Travel scare for green card holders

[Lee Thacket 84]

  On 4/2/2025 at 1:47 AM, Boiler said:

UNWRA is associated with terrorist organisation and they employ them

 

I do not see how he could have answered the DS questions truthfully 

Expand  

 

The American government has funded UNWRA with several million dollars so it seems a bit strange to criticise him for working for the organisation.  He put it in his linkedin profile and, presumably, mentioned it as part of his university application

 

Terrorism is not part of their mission.

[TBoneTX 46,703]

  On 4/2/2025 at 2:32 AM, Lee Thacket said:

I will. Whoever has the misfortune to interview me will be in for a long and boring day

Expand  

Offer the interviewer an adult beverage, because "it makes me so witty."   

[Boiler 46,604]

The American Government was funding the BBC.

[hplusj 326]

  On 4/2/2025 at 2:46 AM, Lee Thacket said:

 

The American government has funded UNWRA with several million dollars so it seems a bit strange to criticise him for working for the organisation.

 

Terrorism is not part of their mission.

Expand  

Forget bridges; if you think by association with American funding an organization is somehow absolved, man.. I got two towers to sell you.

 

  On 4/2/2025 at 2:46 AM, Lee Thacket said:

He put it in his linkedin profile and, presumably, mentioned it as part of his university application

Expand  

And yet, no sign of it on his I-485.  Should we not be critical of omissions/misrepresentations?  There is a question for that as well.

[Lee Thacket 84]

  On 4/2/2025 at 5:18 AM, Boiler said:

The American Government was funding the BBC.

Expand  

 

Is the BBC now to be regarded as a terrorist organisation?

[Lee Thacket 84]

  On 4/2/2025 at 6:32 AM, hplusj said:

Forget bridges; if you think by association with American funding an organization is somehow absolved, man.. I got two towers to sell you.

 

And yet, no sign of it on his I-485.  Should we not be critical of omissions/misrepresentations?  There is a question for that as well.

Expand  

 

Of course we should be critical of material omissions and misrepresentations. I am just struggling to see the significance of omitting mentioning the UNWRA.

[Lee Thacket 84]

  On 4/2/2025 at 3:23 AM, TBoneTX said:

Offer the interviewer an adult beverage, because "it makes me so witty."   

Expand  

 

That should make what I have to say a bit more interesting.

 

Every few hours I remember another organisation I have been involved with. The question is just so broad. It also asks you whether your organisation is legitimate or illegitimate.

 

I look forward to telling them about The Cyclists Touring Club amongst others.

[Dashinka 25,209]

  On 4/2/2025 at 8:58 AM, Lee Thacket said:

 

Is the BBC now to be regarded as a terrorist organisation?

Expand  

No a media organization.  Of course the question is can a media organization be impartial when their funding is coming from a government?  Isn’t that the very definition of state sponsored media?

[Dashinka 25,209]

  On 4/2/2025 at 2:32 AM, Lee Thacket said:

 

I will. Whoever has the misfortune to interview me will be in for a long and boring day

Expand  

Yep, it is always a great idea to be flippant with the person deciding on your visa, or deciding if you can enter on said visa.  I remember a story of an Australian attempting to enter on a K1 that was flippant with the CBP officer.  They were not allowed to enter and their visa was canceled.

[Lee Thacket 84]

  On 4/2/2025 at 10:26 AM, Dashinka said:

No a media organization.  Of course the question is can a media organization be impartial when their funding is coming from a government?  Isn’t that the very definition of state sponsored media?

Expand  

 

Impartiality is difficult at the best of times. People tend to think a media is biased when it criticises their "side".  I think the BBC tries to do a good job. They get vehement criticism from pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. The immigration policy expert Madeleine Sumption was asked to review was asked its immigration and found it to be fair.

 

The question is whether a media organisation can cover stories in a way that might upset the organisation funding it. One of my earliest political memories is from about 40 years ago of my uncle and grandmother arguing about whether the BBC supported terrorism. Margaret Thatcher thought they did. They went on to upset Tony Blair's government as well. George Orwell writes in "Freedom of the Park": " I was told once  that "its line", if any, was to represent the Left wing of the government in power. But that was in the the days of the Churchill Government. If it represents the Left Wing of the present Government, I have not noticed the fact."

 

The ideal media organisation would be one where rich, but benign philanthropists paid lots of money into an anonymous trust account. The most talented could use the money to investigate the rich and powerful without fear or favour.

 

Reporters without Borders rated Britain 23/180 for press freedom so there does not seem too much of a problem at the moment. The United States has dropped from 45 to 55.

 

 

[Lee Thacket 84]

  On 4/2/2025 at 11:35 AM, Dashinka said:

Yep, it is always a great idea to be flippant with the person deciding on your visa, or deciding if you can enter on said visa.  I remember a story of an Australian attempting to enter on a K1 that was flippant with the CBP officer.  They were not allowed to enter and their visa was canceled.

Expand  

 

  On 4/2/2025 at 11:35 AM, Dashinka said:

Yep, it is always a great idea to be flippant with the person deciding on your visa, or deciding if you can enter on said visa.  I remember a story of an Australian attempting to enter on a K1 that was flippant with the CBP officer.  They were not allowed to enter and their visa was canceled.

Expand  

 

I have got no intention of being flippant. I have always been polite and respectful to all immigration and CBP staff that I have encountered.

 

What I am trying to do is think about all organisations I have been involved with in the course of my life.

 

If I discuss every organisation I have ever been involved with that will take a very long time.

 

The question states: "Have you EVER been a member of, involved in, or any way associated with any organizations, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group in the United States or any other location in the world?"

 

That is very broad. 

 

I put down a political party, labor union and professional body that I have been involved. Possibly I should have listed more.

[Dashinka 25,209]

  On 4/2/2025 at 11:53 AM, Lee Thacket said:

 

Impartiality is difficult at the best of times. People tend to think a media is biased when it criticises their "side".  I think the BBC tries to do a good job. They get vehement criticism from pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. The immigration policy expert Madeleine Sumption was asked to review was asked its immigration and found it to be fair.

 

The question is whether a media organisation can cover stories in a way that might upset the organisation funding it. One of my earliest political memories is from about 40 years ago of my uncle and grandmother arguing about whether the BBC supported terrorism. Margaret Thatcher thought they did. They went on to upset Tony Blair's government as well. George Orwell writes in "Freedom of the Park": " I was told once  that "its line", if any, was to represent the Left wing of the government in power. But that was in the the days of the Churchill Government. If it represents the Left Wing of the present Government, I have not noticed the fact."

 

The ideal media organisation would be one where rich, but benign philanthropists paid lots of money into an anonymous trust account. The most talented could use the money to investigate the rich and powerful without fear or favour.

 

Reporters without Borders rated Britain 23/180 for press freedom so there does not seem too much of a problem at the moment. The United States has dropped from 45 to 55.

 

 

Expand  

I wasn’t really referencing the bias or perceived bias of the BBC, I was more commenting on why any government is funding a news organization.  We talk about state sponsored media with respect to totalitarian regimes, and it is true, so why do we allow governments to fund any media?  Now in the U.S. it may be different as we are supposed to have a separation of the government with the media which I deem a good thing.  What we saw though in 2020 was the government actively suppressing stories via media and social media.  Is that a good thing?  Elon Musk, love him or hate him, actually bought X to  stop that practice of the U.S. federal bureaucracy controlling the speech on that platform, and it has worked so far, much to the chagrin of those government agencies.  I know, it is all about disinformation, but who decides what is disinformation?  I actually like the BBC, and I agree, they tend to be fairly centrist in their reporting, but the U.S. government has no business sending US taxpayer money to them.  Would you agree with the UK government sending UK taxpayer money to say Fox News, or ABC, etc.?

 

I am not familiar with reporters without borders, but like many NGOs or as I like to call them GFOs (government funded organizations), they also have an inherent bias of keeping their funding streams alive. 

[Boiler 46,604]

The thing about the BBC is that it is State organisation, no direct equivalent in the US, why would a foreign government be helping funding one of its operations, really weird. There are no end of other examples.

 

Can you imagine the response if there was National Broadcaster in the US funded by taxpayers and it was found oput they were also taking money from foreign governments.

[hplusj 326]

  On 4/2/2025 at 11:53 AM, Lee Thacket said:

The ideal media organisation would be one where rich, but benign philanthropists paid lots of money into an anonymous trust account. The most talented could use the money to investigate the rich and powerful without fear or favour.

Expand  

I would argue that the ideal one is none at all.  In the digital age, journalism has evolved to online platforms, where your average citizen can be as accurate, unbiased, and promoted as the talking head on CNN. 

 

Journalistic integrity from the corporate sector is buried ten times over.  Media organizations are antiquated concepts scrambling for relevance with their aging audience.   What you'd create with this proposed system, instead of desperate sycophancy, is a bunch of stockbrokers trying to track the metric of "most talented" in order to get to the money.

[yuna628 9,779]

  On 4/2/2025 at 3:05 PM, Boiler said:

The thing about the BBC is that it is State organisation, no direct equivalent in the US, why would a foreign government be helping funding one of its operations, really weird. There are no end of other examples.

 

Can you imagine the response if there was National Broadcaster in the US funded by taxpayers and it was found oput they were also taking money from foreign governments.

Expand  

I've seen people try to make comparisons to PBS/NPR. BBC is fine as a media organization, and it does a lot more than just air news. Any news organization in the UK, not just the BBC seems closely entwined in government. You can't publish anything about the Crown or government (even if embarrassing info) without their knowledge and approval in some way... the way I understand it?

 

Honestly Boiler, I think currently if we did have a national broadcaster doing what you suggest in that scenario, that some people wouldn't have a problem with it, particularly if it fit within a certain political party goal (that can go either way).

 

  On 4/2/2025 at 11:53 AM, Lee Thacket said:

 

Impartiality is difficult at the best of times. People tend to think a media is biased when it criticises their "side".  I think the BBC tries to do a good job. They get vehement criticism from pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. The immigration policy expert Madeleine Sumption was asked to review was asked its immigration and found it to be fair.

 

The question is whether a media organisation can cover stories in a way that might upset the organisation funding it. One of my earliest political memories is from about 40 years ago of my uncle and grandmother arguing about whether the BBC supported terrorism. Margaret Thatcher thought they did. They went on to upset Tony Blair's government as well. George Orwell writes in "Freedom of the Park": " I was told once  that "its line", if any, was to represent the Left wing of the government in power. But that was in the the days of the Churchill Government. If it represents the Left Wing of the present Government, I have not noticed the fact."

 

The ideal media organisation would be one where rich, but benign philanthropists paid lots of money into an anonymous trust account. The most talented could use the money to investigate the rich and powerful without fear or favour.

 

Reporters without Borders rated Britain 23/180 for press freedom so there does not seem too much of a problem at the moment. The United States has dropped from 45 to 55.

 

 

Expand  

There is never just such a thing as a rich benign philanthropist. A person with money and power is in general always looking to promote their own self-interests and generate more wealth and power. This is one reason why newspapers are dying, large media organizations are struggling, and good writers are being pushed out. Citizen journalism does a good job most of the time, but can be extremely error prone and not bound by any sort of ethics and eventually even when those get a larger following online - end up falling into the trap of promoting their self-interests.