Comments on: Snopes Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It!

By: Ubique Patriam Reminisci

Ubique Patriam Reminisci — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:31:19 +0000

Greg Hill Update
Greg Hill responds in the comments of Dave Barry’s blog entry.

I apologize both for misspelling Mr. Barry’s name and saying blogs aren’t open to their reader’s comments. He’s a fine writer who’s hopefully losing no sleep over my error, and the…

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:12:39 +0000

Snopes disillusioned me a couple of years ago when they ran a couple of unsigned articles that I thought at the time failed to met their usual standards for evenhandedness. One of those articles subsequently disappeared but last time I looked the other was still there, taking a Michael Moore-style view of Rush Limbaugh.

Since then I’ve decided that unless it’s signed (and Barbara seems to be the only one who does) I’ll be just as skeptical of it as I would anything else on the Internet.

I think we can now label “Snopes is reliable” as just another urban legend.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:16:09 +0000

Actus: an overstayed visa makes you a scofflaw, not necessarily a terrorist. Then again, being a Muslim male between the ages of 18 and 45 who hails from a terrorist state doesn’t necessarily make you a terrorist, either. Neither does congregating in large groups near the bathroom while the flight is in descent, or gesturing a slit throat, or singing praises to the “martyrs” who conduct suicide bombings in Israel. All of these things together do, however, give reason to question the quickness of Snopes and others to jump to the conclusion that these guys were absolutely, positively, definitely not terrorists on a dry run. If ever there was a good candidate for Snopes to use its “undetermined” characterization, this is it.

By: AMac

AMac — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:53:58 +0000

actus, it only matters insofar as Snopes goes into the visa question in some detail, asserting that the 13 Syrians were not in violation of their status. BTW, I got it wrong in the earlier comment and Snopes got it right: the form that records the permitted stay is the Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94. When you cross the border, you receive a small piece of paper... [This I-94 form] indicates that you were 'inspected' on entry; and the the date of your departure….Please do not do what an unbelievable number of people seem to do: lose their I-94. It is stapled to your passport and should not be lost, yet they somehow seem to disappear.

By: actus

actus — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:06:46 +0000

Does the visa status matter to the snopes allegation that they aren’t terrorists?

By: AMac

AMac — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:53:08 +0000

I don’t think this completely explains the ‘visa’ issue. As I understand it (Warning! Understanding derived from reading web-logs and articles, not ‘cuz I’m an expert), the “term of art” is “overstaying.” A non-immigrant foreign artist can get a P-1 or P-3 visa, good for a certain length of time. Apparently most of the Syrians’ P-series visas were expired. However, apparently one can apply in the US for an extension of length-of-stay, and in many cases a 45-day waiver will be granted while ICE considers the extension request. This ‘waiver’ is recorded on a separate piece of paper, so it’s possible to be legally in the US with a one-time-entry visa that expired on use, and a P-1 or P-3 visa that expired less than 45 days prior to the day in question.

I’m reluctant to jump to conclusions about the status of these musicans. This song-and-dance does point out the difficulty, under the current system, of answering what should be a straightforward question.

No comments preview, I hope this posts okay…