What name is that?
They're not the same. I've just told you how they're different. As for 'vindictive' and 'arbitrary', that's your opinion. I don't see anything particularly vindictive or arbitrary in banning the entry of someone who has demonstrated themselves to be not only filth on a moral level, but who also supports murder to the extent that they can't even wait for the corpse to cool before they're cheering on social media.
I like to debate in a considered way, but there's a time when it's better just to write, *******s.
They want to prevent entry those people into their country. And it will depend on what that person said, and what they intend to do in the US. If someone posted that Kirk brought it on himself then they may be allowed entry for a weekend stay, but they won't be able to get a long stay or work visa. But if someone posts a video of themselves celebrating Kirk's shooting - that is, celebrating and condoning the murder of an American citizen, and calling for others to be killed in a similar way like this ex-councillor hag - then they won't be able to set foot on US soil. That's best case, for them.
It means he exercising his right to talk b******s
Yes, they have. Because you do no research you are unaware, as ever. Officials have spoken about it, how they intend to expand vetting for visa applicants to cover anti-American sentiment and how it's difficult to screen casual arrivals for social media posts and therefore they rely to a large extent on proactive information from the public.
He works for the Financial Ombudsman service?
After an afternoon of becoming increasingly hysterical, making stuff up and outright lying, I think his ability to even write words has failed him.
Take a break from this forum and go do some research. There's no mileage to sitting around demanding to be spoon-fed, like a baby seagull squatting in its nest with its gob open screaming for fish from its mother.
