UK Entry Refusal

This would leave some very powerful stakeholders outraged.  They would be howling for a new government.  

Bear in mind that only 1 in 2,000 or so passengers from the US gets bounced.  That's not enough to bring about forward controls for a country we are friendly with.

I don't understand, really. Why should someone be angry if an email is sent to people who book a flight to UK with information which in practice will help them out? I don't want UK to have controls before leaving like the ESTA (which is causing me personally some trouble), I just wish travelers would be made aware of the fact that THERE ARE "formalities" involved in traveling abroad. And not only from the US. If only so few people have troubles, all the better, but I assume everyone else who never had problems will also never think of changing their attitude to traveling, up to the day they WILL have troubles... Even when we explain to our friends and family, people don't get it, that you just don't simply walk in and that's it, because they are used to jump on a flight and come over, "surely Americans don't need visas" seems to be the general attitude (nor Italians to enter US, and try explaining the complexities which forced me to get one...) Isn't this a matter of educating the public?
Maybe just a line saying "please be aware you do need a visa to enter the country, find information here [website]".

Also, in my own personal and very uninformed opinion, it is extremely confusing to call them non-visa national countries, when in fact they do get a visa all the same, just at the airport and not at the British consulate!!! Couldn't they be called non-entry-clearance countries? All these words are so confusing, and yet so important...

(and who are stakeholders, please?)

PS. I'm sorry if I am a tad polemical today, in all the posts I've written till now. My only excuse is that I'm getting married in 10 days, can't sleep, and still have so many things to do... Hysteria is getting hard to hide

Don't people refer to 'volunteer work' rather than just 'volunteering'?

Vicky

Yes, but my initial response to that is "it's not really work!"  In my mind, the immediate definition of "work" is simply paid employment.  I obviously know that immigration wise it includes volunteering, etc but I never would have even imagined that if it hadn't been explicitly pointed out to me on UKY ages ago.  And I really don't think I'm the only one, as this thread would indicate.

Don't people refer to 'volunteer work' rather than just 'volunteering'?

Vicky

Not in the US...it's just volunteering there. At least in my old neck of the woods.

I think with the UK, the rest of Western Europe, Canada, and the Caribbean, Americans (not all Americans obviously, but a lot of them) tend to just hop on a plane and not worry about it too much.

This is the key.  It isn't that the info is not available, it's just that it simply doesn't occur to many of us that we need to look for it.  Not saying this is an excuse, just a reason.  Of course, the majority of visitors never encouter situations where they have to worry about the finer points of a visa, because they just do the standard tourist thing.  It is the long-term visitors and people who go to stay with friends/SOs who are most at risk of unintentionally violating the rules.  For them it would be useful to have some sort of official explanation of the nitty gritties.  Also, keep in mind that not everyone is as computer- and internet-literate as most people on this forum, and might not be able to unearth the information unless it stares them in the face from the homepage of an official site.      

I agree with the last posts, all these things are obvious to those who already are in the loop about what needs to be done, and what are the formalities to visit a foreign country. But my feeling is that generally people don't seem to know they even NEED to google such a thing.
Take my case. I decided to go and visit my then boyfriend in US. US is not in the EU, so I go and google it, to see whether I need to do anything before going. Mind. I studied International Politics and Law at university, and I have traveled extensively in Easter Europe before the accession. I consider myself generally better informed than the normality of people, let's say, my parents. My friends both in Italy and UK were astonished to learn that I needed a visa, BUT they also had not heard about the Visa Waiver programme. They just ASSUMED it was fine to just go.

And again, I agree people go via the common sense of words, not their legal meaning. E.g. "yes, it is called voluntary work, but surely it is not "real" work, as it is not paid, they don't mean you can't volunteer. This is common sense, everyone know that."
Try explaining that law does not follow the general interpretation of words, and this is why at the beginning of the texts of laws and treaties the most important words are defined...

Believe me, there are days when I wish I could take the average American who stumbles their way out of the US and flog them for being so ignorant.  That is an entirely different subject.

It is a poor excuse to plead ignorance.  I agree it is a reason, the same reason American students try showing up every year at UK unvirsities without proper visas, but the rest of the world going out of the way to coddle the poor Americans who can't type "visiting the UK" into google is sad and disrespectful to all of us who were able to figure it out.  Again, I am willing to fight for 320(11) rejections, because I believe they are unfair in some cases, but as long as people have a way to formalise their relationships and get them into a situation where they can be assured that they are contributing to the society that I am now apart of, I cannot argue with the rules, even if they sometimes seem pendantic when applied in certain cases.

But, even if we agree such coddling is necessary and that the average American cannot take responsability for themselves, the OP and his fiancée obviously felt there was some need to "keep their stories straight" about lying to an IO.  Out of ignorance, yes, was there malice, no, but whenever you proactively decide to stretch the truth it can and sometimes does come back to haunt you.

Now, I am going to get onto a touchy subject, which for the life of me, I can't figure out, why do young American women feel the need to come over to the UK and live with their boyfriends for extended periods of time as a visitor?  A month, perfect, two months, fine, three months, how many times can you visit the Tate Modern, really, but 5 or 6 months and then leave and try to come back in for another long period of time?  You have to be joking me.  The "we can't bear to be apart" crap doesn't cut it with me.  I went through 5 years of crap trying to live with my partner full-time, but the last thing I was going to do was just "hang out" for several months in his flat.

Do we think their might be somewhat of a reason why young single women from America might be targeted by IOs?

I don't understand, really. Why should someone be angry if an email is sent to people who book a flight to UK with information which in practice will help them out? I don't want UK to have controls before leaving like the ESTA (which is causing me personally some trouble), I just wish travelers would be made aware of the fact that THERE ARE "formalities" involved in traveling abroad. And not only from the US.

People have to input the data.  That's a problem.  Somebody has to gather the data.  That's a problem.  Somebody has to send the emails.  That's a BIG problem.  Somebody has to accept accountability for transport of the email.  That's a major problem.

And somebody has to pay for all of that.  Who?

Too many problems.  Even the BNP will fight against ESTA.

(and who are stakeholders, please?)

They are the people and organizations who have a stake in the way things work.  Part of the British constitution says stakeholders need to be involved and to have a say in what's going on. 

Thanks for all your helpful advice and comments.

Could anyone tell me if the refusal paperwork would indicate a ban if one was applicable?


Thanks,

J

Part of the British constitution says stakeholders need to be involved and to have a say in what's going on. 

Which part exactly? 

Which part exactly? 

Exactly: 
Part 2: General Principles
---Part 2.3: Practical Limitations on Parliamentary Supremacy
------Part 2.3.2 The Need to Consult Interested or Affected Groups

Hope that helps

Exactly: 
Part 2: General Principles
---Part 2.3: Practical Limitations on Parliamentary Supremacy
------Part 2.3.2 The Need to Consult Interested or Affected Groups

Hope that helps

Not really! I'm a bit confused. I was always taught that the UK does not have a written constitution document comparable to those of other nations, such as the United States. Let alone one with numbered sections and subsections. Where did you get that from?

Elements of the constitution are written.  The correct term would be 'uncodified'.

Jamcyrix - no, the refusal statement your gf already has would not state that she has a ban. 


Vicky

Not really! I'm a bit confused. I always assumed that the UK does not have a written constitution comparable to those of other nations, such as the United States. Where did you get that from?

You've got it somewhat right.  Common misconception.  The UK constitution is not in a single document like the US.  But it's very much written down and very much real.  You could almost fill up a house with the various texts.

To your question about my own reference, I use one of my old London School of Economics text books called "Constitutional and Administrative Law"  ISBN-13: 9781904783336.  

The Department for Constitutional Affairs site is at http://www.dca.gov.uk/  In 2007, its front-face was merged into the Ministry of Justice.

"I think it is incumbent on anyone visiting another country to know what the rules are...I would never go to Russia, for example, without reading up on their rules for visitors first.  I think with the UK, the rest of Western Europe, Canada, and the Caribbean, Americans (not all Americans obviously, but a lot of them) tend to just hop on a plane and not worry about it too much. That attitude isn't the best, honestly and people should be more proactive about these things."

Who's responsibility is it to educate on 'checking'? Parents, Travel Agents, respective countries border controls??

My US fiancee was bounced twice - I had lived in Italy and Spain for one year apiece, her in Spain for one year... the thing is with the common EU travel arrangement I don't naturally think about 'what visa do i need' - if i went to China or the Soweto, I might. Only about 50 per cent of Americans even have a passport/been outside N.America - they are going to the UK where we have a common language, 'special relationship', tons of history together, etc, etc. I can see how the common traveler and not an 'ignorant' traveler gets tripped up.

For example, I only know about the new online prior clearance required to visit the US because the US IO put a form about it in my passport on the 21st December 08. I would have rocked up to US in 2009 completely unaware had it not been for this...

I drove through Luton high street to get to Gatwick prior to my fiancee getting bounced for the 2nd time over christmas. I felt like ripping the IOs off their stools at the end of their shift, loading them into my car and driving them to where they could visibly see their abject failings. Bullying US chicks is not cricket.

OP - i feel for you pal.

I'm not surprised American women are particularly bad about this. Who else is in exactly our position?

As djb says, Yanks assume a special relationship with the UK because we have...a longstanding historical special relationship. As do the Canucks and Aussies and Kiwis and so on, but we outnumber them by quite a lot.

Europeans don't need a visa of any kind, so they could hardly develop a bad rep for not getting one. And people from further afield have more reason to assume a visa is needed. I would certainly assume I needed such a thing if I wanted to visit someone in Africa or the Far East.

But Great Britain? Honestly, it's just pure dumb luck I landed here and learned how careful I needed to be. Even people who've watched me go through the process don't actually believe the rules are as hard-ass as I tell them. My British fiance thinks "that damn newsgroup" is full of crap and worries me unnecessarily.