Karen,
If you still read this post you may be interested in this definition of Moral Turpitude i found whilst reading another post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude
You may be interested in what is classed as not involving MT.
Oh and Derek83, let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
Neil & Kay
You know, the more I read that question on the I-94W the more confused I get. I still read it as (arrested or convicted) for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ... so ...
Have you ever been (arrested or convicted) for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ...
rather than
Have you ever been arrested? Or have you ever been convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ... (my wording change to illustrate the point!!!!!!)
Wouldn't it be great if the INS reworded that question to make it clear one way or the other.
Steve
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:You know, the more I read that question on the I-94W the more confused I get. I still read it as (arrested or convicted) for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ... so ...
Have you ever been (arrested or convicted) for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ...
rather than
Have you ever been arrested? Or have you ever been convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ... (my wording change to illustrate the point!!!!!!)
Wouldn't it be great if the INS reworded that question to make it clear one way or the other.[/quote]
This is the point that I have been 'going on about' for the last couple of years on this forum, including earlier in this thread.
The UK Embassy website(which advises 'any arrest') just gives 'advice' and is not the regulation. Yet it is always quoted as the definitive regulation; which it quite clearly isn't.
I was almost arrested by mistake some years ago - long story but a car I had sold 2 months earlier was involved in a very serious crime; and the car was still on the DVLA database as mine.
Had I been arrested, and taken the advice in the US Embassy website as authorative, then I would have been ineligble to enter under a waiver. I still most certainly would have answered 'No' on the I-94W
I really do think that the US Embassy want people to apply for Visas to justify their staffing levels and get income; so their advice is biased in that direction. It is pertinent to add that some Immigration lawyers are quite happy with this situation!!
Can you seriously imagine that you would be refused entry to the USA if they discovered you had been arrested by mistake, or for a 'punch up' outside the Dog and Duck 30 years earlier?
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
Can you seriously imagine that you would be refused entry to the USA if they discovered you had been arrested by mistake, or for a 'punch up' outside the Dog and Duck 30 years earlier?[/quote]Yes, for the punch up, if it involved one of these apparently:
Assault (this crime is broken down into several categories, which involve moral turpitude)
Assault with intent to kill, commit rape, commit robbery or commit serious bodily harm
Assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon
blott
Just my 2 penny worth:
It seems that a literal interpretation of the term 'arrest' (as distinguished from 'conviction') in the rules means that even the most unjustified or even wrongful arrest will suffice. That surely makes no sense at all. Further, does the arrest have to have been made by a police officer or would a citizen's arrest also meet the requirment?
Fianlly, how is it justified when there has been no prosecution or the outcome is acquittal?
Fortunately, I don't have this problem but I have sympathy with anybody who falls within this definition.
Here's a really dumb question then around the arrest question ...
Does the one version of the I-94W accomodate all the countries that participate in the visa waiver programme? I.e. Are there no other versions (other than language translations) for different countries?
I'll give you the thinking ...
The Madeleine McCann case taught me the concept of an Arguido in Portugese law. I don't think we have a direct equivalent in the UK. If one were made an Arguido in Portugal one assumes that it would still be OK to answer No to the have you ever been arrested question? Does that sound sensible? Even in a situation as huge and a seemingly full of moral turpitude as Madeleine McCann.
I don't know Portugese law but would an arrest be the next step? Kind of like being charged in the UK? And if that's so, is an arrest in the UK more like being made an Arguido?
What if the question were phrased, have you ever been charged or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ...
It would seem to make more sense to me that way. Whether it is legal under UK or European law (where people are assumed innocent until proven guilty) to include being charged would be a whole other debate.
Steve
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Yes, for the punch up, if it involved one of these apparently:
Assault (this crime is broken down into several categories, which involve moral turpitude)
Assault with intent to kill, commit rape, commit robbery or commit serious bodily harm
Assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon[/quote]
They are hardly the definition of a "punch-up outside the Dog and Duck" Blott.
Most public order offences that result in an arrest are dealt with by a fixed penalty or caution.(usually after a night in the cells to sober up!!) So there is no conviction.
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:
9 FAM 40.21 Notes Page 4 of 27 U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 - Visas
Crimes committed against governmental authority, which would not constitute moral turpitude for visa-issuance purposes, are, in general, violation of laws which are regulatory in character and which do not involve the element of fraud or other evil intent do not involve moral turpitude. The following list assumes that the statutes involved do not require the showing of an intent to defraud, or commit other evil:
(1) Black market violations;
(2) Breach of the peace;
(3) Carrying a concealed weapon;
(4) Desertion from the Armed Forces;
(5) Disorderly conduct;
(6) Drunk or reckless driving;
(7) Drunkenness;
(8) Escape from prison;
(9) Failure to report for military induction;
(10) False statements (not amounting to perjury or involving fraud);
(11) Firearms violations;
(12) Gambling violations;
(13) Immigration violations;
(14) Liquor violations;
(15) Loan sharking;
(16) Lottery violations;
(17) Possessing burglar tools (without intent to commit burglary);
(18) Smuggling and customs violations (where intent to commit fraud is absent);
(19) Tax evasion (without intent to defraud); and
(20) Vagrancy
[/quote]
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:What if the question were phrased, have you ever been charged or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ...[/quote]
Perhaps "charged AND convicted" would be better!
However the I-94W is clearly a nonsense! Moral Turpitude is not easily defined, and who had even heard of it; even under US law it is established by State court precedent.
I was reading up on this in some Florida case histories and really serious offences are not considered to involve moral turpitude. One was for man with his third conviction for DUI(driving under the influence) where serious injury was involved. This did not involve Moral Turpitude apparently because it was not his intent to injure anybody.
However we are in danger of getting side tracked a little from the 'arrest' advice on the US Embassy website. There seems to me to be no possible reason why someone arrested and not charged, or found not guilty, is not eligble for entry under a visa waiver.
There are a couple of points.
Statutes are meant to be interpreted. Not every single crime is included because of practicality. Can you imagine a statute that defines homicide by every potential method of killing someone. The laws are interpreted through caselaw. The phrase "Crime involving moral turpitude" is vague simply because it gives the USCIS and the judges more freedom to interpret.
FOr US Immigration laws, many crimes which are misdemeanors in criminal law have been interpreted as felonies. One startling example is of a man around 40 who grew up in the US since being an infant. As a teenager, he was arrested twice for jumping a turnstile to use the subway in NY. He applied for US Citizenship. Not only was he denied citizenship, he was placed in removal proceedings. Removal is similar to deportation. Technically, people who steal cable in the US are guilty of committign a crime involving moral turpitude. It may seem like a harmless crime but it can be argued that it is larceny.
Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Although, you are absolutely right in that a person does not have to read the website or conduct extensive research to find out whether or not he/she is qualified to travel under the VWP. The biggest problem I have is with travel agents. From my experience, what my clients have told me, many travel agents do not inform would be travelers of the effects of having a criminal history.
Unfortunately, I cannot explain why different Embassies have different information on their websites.
The I-94W also is silly because I believe that it does not state anything about spent convictions. Therefore, even if you are committed of a crime involving a moral turpitude and is now spent. A person who otherwise would have said yes may not because it is spent. According to English law, this conviction does not "exist". It is treated as it never happened. A person may not need to discolose this conviction.
Unfortunately, there was a death in my family. This is the reason why I did not respond.
Nilay
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:If a person has ever been arrested, he/she cannot travel to the US under the Visa Waiver Program. Even a person with a spent conviction requires a visa. He/she cannot travel under the Visa Waiver Program
Nilay
[/quote]
I wonder if you could also comment please on a couple more points.
Most people on this site are aware of the entry on the US Embassy website for UK that clearly states if you have ever been arrested you need to apply for a Visa.
However there is of course absolutely no requirement for anyone to look at the website, or even know it exists; and in any case I understand it doesn't have similar wording about arrests in some US Embassy websites for other countries.
The vast majority of visitors simply look at the relevant question on the Visa Waiver form(I-94W) with its reference to "crimes of Moral Turpitude' and 'sentences of confinement of 5 years or more'.
Reading that question it is competely reasonable to answer No even if you have been arrested for a minor offence(or found not guilty). If the form meant "any arrest", why refer to crimes of Moral Turpitude and confinement?
Wading through the US regulations
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id...re/vwp/vwp.xml
There is nothing that I can see that stipulates an arrest of any sort disqualifies a visitor from entering under a waiver.
So my question:
Are you aware of any regulation that states unequivocally that any arrest means you cannot enter under a waiver? Obviously excluding the guidance(not regulation) in the US Embassy website for UK.
There is of course the suspicion that the US Embassy need to justify their staffing levels and unnecessarily dragging us to London(or Belfast
The VWP is not a right - just a privilege countries have given to nationals of certain countries.
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:There is a requirement though, Robert, for any person who wishes to travel to any Country in the World other than their place of residence to find out the entry requirement of that country and ensure whether they are eligible to travel or if a VIsa is needed.
[/quote]
Absolutely - I couldn't agree more.
My point is that the formal regulations for entry requirement are contained in the US Immigration website link I gave and, unless I am much mistaken and have missed where it is laid down, that does not stipulate an arrest disqualifies you from entering on a Visa Waiver.
Why having read all the detail in that official site, would I seek further guidance from the US Embassy website in UK? As said above my further point was that I might not even know that website exists.
In any case the US Embassy websites in the various countries eligble under the Visa Waiver schemes give different guidance and all refer to the US Immigration regulations as their authority.
So from reading the official US Immigration website an arrest would not debar you from entry on a Visa Waiver.
Likewise reading the I-94W would not debar you from entry; unless you had committed a crime of moral turpitude or spent 5 years in Jail.
Apart from the above, it is patently absurd to to have the situation that any arrest, even in a case of mistaken identity, would deny someone the use of a Visa Waiver; and as far as I can ascertain the formal regulations do not stipulate that is the case.
[/quote]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks