, and the inflexible application of rules because they are the rules is the root of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism.

I quite disagree.
Feeling entitled to change the rules without oversight is the root of corruption, cronyism, and bribery.

I might have agreed with Tom several decades ago, but with experience my outlook has changed somewhat.
I won't prepare a long essay, but I note that
(a) regular payments to mandarin/gatekeepers in China had their own efficiency. And police pocketing traffic fines incentivises enforcement!
(b) as bilby implies, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Tom, do you think Dunn should have been allowed to amend his ticket via phone?
(c) MOST importantly, corruption has VERY different character at different price levels. As an example of what this might mean, consider that Elon Musk stole many millions with his recent Twitter purchases by disobeying disclosure rules. This was not a victimless crime: selling stockholders lost an aggregate equivalent to many hundreds of car thefts or burglaries. Bets on whether Musk is prosecuted?
Donald Trump and his family funneled many millions to fellow billionaires during his 4-year term. Is this cronyism no worse than Deputy Bill waiving a parking ticket for his brother-in-law?

I'd ask Tom about one of my experiences. My mom's purse was stolen in a relatively isolated part of California; among other losses were her sublingual nitroglycerin tablets. This is a medicine cardiac patients carry for emergencies — it can stop a heart attack. I was more concerned that she didn't have these pills than over the cash she had lost.

Should the pharmacist have sold or given us 1 or 2 of these tiny tablets? Even though we didn't have a prescription. Be aware that nitro has no utility as a recreational drug. Yes, nitroglycerin is an explosive but it would take many hundreds of the pills for even the tiniest bomb.

Poll Question:
(A) The pharmacist should certainly have NOT sold us nitro tabs. He would be in violation of federal law.
(B) He SHOULD have helped my Mom after the purse-snatching. A couple of tablets would never be missed.
(C) Swammi should have fanned his hand with a $20-bill saying something like "Maybe we should buy that nitro right here in Brainerd."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For federal workers, bending the rules should be totally alien at the worker bee level, even at the immediate supervisor level.

This may qualify as the scariest thing I have ever read.

That can't possibly be true. Maybe second worst.

Understanding the reasons behind a set of rules, and applying those rules flexibly to comply with their spirit and purpose, is the essence of civilisation, and the inflexible application of rules because they are the rules is the root of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism.

I'm curious why the handcuffing and stay in Federal Prison? Why not just send him back immediately?

 

[laughing dog]

About 4 years ago, my wife and I were returning from a day trip to Canada. We had packed a picnic which included some fruit. Everything we had obtained everything in the US.

At the border stop on our return, the US border patrol agent asked us if we were bringing in any fruit. We said we had some grapes leftover ftom our daytrip picnic. We were told we couldn’t bring in any fruit from outside the country. I said I was happy to comply but that we had brought the grapes with us from the US. He let us keep the grapes. So the border people can exercise common sense.

 

[ZiprHead]

I haven't been outside the US in many years so some of this discussion is foreign to me. Pun intended.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dunn, 23, had spent more than half a year saving for his trip, and by May had enough for a three- to four-month adventure. He planned to start in the US to see the NBA playoffs, then spend most of his trip backpacking across Mexico and South America.

Sounds like they saved his life. Backpacking alone in Mexico?!

Yeah, the guy was obviously royally unprepared for the situation. And being searched was due to being put in prison, not due to his offense. All in all, I think he got off lightly compared to what would likely have happened had he continued. I do agree that the rules should have been clearer in this case and will fault immigration over that.

It's also pretty basic travel sense--countries in general have an outbound-ticket requirement, although it's rarely checked if you don't look like you would be a problem. Look poor, expect to be asked for an onward ticket. Look not-poor, you should be prepared to purchase an onward-ticket on the spot if immigration makes an issue of it. (If your plans do not involve an onward ticket buy something fully refundable.) Both have happened to us, the former from having been on the road for nearly a year and had much of our clothing stolen (we still had our tropical stuff, there was no reason to replace the stolen temperate stuff at the time--and England wasn't too happy), the latter because Zimbabwe actually enforced it on everyone. (We were leaving by train, this was long before the internet. We had to buy an air ticket, then go into town to get the train ticket so we could refund the air ticket.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He claims that the relatively obscure requirement was not easily learned. He didn't want to buy a South_America-to-Australia ticket in advance because many backpackers want to "play it by ear" — he didn't know when or from where he would fly home. (Maybe he even dreamed of meeting a hot European girl and following her back to Spain.)

I once traveled Paris-to-Bangkok one-way with no Thai visa. I understood that showing enough cash to buy an outbound ticket would suffice at BKK passport control; in fact I was admitted without question or comment.

Yeah--enough funds. Be prepared to buy a refundable onward ticket if you're challenged.

On another occasion, Northwest Airlines was about to refuse me entry to a BKK-bound flight because the ticket was one-way. That time I DID have a visa and showed it to them. I guess I'd have been turned away without it. :-(

The airplane explained to me that they had to check because they'd have to pay for the return trip if I were denied entry! (I wonder which airline failed to check Mr. Dunn's documents, and whether they were liable.)

Yup, if you're deemed inadmissible the airline has to fly you back and if they should have known better they can get fined up to $10k. If you have a return ticket they use it, otherwise they fly you back and bill you.

I have never boarded an international flight without the visa situation being checked, after that doofus managed to slip on a connecting flight (Australia said don't fly him, he was denied boarding, managed to get to the connecting flight in time to board it) I've even been checked twice for the same flight. (At check-in and again at boarding for the international leg.) I've also had a clerk want to deny boarding because she didn't understand that the visa was in the old passport--hey, I handed you 4 passports for two people, why didn't you figure I had a reason to??

 

[Tigers!]

Damn stupid Aussies.
Should be a law against them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should the pharmacist have sold or given us 1 or 2 of these tiny tablets? Even though we didn't have a prescription. Be aware that nitro has no utility as a recreational drug. Yes, nitroglycerin is an explosive but it would take many hundreds of the pills for even the tiniest bomb.

Poll Question:
(A) The pharmacist should certainly have NOT sold us nitro tabs. He would be in violation of federal law.
(B) He SHOULD have helped my Mom after the purse-snatching. A couple of tablets would never be missed.
(C) Swammi should have fanned his hand with a $20-bill saying something like "Maybe we should buy that nitro right here in Brainerd."

Note that this is a case where the medical decision was already made--she had a prescription for the nitro tablets. Given the lack of recreational value it's a reasonable medical decision for the pharmacist to make and one they routinely do make.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

About 4 years ago, my wife and I were returning from a day trip to Canada. We had packed a picnic which included some fruit. Everything we had obtained everything in the US.

At the border stop on our return, the US border patrol agent asked us if we were bringing in any fruit. We said we had some grapes leftover ftom our daytrip picnic. We were told we couldn’t bring in any fruit from outside the country. I said I was happy to comply but that we had brought the grapes with us from the US. He let us keep the grapes. So the border people can exercise common sense.

I believe US origin grapes are acceptable, this is him making the decision to believe you that they were of US origin.

 

[Elixir]

For federal workers, bending the rules should be totally alien at the worker bee level, even at the immediate supervisor level.

This may qualify as the scariest thing I have ever read.

Understanding the reasons behind a set of rules, and applying those rules flexibly to complying with their spirit and purpose, is the essence of civilisation, and the inflexible application of rules because they are the rules is the root of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism.

I applaud the post and the sentiment bilby.
But much as with the nuclear power issue, it can’t happen that way because people are STUPID and they SUCK.

Perfect example: Many of the Jan6 morons sincerely believe that after their failed coup attempt they have been arrested for slightly bending some technical rule about “legitimate political discourse”.

THAT is why we can’t have nice things.

I’ll side with Swammi so that people as dumb as the 1/6 suckers don’t have (even more of) the option to further fuck things up.

 

[bilby]

Yes, nitroglycerin is an explosive but it would take many hundreds of the pills for even the tiniest bomb.

I used to make those pills. The active ingredient is 600 micrograms of NG. You would need ten thousand of them to get 6g of NG, which you couldn’t re-concentrate as liquid anyway, once it’s adsorbed onto the lactose substrate - but if you did (perhaps by dissolution in ethanol and then evaporating off the solvent), 6g would just about suffice to blow your hand off. Which is the most probable outcome of trying to handle a teaspoonful of liquid NG.

A hundred pills doesn’t contain enough explosive to blow your nose.

 

[Toni]

Should the pharmacist have sold or given us 1 or 2 of these tiny tablets? Even though we didn't have a prescription. Be aware that nitro has no utility as a recreational drug. Yes, nitroglycerin is an explosive but it would take many hundreds of the pills for even the tiniest bomb.

Poll Question:
(A) The pharmacist should certainly have NOT sold us nitro tabs. He would be in violation of federal law.
(B) He SHOULD have helped my Mom after the purse-snatching. A couple of tablets would never be missed.
(C) Swammi should have fanned his hand with a $20-bill saying something like "Maybe we should buy that nitro right here in Brainerd."

Note that this is a case where the medical decision was already made--she had a prescription for the nitro tablets. Given the lack of recreational value it's a reasonable medical decision for the pharmacist to make and one they routinely do make.

Sometimes pharmacists will do emergency fills for out of towners with lost prescription pills—made much easier if they can call the dispensing pharmacy at home to confirm. I’m not a fan of chains but this might be a case where using a chain pharmacy is smart.

 

[Swammerdami]

What? Infidels happy to spoil the young tourist's long-saved-for vacation for a rule so obscure that even the airline didn't know to check for it, are unwilling to offer an opinion an whether he should have been allowed a phone to remedy the non-compliance?

Should the pharmacist have sold or given us 1 or 2 of these tiny tablets? Even though we didn't have a prescription. Be aware that nitro has no utility as a recreational drug. Yes, nitroglycerin is an explosive but it would take many hundreds of the pills for even the tiniest bomb.

Poll Question:
(A) The pharmacist should certainly have NOT sold us nitro tabs. He would be in violation of federal law.
(B) He SHOULD have helped my Mom after the purse-snatching. A couple of tablets would never be missed.
(C) Swammi should have fanned his hand with a $20-bill saying something like "Maybe we should buy that nitro right here in Brainerd."

Note that this is a case where the medical decision was already made--she had a prescription for the nitro tablets. Given the lack of recreational value it's a reasonable medical decision for the pharmacist to make and one they routinely do make.

You lost me. We obviously didn't have a prescription to present to the pharmacist (this is a true story). If she'd had one with her it was in her stolen purse. Would/should the pharmacist have given us some pills? In fact, he did not. I included option (C) as a joke but in a country where the elite routinely pass $100 bills to bouncers and maitre-d's — oh no! the U.S. isn't like those undeveloped countries with their "settle it here in Brainerd" approach — perhaps that would have been the proper American way.