Australian criminal record and entering the US

If Australian authorities won't even share with an Australian employer that no conviction was recorded, then they are not going to share that with another country.

In any case, there are plenty of first hand stories (including here, quite recently) from people who DID have convictions (for assault, shoplifting, to name 2, both had convictions recorded but did not serve jail time), who lied, and had no hassles getting through US immigration. It appears we may share major convictions, and tyell you about really bad people you shouldn't let in, but we do not appear to tell the overly-anal US immigration service about the minor stuff even we don't care about.

FYI, by way of comparison, Australia only requires people with MAJOR convictions (defined as a jail term of 12 months) to disclose this when applying to enter. We couldn't give a stuff about petty crap you when you were a teenager.

Btw, please do not advocate breaking the law, as you do in #28 when telling people to lie on their forms. That is against the rules of the forum.

But they would not be breaking the law, because the law is not specific about what moral turpitude is. They may be going against the current administrative interpretation of the law but this a difference of admistrative opinion and not law.

Therefore it also cannot be considered lying either if you were to answer "no" having been arrested for a minor offense because you could consider that minor offense not to be moral turpitude. The worst it could be is not following the State Department interpretation of the law which would be an administrative procedural error - it could still have you refused entry but it would not be breaking the law. Before it would become "breaking the law" there would have to be a case law precident for people in the same circumstances/arrest/conviction record being convicted for making a false declaration, with a US court - not the whim of a State Department official - deciding that the offense which was not declared was a crime of moral turipitude.

In any case, there are plenty of first hand stories (including here, quite recently) from people who DID have convictions (for assault, shoplifting, to name 2, both had convictions recorded but did not serve jail time), who lied, and had no hassles getting through US immigration.

Harry, read my third section in post 29. The one talking about official discretion. The VWP explicitly gives immigration officials the final say, and these are instances are anecdotal evidence of officials using such discretion.
As another posters sig line states, however, "the plural of anecdote is not data."

But they would not be breaking the law, because the law is not specific about what moral turpitude is.

Actually, they would be breaking the law, the one that requires them to answer the questions truthfully. Making knowingly false statements on official documents, such as that form, is illegal. Hence, you are advocating people break the law by telling people to knowlingly say "no."
(A side note, to avoid a bit of confusion: "break the law" is an idiomatic term that does not necessarily indicate a specific law being broken, but that a (or more) law(s) is (are) being broken.)

Therefore it also cannot be considered lying either if you were to answer "no" having been arrested for a minor offense because you could consider that minor offense not to be moral turpitude.

It does not matter what you think "moral turpitude" is or not, only what the State Department thinks. They have a specific list. Since you are telling people to ignore that list in favor of your own interpretation, you are telling people to knowlingly lie on their forms.
Now once again, please stop advocating people break the law.

I'm more interested in the actual experiences of people who went through US Immigration than bush lawyers with a passion for travel websites myself...

Were are getting into an academic argument but anyway: they are not breaking the law if they write NO on the form. They may be going against some State Dept list, but that list is not law. It is a current State Dept interpretation of a vague law. This interpretation for minor offenses has not been tested in case law and until it is both of us are not qualified to say what the actual result would be.

I'm more interested in the actual experiences of people who went through US Immigration than bush lawyers with a passion for travel websites myself...

Yet so many come here looking for just that: free legal advice.
They get what they get. And the standard answer:
The official discretion caveat means that everyone's experiences differs, regardless of real or perceived similarities or differences. After all, the plural of anecdote is not data.
If they don't like it, they can always pay for legal advice from a lawyer.

They may be going against some State Dept list, but that list is not law. It is a current State Dept interpretation of a vague law.

The law states [1187(a)(6)]:
>Not a safety threat
>The alien has been determined not to represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States.

The State Department defines this through their rulemaking powers to be the crimes on the list, as evidenced by their website (via embassy as quote previously) and the website of the CBP (also previously quoted).
If someone checks "no" when they should be checking "yes," there are in violation.
If you tell people to check "no" when they should be checking "yes," you are telling them to knowingly violate the law by violating the rules and regulations that officially define it.
Once again, please stop advocating people break the law.

You are very keen to throw away freedom from arbitary government intervention which is one of the hallmarks of US democracy. A vague law has been drafted. The State Department has produced a document interpreting that same vague law which they themselves don't follow in practice. Theirs is an interpretation only. It is not the law. But the State Dept producing a document doesn't mean anything.

If at some time in the future someone with a minor arrest record is charged and convicted by a US court for making a false declaration on the basis of a NO answer then at that time, it will be law.

An example would be legal disputes with the IRS. Tax law is also sometimes not entirely clear and based on case law. People do end up in court with the IRS and win. So if the IRS - a government agency - issue someone with a direction which is subsequently challenged and defeated in court, then the IRS direction which was based on an interpretation of the applicable tax law, cannot have been correct despite it coming from a government agency, else the IRS would never lose a court case.

Does US Immigration law legally require you to disclose even minor convictions and arrests and charges where no convictions are recorded? Yes.
If you have been arrested in Australia, but were not convicted, or had no charge recorded would US authorities know this? No.

You are very keen to throw away freedom from arbitary government intervention which is one of the hallmarks of US democracy.

You are very keen to ignore the fact that immigration laws are treated differently than other laws.
Case law has set that precedent quite conspicuously.
What you wish the freedoms to be do not exist in these circumstances.

The regulations set forth by the State Department are the "details" of the law. Congress neither has the time nor expertise to provide these details, so they delegated the responsibility.
If case law dictates a change in the regulations, the regulations change accordingly.
Since they are what they are (as I've quoted multiple times), that is the standing official ruling of the law, and thus the means by which a visitor must follow it. If they do not, they are breaking it, until a court or administration says otherwise (which they have yet to do).
On a very related side note, the likelihood of that interpretation being overruled by case law is, for all practical purposes, zero. Why? Because another one of the conditions is that the visitor waives their right to appeal (see 1187(b)), and the courts generally refuse to grant legal standing to a third party.
So summary: The State Department was granted the authority by Congress to "flesh out" the law, specifically in this case the section determining what is or is not a safety threat. Their regulations are the law until overruled by courts. The chances of that is essentially nil. The State Department says you must disclose arrests of crimes of moral turpitude, and details what those are. Not doing so willfully is thus breaking the law.

And as I had said before, the State Department grants discretion to immigration officials to waive various conditions they set forth.

If you have been arrested in Australia, but were not convicted, or had no charge recorded would US authorities know this? No.

As I had also said before, I have no idea what type of info sharing agreements exist between the US and Australia (if any).