Dan O

So in other words, she was doing her job as all IO's do in all countries. Screen the entrants at arrival. Entitlement is not a free pass to enter another country

Seems like a normal conversation by most io in most countries. Thats there job to ask questions and access travelers at entry. Far fewer questions than I generally get when I return to the USA after a trip.

How did they steal your phone? Or did you lose the phone and someone found it. Its up to the bank if they want to recover your funds. Was the money transferred after you notified the bank? Its up to the police to pursue the theft of the phone and the money. Chance are slim they will chase it unless there was a significant amount lost.

If you apply correctly, provide the correct documents a very few would have any reason for rejection. Despite several post of rejection on this site, there's generally more to the story about rejected applications that isnt told, in my experience.

You pay when you submit the application at the end of the process on the site.

I believe that's actually what he means. Visa Exempt goes from 30 days to 45 days. Visa on arrival would go from 15 days to 30 days. I don't know if he said the wrong visa type or if the article writer used the wrong word or the translation was bad.

Not sure you heard that. They are readily available at almost every major pharmacy and many are free or any number of clinics close to all major airports

Here's a copy of my last one

They make rust neutralizing paint. Covers, neutralizes rust and seals the surface. You can leave that as your final surface or paint over it. Doesn't give you back any insulation value but can cover over the rust fairly effective.

If you apply for a 60 day TR visa you can also extend that for 30 day, then fly out and come back visa exempt for 30 + 30 if you want a bit more time. Just need to apply for a TR visa on the front end

Because this is a forum aimed at foreigners primarily and many on here have nothing better to do than bitch about something just to hear themselves talk there's a fair amount of helpful people as well

Last week one of them was dressed as Spiderman. My 12 year old daughter on seeing this asked if the economy was so bad that superheros had to sell cookie and milk now!

I understand full well what the act says and how it is used. For some reason you can't seem to understand that fact and continue to imply I don't understand it and I'm wrong. There is no reason for you and I to discuss this any longer as no explanation seems to satisfy you. At this point I would ask you not to reply to me or write any more about this to me as its a worthless exercise as it's just going in circles. Write to the immigration division and ask or complain to them if you need any more clarity or information.

Not sure why you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around the fact that Imm Official use their discretion whenever denying entry and it seems to be such an illogical function for you. You appear to think that it means they just make up some random reason like oh I don't like his shirt color or Hey he's wearing a blue hat and it's Tuesday...... Do you even understand what "using their discretion" means? It appears you dont I suggest that you start a new thread asking for real life examples from people actually denied entry. Be specific on not wanting rumors or annoctdotal stories. Don't forget to ask if they had an option to appeal and speak to a supervisor.

you are truely a piece of work and triggered by my non agreement with you. I have not changed my thinking nor position so you can just drop that from your mind. I never said they can do whatever they want to do, even though you claim I said that. I said they have the discretion to make judgement calls and the legal authority to do so. They have access to a large amount of info in their database and can easily see if someone appears to be abusing or mis-using entries and extensions and what visa type, if any, they use. you claimed repeatedly they have no legal authority and must follow the exact wording of the Act. If you read the sections the wording is vague enough to grant discretion on how and who to apply it to. I also never said it's not happening either. I simply gave you examples from the Act of how the Act wording gives them ability to make judgment calls since you continually claim they can not. End of story

SInce you're so triggered to be right I'll respond 1 last time to your claim that immigration officials have no lawful authority to deny entrance, which is what you claim multiple times. There's no pre-conceived notions on my part just the fact of what actually happens. Also I never said they can go outside of whats written in the full ACT in any of the sections, what I said was the Imm Officers has discretion on how they view and apply their duties. Go back and read the act again and you may see they have to make judgement calls on must every criteria as the wording is not concrete in its meanings. Section 12 item 7 alone requires judgement and discretion on the part of the Immigration Official: 7. Having behavior which would indicate possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments. Then again outside of Section 12 in Section 16: In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace, culture, morality, or welfare, or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of alien to enter into the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens from entering into the Kingdom. And for clarification, Immigration Official have the authority spelled out and delegated to them in the Act that they are the decision makers at point of entry and exit to the country. Both of theses sections of criteria and others require the designated authorized Imm Official to exercise judgment calls based on what they see, whether you or anyone else feels they are right or wrong, good or bad. I never said I agree with these or that its ok any time they may be applied inappropriately but they have the lawful authority to have discretion, even when it appears bad or misguided. It may not be right in your eyes but its not your country not your rules and it's the way the game is played here. Have a good day

Your trying to distort what I said but that's fine. Upon denial you are generally escalated to a superior or other imm official for questioning prior to detention, especially if there's a question or dispute on reason of denial. I've seen it happen personally and also it's been posted here on the forum a number of times. Yes there can be cases you go direct to lock up as well, but those are general for other issues, not the ones from this OP

Not my call on what reason they note as there are a number of reasons available and that has no relevance to your claim they have no authority to deny entrance. It can be pretty obvious based on the immigration database about your activities, visa types and lengths of stay and extensions. The "meeting of the minds" isn't gonna happen as I stand firm that they have legal authority to make judgment calls on denial, just like most every other country, while you claim they have no legal authority to deny entry, and your rights are broken by doing so. As a visitor you have no rights from your home country, only the rights and laws given you while you are a visitor here. We don't agree and that's the end of the story. This is a circular discussion and I'm ending it. You have your ideas so feel free to stick to them.

We're not discussing corruption in other situations. I'm not denying corruption or rogue acts of extortion. I presume nothing as I've been coming regularly since 1984 and have family and property here so I've seen a lot of <deleted>. A lot not good by any means. Those other issues have nothing to do with this topic so piling on other issues doesn't prove your claims about lawfulness of denial if entry by Immigration If your denied entry your held until return arrangements are made for you to leave and you have access to supervisors during that process. Whether they agree or disagree is a different matter.

I call bs on your statement. You can request to speak to a supervisor

In some cases a payment may be requested and that is illegal and can be reported but all denials don't fall into that category. As for insufficient funds for support that's a provable point and unless you can't prove it then it's valid. Your sticking to your story on this and that's fine but it's far less rampant than your implying, in my opinion. Has it happened yeah, is it constant or frequent no. you just hear about the few it happens to so it seems bigger than life and then all the 2nd and 3rd hand stories come out about, I know a guy it happened to. Most of them they were probably validly denied and want to make a case for being wronged. I'm done on this topic as it's circular and goes no where. Have a great day

It's obvious you have no clue about how immigration works, the delegation of authority and their structure within the dept. The whole act, if you read it and associated regs under immigration give them authority and latitude of judgement, even if it's not applied evenly or to your liking. You have the ability to appeal as well, if denied. so to expect every job position to be listed in an legal act shows your lack of understanding about legal acts and regulations and how they are written or structured. Granted these are poorly written. Unless a bribe or illegal payment is requested its not illegal to deny entry based on what information they have access to on the entrant, which is a lot for someone with multiple entries or extensions. I'm done with this discussion, so your time is up. Believe what you want and use that logic if you're ever stopped and see where you get. Have a great day

They were probably alerted to the scan due to the medicine showing up in the scan as a lot on illegal stuff comes in that way. They have 2 types of wipes, 1 for explosives and one for drugs. No need to worry if they are prescriptions, at worse they would open your bag and inspect it and see it was legal

Yes I have read it and understand it sufficiently. They have the authority based on their position in the immigration department and under the laws as written. So based on your view I guess the immigration officers have no power or authority then to even issue stamps in passports for permission of stay either. So the minister should be the only source to man all entry points to the country and be the only source to address any denial issue at in entry point. That's absurd logic but you can go with that. Try googling any source that offers legal advice and support of immigration issues and see what they say about being denied by an immigration official and you will find the exact same answer, the immigration officers have the open authority based on the written laws to deny entrance. They have wide latitude and may in some case use their own judgment however flimsy to deny entry based on all info they have in front if them. People have the option to appeal denial if you feel it's incorrect, some are successful most are not. On that note I'm done discussing this with you. You are more than welcome to your opinion and we will have to disagree.

Hahahaha Nope I'm confused just by your interpretation of the law and the denial of entry authority of an immigration officer. Your extracting sections of the law and making an interpretation of what it means using only those sections. That's fine if that's your view but in the end it the decision resides with the official at the entry point and the authority they are bestowed by the minister in conducting their duties. End of story. We'll just have to disagree on interpretation of the authority the Immigration officers hold.