Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 April 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 19

Miami city flag

Does anyone know why the Miami city flag looks like the Indian flag? Is it just a coincidence, or was one modelled after the other? Ryan Vesey 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Though judging from photos of the actual flag, the seal could probably be resized [1] – Connormah (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The seal in the middle is simply the city's seal. Not sure of the origin of the color scheme; though orange and green are commonly associated with Miami (see Miami Dolphins color scheme, the original color scheme of the Florida Marlins). Miami's green is usually more teal than the green of that flag, but the two colors are well associated with Miami, which would explain their use on the flag; as to why they are striped the way they are, or why orange and green are associated with Miami at all, I don't know. --Jayron32 05:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Presumably because if they were vertical it would look like the Irish flag or the one for Cote d'Ivoire ;-) IThe Miami Beach flag has two colours [2] so looking like a beach. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps associated with the colors of the University of Miami, which apparently date back to 1926. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There used to be an excellent Wikipedia article about flags but I cannot for the life of me find it (it had lots of flags and an explanation of the symbolism of the colours). A site I found about flag colour symbology (http://www.articleswave.com/articles/country-flag-color-meanings.html) suggests Green is often used to signify 'agriculture', white 'purity/peace/harmony' and yellow 'the sun, wealth, energy and happiness'. I'm not sure if these sorts of things have any truth behind them but certainly some legends exist around flag colours...e.g. Flag of Austria#Legend. ny156uk (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The seal of Miami City states "Incorporated 1896" so it's possible that the flag was designed at that time, but I can't find any details on the internet. The colours of the Flag of India seem to date from 1921, and the "saffron color represents courage and sacrifice; white – truth, peace and purity; green – prosperity". Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is calling for the wind dangerous ?

Hello Learned Ones ! I think I read somewhere that whistling on board a sail-ship is forbidden, since it calls for the wind, which often comes as a gale...Was it in Melville ? Also asking for wind orally is ominous ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reference I can recall to whistling for a wind is in one of Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons series - I can't remember which volume. There, there's no prohibition on whistling casually that I can recall, but some characters do deliberately whistle for a wind at some point. Given Ransome's tendency to slip in lots of sailors' lore and literary references, I don't doubt that it's an authentic custom. However, I have never heard of anyone fearing accidentally whistling up a wind; and I'm fairly sure that at least in Anglophone maritime culture there's no concept of calling for the wind by voice. Others may contradict me, however. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

After some searching I would say that it's impossible to say who or where the phrase originated and would call it folklore or urban_legend. I suppose it could have something to do with the Butterfly_effect. Other interesting maritime superstitions can be found here: http://caribbean-pirates.com/nautical_superstitions.php but they don't cite any references. I've done a bit of sailing and calling for the wind orally is not a problem. However I also worked on a small commercial fishing boat (5 crew and 22 fisherman) and one thing you don't even discuss is the wind. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The legend massively predates awareness of the butterfly effect. It's much more like sympathetic magic. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And, to inject a little science here: The butterfly effect means that whistling is as likely to reduce the wind strength as it is to increase it - and the original statement of the effect with respect to weather is that the flapping of the butterfly's wing changes the weather halfway around the world and many weeks later. I'd bet that this all started with someone with a really annoying whistle being told not to do it by exasperated fellow crew members! ("I know...let's tell him he has to stop so he doesn't cause a storm!"). SteveBaker (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I found Royal Navy & Marine Customs and Traditions which says; "Whistling is forbidden in most ships if only for the reason that it can often be confused with the sound of the boatswain's call used for attracting attention before making a pipe. A former reason for the no-whistling rule was that it was the custom to whistle a wind when becalmed in a sailing ship; if perchance a gale ensued the assumption was that they overdid it. So sailors, being superstitious, rigidly curtailed their whistling habits. At the time of whistling for a wind it was customary to drive a knife into the mainmast on the bearing the wind was desired." Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As an additional, within many theatres it's considered bad luck to whistle, one of the most common attributions to this is that Fly crew were historically drawn from a maritime background, being used to ropes and knots, and that specific sequences of whistles (as would have been used at sea) were used to direct movements of often heavy overhead loads, and an inadvertent whistle could trigger a major accident backstage. --RedHillian | Talk 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be unrelated to the maritime context, but see Whistle Down the Wind (film) and Whistle Down the Wind (musical). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It was the last four lines of chapter 2 in Swallows and Amazons, the first book of the series;

“I can’t believe we’re really going to land on it,” said Titty.

“We aren’t unless there’s wind tomorrow,” said Captain John. “We’ll have to whistle for a wind.”

Titty and Roger, by agreement, whistled one tune after another all the way home. As they came to the farm the leaves of the beech trees shivered overhead.

“You see,” said Titty, “we’ve got some wind. Wake up early, and we’ll go out and do some more whistling before breakfast.”

And of course you should remember to never whistle for the Northern Lights. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not?85.211.192.200 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many myths about the dancers. In Nunavik they say that whistling will make them dance harder. The Dene say that they will come down and dance for you. Others say you will die if you whistle. Around here, Victoria Island (Canada), if you whistle they will come down, chop off your head and use it for a soccer ball. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Fake Rolex

A daughter has recently had a couple of work related trips to China and a running joke in the family is about the fact that she didn't bring us all back one those terrific Rolex watches one can get there at bargain prices.

She has spoken of them often. They are apparently extremely common in China, and "guaranteed genuine" by the sales people. Obviously they must sell a fair few of these. Do many buyers really believe they are getting the real thing? Are the watches actually any good?

(Yes, I looked for Fake Rolex, and ended up at Counterfeit watch, but it didn't really answer these questions.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You would have to be a bit dim to believe that a $20 watch is a real rolex, even if it says "Rolex" on the front; especially when the real thing is typically over $4,000. Any guarantee probably isn't worth the paper it is written on. I had no allusions that the one I bought in Thailand was anything other than a fake. It looked good, but mysteriously broke after a few months. Even so, if I ever return to area I'll probably get a couple more as novelty items. Astronaut (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Rolex should start marketing cheap "genuine fake Rolexes" as novelty items. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Then, the Chinese would start selling fake "genuine fake Rolexes." OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking the Chinese would have been the ones making the genuine fakes for Rolex. My father recently took a trip with my sister and her family to Niagara Falls from Boston, while Mom stayed home. On the way they stopped at the Corning Glass Works where my dad bought my mom a small decorative candy bowl. She noticed that stamped on the bottom it said "Made in China". μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the "authentically Australian" souvenirs that travellers buy here, such as boomerangs, cuddly toy kangaroos and koalas and the like, are made in China. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a real problem for my daughter and her colleagues. When they travel to China they naturally want to take with them as gifts for their Chinese hosts some genuine and highly representative "Australian" things. They don't want to be taking things back to China. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

These watches only work when the fly inside has the strength to peddle his bicycle.85.211.192.200 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's the merchant who does the peddling, and the fly who does the pedaling. Ain't English grand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure 85.211 was referring to a fly selling his bicycle on ebay. That would be the default assumption, surely. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Such tiny flies too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.192.200 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Q: “Do many buyers really believe they are getting the real thing?” I don't think so. People (even whilst their perambulating in a eastern market whilst intoxicated with the of trills of being on holiday) will notice the lack of quality of the case and presentation.

Q: Are the watches actually any good? Twenty years ago (note: 20 yrs) I compared one to my 'expensive' dress watches (by a well known and reputable firm of watchmakers). I was impressed. Now howerver, I can purchase a very cheap radio controlled watch which is bang on to the second (better than 40 milliseconds so the spec tells me – allowing for transmission time and processing). That serves my personal needs completely. These days, it serves no good to tell a mugger “Hey, take my watch instead –'cause they know... So they end up walk off with just your wallet; full of exhausted store-cards and a few low domination dollars (reserved for tips) but not your genuine watch (which you offered them at the outset), nor the wallet in the extra pocket (as common in Europe) that your bespoke tailor sewed in to your expensive jacket. Think about it, some employers judge people by their appearance and if you hadn’t worn a fake Rollex (and borrowed a suit from your girlfriends second cousin twice removed) to get the job in the first place, you might not now, be able to afford a real Rolex, nor mix with people who inform you how to protect your wealth and side-step people who loss out in this rat-race. Instead you might find yourself in the same desperate place as your mugger. Err... I've forgotten what the original question was. Was it something about the west crushing the 19th century trade trade in Chinese porcelain from China by faking it.Aspro (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If they are genuine, they would be Rolices, not Rolexes. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you KageTora, it comforting to know that some Wikipedia editors know the truth and can put us right. But why do Rolice watch manufactures spell their brand name Rolex? Is it to confuse us foreigners? --Aspro (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fake Rolexes have a useful purpose in a con game. You claim you are broke and want to sell your Rolex for $500. You take the watch to a jeweller that the 'mark' chooses. After appraisal at 6K the con man swaps watches and gives you the fake. Don't try this at home kids, jewelers are aware of it now and warn the marks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OR: The inner workings of fake brand-name watches, made in many places around the world, are often good quality and will last (with care) several years. It is the outer worksmanship that is poor, and begins to peel or chip after a short time. And, no, no one thinks they're getting a 99% discount on the real thing. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal experience: They're alright watches, but you want to change the batteries as soon as you can. They can die spectacularly, and cover the insides of the watch in goop, which will make it near impossible to salvage. MChesterMC (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this applies to Rolexes, but many 'genuine articles' from different brands are made in China by the same skilled workforce as the fakes, to the extent that if workers at the official brand factory are dissatisfied, they can offer their services elsewhere for a small pay rise or better working conditons, making 'fakes' that are effectively the same as the originals. Though, I wonder if fake Rolex factories can get hold of the same high quality materials and parts, even if their staff know how to put the things together perfectly. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Check cashing

In the US, when you deposit a check into your account, does it take less time to clear if the bank it was drawn from is the same bank? For instance, if I have a Bank of America account and someone pays me with a check from their BoA account, would it take less time to clear than a check from Key Bank? Dismas|^(talk) 14:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The statutory limits for holds are outlined in our article on the Expedited Funds Availability Act. From a regulatory point of view, the main difference appears to be that checks up to $5000 – or the first $5000 of a large deposit – must be made available on the first business day after the deposit for checks drawn from the same institution, whereas the statutory hold extends to the second day after the deposit otherwise. (The full amount of a large deposit must be made available, in all cases, not more than 7 business days later.) This does not prevent a bank from setting its own policies that allow for shorter hold periods, or from clearing individual, specific checks faster than the statutory requirement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the link. I wouldn't have known how to search for that term. Dismas|^(talk) 15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For large quantities, and under some specific circumstances, there is some kind of money-laundering investigation that kicks in - we sold a car once and got a $20,000 check (I forget whether it was drawn on the same bank or not) - and they held it for something like 10 days because of the large amount involved, claiming that some kind of automatically invoked money laundering investigation had put a hold on it. (And that was with Bank of America). Sorry - I don't know the details of why. SteveBaker (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For large checks, even in the absence of any concern about wrongdoing, the portion above $5000 can be held for up to 7 business days following the date of the deposit, which can mean the funds aren't available for 11 calendar days (or longer, if you happen to hit a holiday). For instance, if you deposit a large check this year on Wednesday, July 3, the bulk of the amount doesn't have to be released until Monday, July 15—the fourth of July is a holiday, and July 6, 7, 13, and 14 are all weekend days. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I recently started two large accounts at separate banks with checks from the same large corporation. The first bank gave me an ATM card and the account rep offered me a cash withdrawal on the spot. The second bank did not give me an ATM card, but said it would be mailed. I advised them this would be inconvenient. They said I could use a check to make a withdrawal the next day. But I was traveling that night by train and needed money then. The account rep said no money would clear until the next day, but then went to her manager who authorized a $500 withdrawal immediately. As for cashing a check drawn on the same bank, employees used to get accounts with the same bank and branch their small employer used in order to be able to cash the check at the teller's window. I never had to wait for a check drawn on Chase bank to clear when I had a Chase account. But I have had small personal checks drawn on the same bank need to clear over night. But the last time I did that was before the 1990's banking law changes. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some banks seem to like keep your money as long as possible, and deny you access to it. So, while they can probably tell within a second that a check drawn on their own bank will clear, they prefer to wait out the clock. Similarly, if they were required to do so, they could also verify accounts electronically with other banks in a second, but, since they aren't required to, they take their sweet time. Of course, there is always the possibility that their computers could be down. So, a more sensible law might be that 90% of such transactions must clear within a minute, and all within a day. Checks drawn on banks from other nations, which may use different banking networks, etc., would, of course, have to be excluded. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• A friend that used to work for a bank said some are fast at clearing cheques and others take it to the limit to gain interest. RB was the slowest and TD was the fastest she claimed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes TD was the bank that gave me an ATM card and offered me cash on the spot. μηδείς (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Council Houses.

What year were the council houses built in Norman Road Burgess Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.68.55 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at old OS maps on old-maps.co.uk, they're there in the 1937 map, but not the 1912 map. Looking at the street in Google maps, they're pretty standard for inter-war council housing. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This Historic Character Assessment Report for Burgess Hill only says that the Norman Road houses had been built "by 1947", but an accompanying photograph says "Inter-war council housing at Norman Road" (page 20). BURGESS HILL WAR MEMORIALS notes that most council housing was the result of the Housing Act, 1919 and that some of the resulting blocks of housing in Burgess Hill had names that commemorated World War I battles, such as "Mons Terrace" in West Street and "Marne Terrace" in Valebridge Road. I'm afraid that's all I could find. West Sussex County Council Record Office and archives would probably be more able to supply more details. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Eureka! I didn't dig deeply enough on the county council link that I posted. But lo and behold: Norman Road Housing Scheme: Certificates of completion of house for 38 houses in Norman Road Date: November 1921 - September 1927. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Was Uncle Ben (the rice guy) originally supposed to be a slave?

Question as topic. I got told recently that originally the guy was a slave, but that now they don't like to talk about that - what with things that were considered acceptable a long time ago in a different age no longer being so. I had just always assumed that the Uncle Ben pictured on the box was the guy who started the company.

Is there any truth to this, or is it just another one of those urban legends (like the KKK/Nazi stuff about Marlboro and Snapple)? --87.113.57.205 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you have difficulty finding our article on Uncle Ben's Rice? It addresses your questions. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not link the actual article instead of being condescending? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uncle_Ben's_Rice#Marketing_origins is what Medeis is referring to. Definitely not the guy who started the company... SemanticMantis (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Which references The Museum of Public Relations - The Advertiser's Holy Trinity: Aunt Jemima, Rastus, and Uncle Ben. Alansplodge (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Better yet, Rambling, why not duplicate the entire article here so the OP doesn't need to find it or figure out how to click on a link? μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We're only trying to be helpful. If the OP could easily navigate his way around Wikipedia, he wouldn't be asking. Alansplodge (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. People accustomed to paper encyclopedias aren't aware of the level of detail we have in our articles, so wouldn't think to look there. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And actually, the reference is to my eye, a lot clearer than the text of our article. Also, the next paragraph in our article suggests that Uncle Ben was a slave, whereas the reference is clear that he wasn't. Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Meds, you have your answers above. Perhaps you could use these reference desks for what they're intended, to help inform our readers, not for you to tweet your inner feelings and condescend those who ask reasonable questions? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it all comes down to what you mean by "supposed to be" a slave. Ben and Aunt Jemima are clearly rural, southern African Americans. Antebellum, they are slaves, postbellum freed. And they are fictional, therefore eternal. They create a mythic past when wholesome food was brought by smiling servants who could not be less concerned of their official legal status. The ambiguity about their slave status is the entire point. Say it loud, Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima are proud. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The KKK's motto and ownership of certain products...

Inspired by my question above...

Are 'Veni, Vidi, Vici', and/or 'To Rule Over Oppressed People' actually mottos/slogans used by the Ku Klux Klan, as the urban legends about their involvement with certain items would suggest?

Also, do the KKK actually have majority ownership in any major product brands? Yeah, I know that they could invest in anything that they wanted to as an organization or as individual shareholders, but is there anything popular that's mostly owned by the Klan? --87.113.57.205 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of this is covered at Snopes.com; see [3] --  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of today, but apparently they were involved in music production, around 1920. There was a History Detectives episode about this: [4]. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The poor KKK is so misunderstood. They were just a bunch of fun-lovin' good ol' boys.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What happens to relatives of the Boston bombers ?

If the bombing suspects are found guilty, and they have relatives in the US or Canada, which aren't citizens, would they be deported, due to them being considered too high of a risk to remain ? StuRat (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

High risk to what? Be related to idiots? If your brother robs a bank, should we throw you in jail too? Mingmingla (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to debate the merits of such a policy. I want to know if there is such a policy. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I read it otherwise, but your repeat clarifies it. My apologies. Mingmingla (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

People in America can't be deported for being a "risk", at least not overtly. It can prevent them from being admitted in the first place, or their permission to stay here from being renewed, but as far as I know there is no basis for deportation that does not involve some sort of action. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't do sippenhaft, although we could talk about what happens to your family for your asking that question. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose they might be placed in protective custody, but nothing else.--Auric talk 23:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• They can't be punished by attainder of blood. Being deported if you are not a citizen is not a punishment since residence is not a right--it will depend on the specific law and findings of fact. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Suspect 1 won't be found guilty of anything. He's free as a bird. A dead duck, that is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Marina Oswald and her first daughter June were not deported to the USSR in 1963. Marina was not an American citizen, and June was born in the USSR, albeit to her American husband. She gave birth to their second daughter Audrey in Dallas just a month before JFK's assassination, who was a citizen. Marina later became one too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the general view in America these days of the Japanese American internment? Their only crime would seem to have been some ancestral connection with an enemy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

For those who actually know about, that it was an evil thing to do, punishing everyone for the crimes of a few, and also confiscating their property. The one positive note is that they were only herded into camps and kept there, not exterminated like what the Nazis did to the Jews. There were apparently some Germans interned also, although much smaller numbers. I think this topic came up here some months back. Anyway, there were active attacks by the Japanese military on the west coast of the US, a fact that was well-known to the locals but was generally kept out of the national press. So there was certainly legitimate concern over both disloyal Japanese-Americans and over loyal but possibly endangered Japanese-Americans. But the carpet-bombing approach to this problem was shameful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the internments were justified, if only from a "protective custody" POV (although there was a case of a local Japanese worker helping out the Japanese after their attack on Pearl Harbor). However, there's no justification for confiscating their property. That should have been held for them and returned at the end of the war. And conditions in the camps should have been as pleasant as possible, given security needs. StuRat (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but neither you or Bugs are really authorized to have your own opinions be offered up as the "general view" in America. If you have real references for how most Americans view this, please, feel free to offer them up. But your own opinions are neither solicited nor germane. This is not a forum. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to keep your own opinions to yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a general view on any topic, only individuals have opinions. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are many ways to establish what are common viewpoints among groups of people (such as "Americans"). E.g. polling. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Balderdash. Polling establishes how people answer polling questions. Not their considered views on things. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an important point, and I don't find it necessary to call you names to make it. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Obtuse" isn't a name. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeh? Maybe you've forgotten about Arc Angle and his three sons: Acute, Right, and Obtuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You may find this column of some interest:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

See:

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 13#Civilian internment during WWII,
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_February_9#Internment camps,
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 17#Alien nationals in a warfaring country in the early modern era? and
• World War II related internment and expulsion of Germans in the Americas. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

For more information on Guilt by association we should defer to Michelle Bachman, an expert on the subject ("I'm just sayin'")... --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I would dispute the notion that Bachman would be a reliable source for any fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Stuart Smiley and Plugs Biden would be better. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The US government may not be able to prosecute relatives of terrorists, but there is no check or recourse against such actions as placing them on the No fly list or delaying permanent residence status. Edison (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall a status of "undesirable alien" which can be assigned to someone, to keep them out of the US. Of course, this term always makes me think of her: [7]. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Two friends of the bombing suspects were arrested in New Bedford, Mass for what a law enforcement spokesperson called "administrative immigration violations". A woman with them was escorted to a car with diplomatic plates. The two men who were arrested are from Kazakhstan. RNealK (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That needs a cite, RNealK. Bielle (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

[8]. RNealK (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, the US immigration law has the concept of "Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds" (TRIG), meaning that a foreign citizen who is deemed likely to engage in terrorist activity, or is closely associated to someone who is, should not be allowed to enter the United States. According to the USCIS,

The grounds for inadmissibility include, but are not limited to, individuals who:

• Engaged in ‘terrorist activity’”
• Are engaged or are likely to engage in terrorist activity after entry
• Incited terrorist activity with intent to cause serious bodily harm or death
• Are representatives or current members of a terrorist organization
• Endorsed or espoused terrorist activity
• Received military-type training from or on behalf of a terrorist organization; or
• Are spouses or children of anyone who has engaged in terrorist activity within the last five years (with certain exceptions).

It is further explained that "Engaging in Terrorist Activity ... includes .... providing material support to a terrorist organization or member", while "the term “material support” ... includes any action that can assist a terrorist organization or one of its members in any way, such as providing food, helping to set up tents, distributing literature, or making a small monetary contribution." So if X is a terrorist suspect, and Y is his spouse or child, or if Y is believed by the immigration authorities to have given X some food, money, etc., Y generally is not admissible. There are certain exceptions designed to protect innocent relatives or associates, e.g. when the spouse or child "did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible", or when somebody who "provided support" "can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the [s/he] did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization."

There is of course no need for a court of law being involved in determining whether one is "engaged in terrorist activity"; the standard is, "a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe" that the person "is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity" (as defined above).

In general, becoming "inadmissible" after being lawfully admitted as an immigrant or a non-immigrant does not necessarily make one "deportable". But the law seems to pretty specific ([8 U.S.C. 1227]Sec 237 (1)(a)(4)(B), referring to 212(a)(3)(B) or (F)) that inadmissibility on terrorism-related grounds also implies deportability.

(Outside of the TRIG, it may be possible for a person already in the country to become inadmissible but not deportable. This means that when the person leaves the country, s/he will not be allowed to re-enter, even if he has a current green card or a non-immigrant visa. If the person is currently in the country in a non-immigrant status of some kind (visitor (B), student (F or J), foreign worker (H or L), journalist (I), etc), becoming "inadmissible" also means that s/he won't be able to either "adjust status" to permanent residence (even if otherwise eligible), or to extend one's stay beyond currently authorized period.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)