An interesting little story from the U.K.'s Daily Mail hit the wires this weekend from Scotland, where a young man's dreams of playing professional hockey seemed to run afoul of U.S. immigration laws:
Olympic hopeful Tristan Harper, 19, has been offered a place with Alpena IceDiggers in Michigan.But American Embassy staff in London refuse to grant a visa because he is "unable to show strong and binding ties to the United Kingdom".
That is despite Tristan being born in Scotland to Scots parents.
[...]
Tristan is thought to be a victim of tightened immigration rules under the US's war on terror.
He has been penalised because he has not been a UK resident for three years. At 15 he won an ice hockey scholarship in the US, then trained at the prestigious Banff Ice Hockey Academy in Canada and played for top Dutch side Nijmegen.
In 2006 he played for the St Louis Bandits where he was talent-spotted by the IceDiggers.
Tristan has received letters of support from his bank, his accountant, lawyer and the hockey community.
But that cuts no ice with the US Embassy, who say he would be an illegal immigrant in the States.
Seems pretty much like an open and shut story, don't you think? Big U.S. bureaucracy crushes young man's dreams with unfeeling efficiency. Certainly, at first blush, I feel a lot of sympathy for the kid, especially after hearing just what sort of nightmare it is to deal with U.S. immigration from friends of mine who have tried their level best to navigate it.
Then again, when I think about how I've seen U.K./European immigration laws crush the hopes of American athletes who are far more accomplished than young Mr. Harper, I have to wonder if the problem is far more widespread.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the absurd lengths that many American Soccer players have to go to in order to obtain a work permit to play in the English Premier League -- generally considered to be the top league in the world.
Case in point: Ex-D.C. United player Bobby Convey, who back in 2003, was given an opportunity to play for Tottenham Hotspur of the EPL. Unfortunately, he first had to score that work permit. Robert Wagman explains:
Under the agreement between the FA and the Home Office, to get a work permit a non-resident soccer player has to show he is a player of "international distinction." To quantify this abstraction, the FA and the Home Office agreed on a formula to define international distinction. A player has to have played in two-thirds of his country's "official" - that is FIFA sanctioned - national team matches over the past two years and he has to be coming from a country that ranks in the top 70 of FIFA rankings. Official matches do not include friendly matches or exhibitions.[...]
The problem comes when a player does not meet the "two-thirds" criteria. Howard did not meet it, nor does Convey. In such a case, the rejection of the initial application is automatic, but the employer has the right to appeal. That is what happened in the Howard case last month and will also happen to Convey's application.
The matter then goes to a six-person "Appeals Team," which operates under no set criteria or standards. It simply must determine via the evidence put before it that a player appealing is one of "international distinction." The panel also has the authority to issue a hardship waiver, which has previously been known to happen in the case of American applicant.
[...]
In Convey's case, he will likely present evidence from United States Soccer Federation officials, including coach Bruce Arena, and probably from MLS, as well as from the FA and from Tottenham. Most believe that will be enough to support his claim of being a player of international distinction.
In the end, it didn't matter, as Convey's appeal was denied and he had to spend another year in MLS before his work permit was approved and he was able to join Reading FC, then in England's First Division.
But Convey isn't the only American to run afoul of the work permit issue. Brad Friedel, the most capped goalkeeper in American history, was denied a work permit three separate times before finally joining Blackburn Rovers in 2000. And if you follow American Soccer to any extent, you know full well that any report of an offer to get a Yank into the EPL isn't complete until the ink is dry on the work permit.
As you might imagine, shutting talents like these out of the EPL are a considerably bigger deal than denying a U.S. visa to a kid who wants to play Junior A hockey in the U.S.
Granted, it doesn't make the decision any less unfair, but one wonders why a newspaper like the Daily Mail couldn't be bothered to fully report a story like this one where the U.K. has such a considerable track record of toying with the future of American athletes? Then again if they did, perhaps it wouldn't have made half as good of a story in the first place.
UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Steve Royster, a visa expert at the State Department. While he couldn't comment on the specifics of the case, he did walk me through some facts that made it pretty clear to me that what's going on here has nothing to do with any post 9-11 red tape, and rather is just part and parcel of the way that things get done when it comes to U.S. immigration law.
In particular, Royster referred me to Section 214 b of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Under 214b, American immigration authorities are required to assume that anyone applying to enter this country intends to immigrate -- unless they can demonstrate that they have a place to return to once the reason for travel to the U.S. has been completed.
In addition, Royster said, the application can also be denied on the basis that the applicant is not qualified for the visa they have applied for. While Royster refused to speculate on this particular case, the implication to me seems quite clear: U.S. authorities may well have determined that Harper is not a bonafide hockey player -- something that sounds an awful lot like the reasoning behind American Soccer players being denied work permits in the U.K.
Some other details that Royster passed along: There may actually be more to the story than Harper has told the Daily Mail. In the article, Harper may very well be quoting from a form letter that he received. It's very well possible that he's been given additional feedback on how he might amend his application in order to get it approved.
So, despite what others might think, there's no post 9-11 reason for what we're seeing. Instead, it's just another day at the office.
