This is for the visa-free travel program (VWP). The US wants to check whether people who show up for vacation without a visa have a criminal record.
If European countries don't want to grant access that's their right, but it's not at all an unreasonable thing for the US to want access to, if the data exists and is easy to check. If someone is a convicted sex trafficker or drug dealer or whatever, I'm fully in favor of not letting them into the country.
> The US wants to check whether people who show up for vacation without a visa have a criminal record ... it's not at all an unreasonable thing for the US to want access to
It might not be an unreasonable request for a gov with a long history of abiding to agreements - and w/o a long history of misusing data for the benefit of Gov & gov partners.
Which means it is a fully unreasonable request by the US Gov (of any administration).
But a request by a US Gov
that gifts its citizens' most sensitive data
to one of the world's least ethical data brokers
so that vulnerable people can be mistreated in bulk?
Burn the paper the request is written on. Threaten to kill the next messenger they send. And brick up the door they knocked on.
For a variety of reasons, it's pretty common in many western countries for convicted first/second offenders even for pretty serious crimes to not serve much time. You see that in the UK for sex crimes for example, where offenses with "mitigating" cultural factors are punished extremely lightly.
Which again is that country's choice, but it's not one that countries accepting their tourists are obligated to accept.
Of course, amongst all the examples you could choose, you had to give a xenophobic example. There were no other example you could think of. You are seriously stating that the country who elected a sex offender (on top a being many other things like being a con man and an insurrectionist who tried to overturn a legitimate election and got away with it - hey, isn't that "offenses with "mitigating" cultural factors punished extremely lightly") should seriously screen foreign (very foreign) sex offenders who served their time.
I picked the example of under-sentencing (and early release) which most people accept is the most clearly applicable. The fact that you know exactly what I'm talking about based on a very general statement about sex offense, is strong evidence you know it's true.
In terms of rhetoric, you can argue that Donald Trump is bad for his alleged sex crimes, or you can argue that the US is wrong for vetting tourists, but you can't reasonably argue both at the same time, those contradict each other.
I was not really intending to lump civil trials into the discussion because of the lower evidential standard than criminal trials, but sure, I don't really care.
A country has the full right to deny entry to anyone for whatever reason.
We have had instances of that in the Netherlands with religious folks who wanted to give hate speech tours. The government just stops them at the airport customs control.
It is ofcourse potentially a diplomatic shit storm.
That's yet another can of worms. Supposedly the US isn't supposed to deny a visa because of speech that would be protected by the first amendment, but the current administration doesn't seem to be following that.
If I remember correctly, the visa free travel (esta) asks about arrests as part of the information. Even if you were never charged, never trialled, declared innocent at trial. I would imagine that this would include a uk police caution as well. For all matters, even if under uk law, these are minor and spent (no longer needed to be declared within the uk).
Just mention the UK, but I am sure that other countries have thier own procedures but the US wants all the details for thier own examination.
It would be more efficient and civilized to just have a background check with a visum application. That way you won't have them in the us at all. That was the whole point of a visum? Therefore other motives must be behind the desire for full access. Full access doesn't mean people first have to travel or even a desire to travel. It means full access outside the normal law enforcement formula. Useful for many purposes, public shaming, asset recruitment, radicalization etc
If European countries don't want to grant access that's their right, but it's not at all an unreasonable thing for the US to want access to, if the data exists and is easy to check. If someone is a convicted sex trafficker or drug dealer or whatever, I'm fully in favor of not letting them into the country.