This really is developing into a discussion on semantics.
Some observations:
Firstly I do not believe any moving traffic offence is a “civil offence”. If guilty your conviction is recorded and this record may be used if you offend again – provided it is not spent. There are 5 categories of traffic offence ranging up to 'causing death by dangerous driving'
By your definitions, had Nostromo challenged his speeding fixed tickets and lost in court, he would still be convicted but now ineligible for a Visa Waiver. I disagree.
As stated earlier, before the introduction of fixed penalty notices(20 years ago??) all offences were dealt with in court. You could plead guilty by letter or appear in person. Again by your definitions all these people are ineligible for a Visa Waiver – this includes my(then) teenage brother fined 5 shillings for riding his bike without a light. I disagree.
The I-94W only asks if you have been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime of moral turpitude. The regulations, for those of us who delve into them, also refer to being arrested and in any case specifically exempts minor traffic offences.
It seems to me crystal clear that those with convictions for minor traffic offences(which are not offenses(sic) of moral turpitude in any case) that did not result in an arrest are intended by US immigration to use the Visa Waiver scheme.
I have known people who employ lawyers and go to inordinate lengths to examine the minutiae of laws and regulations in order to get themselves ‘off the hook’.
Despite the absolutely clear spirit and intent of the US regulations; this discussion is unique in my experience in that we have those going to great length to see if there is any way they can (mis)interpret the wording of regulations to enable themselves to get ‘on the hook!!’.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks