Travel expert Mark Wolters warns holidaymakers against saying certain phrases at passport control that could land them in hot water with immigration officers
Travellers are being urged not to say one ‘fun’ phrase at passport control(Image: Getty)
Mark Wolters, from Wolter’s World, has visited more than 80 countries throughout his travels. He now shares his expert advice for people who find themselves venturing across the globe.
He explained: “‘I’m going to stay here forever, I love your country’. That sounds like a fun thing to say to the passport control officer when you come into a country, but I want to tell you, that is something you don’t ever want to say when you come across a border.”
He emphasised that you shouldn’t “joke around” when at passport control. He encourages travellers to respond to them “politely”, reports the Express. He continued: “Don’t add in the dad jokes.
“I know for me, my go-to when they’re like, ‘What are you going to do here?’ I’m like, I’m going to help the British economy by spending lots of money.
“Yes, it’s a good dad joke but it’s best to be like, ‘I’m here for tourism with my family’. That’s one of those things, you have to realise those passport and those border officers aren’t allowed to have humour, they’re there doing their job.”
Mark explains that border force officers are stationed there to ensure the “wrong people aren’t coming in”, which means it’s unwise to mess about. He suggests you can make your “life easier” by staying composed and courteous.
Mark cautions there are certain phrases you should “never” utter at security. He continued: “You don’t ever say the word bomb, you don’t say human trafficking, you do not joke about drugs, you do not joke about overstaying, like, ‘I want to stay here forever’.
“You do not say any of those things because those are the trigger words where they go, ‘Oh wait, we need to do something’. Even if they know you’re joking, they don’t have a choice.”
The specialist also recommends people keep their passport out until they’ve cleared security. He mentions he’s frequently witnessed travellers packing away their documents and wandering off, only to be summoned back by passport control.
He stated: “If you’re putting your documents away before they feel it’s right, they could think, ‘Oh this person’s nervous, they’re trying to get away quicker’. That can lead to other questions, so just wait until they dismiss you.”
Holidaymakers are also advised to ensure they’ve got their accommodation sorted. He notes that arriving without lodgings arranged can frequently trigger “more questions” and raise concerns about trafficking.
“I sent my itinerary to myself, so we can say, ‘Oh we’re staying at the Marriott Amsterdam on this street here’,” Mark elaborates. “That makes it a lot easier because that’s one of those typical questions they might ask, so it’s good not to be vague.”
Iran has vast oil as well as gas reserves and is a key supplier to China.
Iran has significant oil and gas reserves, and is a key supplier to China.
A member of US President Donald Trump’s inner circle has said control of those reserves is a key United States aim amid the country’s war against Iran.
So, how valuable are Iran’s natural resources? And could they be a factor in US thinking?
Presenter: Imran Khan
Guests:
Foad Izadi – Professor in the faculty of world studies at the University of Tehran
Mohammad Reza Farzanegan – Professor of Middle East economics at Marburg University
Paolo von Schirach – President of the Global Policy Institute, an independent think tank
The U.S. war effort against Iran was “accelerating” as American and Israeli forces fought for control of Iranian airspace and pressed farther inland to seek and destroy Iranian missile capabilities, top U.S. officials said Wednesday.
“Four days in, we have only just begun to fight,” said U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
“The throttle is coming up,” said Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
However, a reported Iranian missile strike at NATO member Turkey — intercepted by NATO defense systems — was not expected to immediately broaden the war theater by triggering a NATO clause requiring other member nations to get involved, Hegseth said.
Hegseth, striking an unapologetic tone, said Iran’s surviving leadership “don’t know what plays to call” after exhausting initial retaliatory strategies devised prior to the U.S. assault, while the U.S. is firing on all fronts and stacking up wins — including an American submarine recently sinking an Iranian warship with a torpedo in international waters, which Hegseth called the first such sinking since World War II.
“We are just getting started. We are accelerating, not decelerating,” he said. “We can sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.”
Caine, striking a far more measured tone at the Pentagon briefing, spoke of the “sacrifice” of the six U.S. service members who have been killed in the conflict to date and the “clear military objectives” of the operation, which include dismantling “Iran’s ability to project power outside of its borders, both today and into the future.”
And he said the U.S. has made “steady progress” toward those goals in recent hours. He said Iran’s “ballistic missile shots” were down 86% from the first day of fighting, and down 23% “just in the last 24 hours.” He said their “one-way attack drone shots” are down 73% from the “opening days” of the war.
That has allowed the U.S. to establish “localized air superiority across the southern flank of the Iranian coast and penetrate their defenses with overwhelming precision and firepower,” Caine said. “We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for U.S. forces.”
Hegseth and Caine spoke against a backdrop of escalating destruction across the Persian Gulf region, as Iran — which Hegseth acknowledged is a “formidable” enemy — continued to unleash a wave of retaliatory strikes and Israel pushed into Lebanon and against Iran-allied Hezbollah fighters there.
Their message of U.S. control in the region belied chaos in many parts of it — as sirens blared in Bahrain, U.S. and other foreign citizens scrambled to flee the area, global air traffic was in disarray and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for the flow of global energy, was down by about 90%, according to the Associated Press.
Turkey’s defense ministry announced Wednesday that NATO air defenses had shot down a ballistic missile fired toward Turkish airspace from Iran, which raised additional questions about a rapidly expanding footprint of the war given that Turkey is a NATO member and protected by a treaty clause — Article 5 — stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all.
Hegseth said the U.S. was aware of the strike, but that he did not believe it would trigger Article 5 or force all of NATO into the conflict — which has already drawn in nations throughout the Gulf region as Iran has targeted U.S. allies and military facilities.
Hegseth jettisoned any pretense of constraint or measured force by the U.S., instead casting its operations as an all-out assault on “radical Islamist Iranian adversaries” that he suggested both Democrats and the U.S. media were badly misrepresenting to make President Trump look bad.
He suggested the U.S. media was overly focused on losses, such as the deaths of U.S. military personnel, and not nearly focused enough on the progress the U.S. has made toward destroying Iran’s military capabilities in a matter of days.
“They are toast, and they know it — or at least soon enough they will know it,” he said of Iran. “And we’ve only just begun to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities, just four days in.”
He said that the U.S. and Israel in “under a week” will “have complete control of Iranian skies — uncontested air space,” which he said will mean that “we will fly all day, all night, day and night, finding, fixing and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military, finding and fixing their leaders and their military leaders.”
“Death and destruction from the sky, all day long,” he said. “We’re playing for keeps.”
It was unclear what exactly Hegseth meant by that, given the Trump administration’s constant messaging that the war on Iran will not be another “endless” engagement for the U.S. in the Middle East.
The U.S. was using rules of engagement that are “bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it,” Hegseth said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”
Disruptions to tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and their potential effect on global and U.S. gas prices, were clearly on Trump’s mind. On Tuesday, he posted to his Truth Social platform that the U.S. would be providing wartime insurance for “ALL Maritime Trade” through Gulf shipping lanes — as other insurers began canceling coverage — and that the U.S. Navy would begin escorting tankers if necessary.
“No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD,” he wrote.
The message drew immediate concern from some of Trump’s political opponents, who questioned the cost to the U.S. of securing energy shipments for the entire world, including rivals such as China, one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from the region.
“Very few, if any, of these tankers are coming to the United States,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) wrote on X. “This certainly looks like the United States will be subsidizing and protecting oil shipments to China.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is preparing for President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, including by bracing his Senate colleagues for a vote in which they would be forced to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.
In the wake of reporting last week that conservative activists with connections to the White House were circulating such an order, Padilla sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Friday stating that any such order would be “wildly illegal and unconstitutional,” and would no doubt face “extremely strict scrutiny” in the courts.
“Nevertheless, if the President does escalate his unprecedented assault on our democracy by declaring an election-related emergency, I will swiftly introduce a privileged resolution [and] force a vote in the Senate to terminate the fake emergency,” wrote Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Padilla wrote that such an order — which could possibly “include banning mail-in voting, eliminating major voting registration methods, voter purges, and/or new document barriers for registering to vote and voting” — would clearly go beyond Trump’s authority.
“Put simply, no President has the power under the Constitution or any law to take over elections, and no declaration or order can create one out of thin air,” Padilla wrote.
The same day Padilla sent his letter, Trump was asked whether he was considering declaring a national emergency around the midterms. “Who told you that?” he asked — before saying he was not considering such an order.
The White House referred The Times to that exchange when asked Tuesday for comment on Padilla’s letter.
If Trump did declare such an emergency, a “privileged resolution,” as Padilla proposed, would require the full Senate to vote on the record on whether or not to terminate it — forcing any Senate allies of the president to own the policy politically, along with him.
Experts say there is no evidence that U.S. elections are significantly affected or swung by widespread fraud or foreign interference, despite robust efforts by Trump and his allies for years to find it.
Nonetheless, Trump has been emphatic that such fraud is occurring, particularly in blue states such as California that allow for mail-in ballots and do not have strict voter ID laws. He and others in his administration have asserted, again without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizen residents are casting votes and that others are “harvesting” ballots out of the mail and filling them out in bulk.
Soon after taking office, Trump issued an executive order purporting to require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering and barring the counting of mail-in ballots received after election day, but it was largely blocked by the courts.
Trump’s loyalist Justice Department sued red and blue states across the country for their full voter rolls, but those efforts also have largely been blocked, including in California. The FBI also raided an elections office in Georgia that has been the focus of Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.
Trump is also pushing for the passage of the Save America Act, a voter ID bill passed by the House, but it has stalled in the Senate.
In recent weeks, Trump has expressed frustration that his demands around voting security have not translated into changes in blue state policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, where his shrinking approval could translate into major gains for Democrats.
Last month, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”
Then, last week, the Washington Post reported that a draft executive order being circulated by activists with ties to Trump suggests that unproven claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election could be used as a pretext to declare an elections emergency granting Trump sweeping authority to unilaterally institute the changes he wants to see in state-run elections.
Election experts said the Constitution is clear that states control and run elections, not with the executive branch.
Democrats have widely denounced any federal takeover of elections by Trump. And some Republicans have expressed similar concerns, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate rules committee.
In the Wall Street Journal last year, McConnell warned against Trump or any Republican president asserting sweeping authority to control elections, in part because Democrats would then be empowered to claim similar authority if and when they retake power.
McConnell’s office referred The Times to that Journal opinion piece when asked about the circulating emergency order and Padilla’s resolution.
Padilla’s office said his resolution would be introduced in response to an emergency declaration by Trump, but hoped it wouldn’t be necessary.
“Instead of trying to evade accountability at the ballot box,” Padilla wrote, “the President should focus on the needs of Americans struggling to pay for groceries, health care, housing and other everyday needs and put these illegal and unconstitutional election orders in the trash can where they belong.”
WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to deliver his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, the event will unfold against the backdrop of a widening Democratic protest and mounting resistance from lawmakers who are standing by to balk at the president’s remarks.
More than 30 congressional Democrats have pledged to boycott the address altogether, while others plan to attend alternative events designed to compete with the president’s messaging.
“I think we are going to hear two different States of the Union: One from the president that is going to be full of lies and then you are going to hear the truth,” California Sen. Alex Padilla, who will deliver the Democrats’ Spanish-language response, said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.
Democrats who plan to skip the president’s formal address to Congress have said their doing so because they do not want to give credence to Trump. Others plan to voice their opposition to Trump by inviting guests who have been affected by his agenda.
California Democrats Rep. Robert Garcia and Rep. Ro Khanna will attend alongside Annie Farmer and Haley Robson, two of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose trafficking crimes have dogged the Trump since he returned to office a year ago.
“I’ve invited Annie to the State of the Union so she can join other survivors and remind the President of his refusal to release all of the Epstein files,” Garcia wrote Monday in a post on X.
The Democratic opposition highlights the tense political moment that Trump is facing early in his second term, when the stakes are high for Republican as they seek to keep control of Congress ahead of the midterm elections.
Trump, who is set to begin speaking at 6 p.m. Pacific time, is expected to frame the moment as one defined by economic successes and fulfilled campaign promises particularly as it related to his administration carrying out an immigration crackdown.
Trump is expected to make an appeal to his religious base as well. He has invited Erika Kirk, the widow of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and intends to use her presence to bring attention to the “tremendous revival of faith” that has taken place since Kirk’s assassination, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X.
“The president will call on Congress to ‘firmly reject political violence against our fellow citizens’ with Charlie Kirk’s widow in the chamber,” Leavitt said.
The president’s remarks could also shed light on the president’s thinking regarding international conflicts brewing in the Middle East and in Mexico as Trump pressures its southern neighbor to curb drug trafficking.
Another potential issue that could come up in the address is the topic of tariffs, more so after the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Trup’s preferred tariffs policy was illegal and could not stand without the approval of Congress.
Trump has been adamant that he intends to impose new tariffs in different ways, and has suggested he should not need congressional approval to do so. If Trump insists on imposing new tariffs, his push will be at odds with Republican leaders.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Monday that it would be a “challenge to find consensus on any path forward on the tariffs, on the legislative side.”
However Trump handled the issue of tariffs would underscore the existential moment that Congress is in as it navigates the Trump administration’s second term.
In recent months, Trump’s willingness to sideline Congress in major policy decisions — whether it is trade or national security — have exposed fractures within his own party and deepened partisan divisions.
Tuesday night’s even could highlight those tensions.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has been critical of the Trump’s use of military force without congressional approval since his administration began blowing up alleged drug boats on the Caribbean Sea late last year.
As Trump says he is considering a military attack on Iran, Schiff is once again raising concerns that Trump is stoking broader conflicts abroad.
“Our allies don’t trust us. Our adversaries don’t fear us,” Schiff said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “When the next crisis comes — and it will come, and it may even be caused by this president — we will find ourselves isolated.”
Trump’s push to have the federal government assert more control over elections could also expose some fractures.
In May, at the behest of Trump, the Justice Department began demanding voter registration data from states across the country. Democrats see the move as a pretext for bogus voter fraud claims down the line, as congressional Republicans tee up new barriers to voter registration through the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
“The Trump administration is not being shy about threatening to undermine and steal this November election,” Padilla said. “They know that their record is not just unpopular but has been so harmful to working families that their only hope to stay in power is to initiate a voter purge.”
Democrats’ concerns have been heightened by comments made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem last week in which she outlined plans to station federal immigration agents at polling stations “to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders”
A general view of cargo containers at the Port of Balboa in Panama City, Panama, on Monday, February 23, 2026. The Panamanian government has taken control of two ports near the Canal whose concessions, held by a subsidiary of the Chinese conglomerate CK Hutchison, were annulled by a final court ruling. Photo by Bienvenido Velasco/EPA
Feb. 24 (UPI) — Panama authorities have taken control of two ports operated by a subsidiary of a Hong Kong company, assets that came under scrutiny after President Donald Trump claimed China exerted too much influence over their operation.
Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings condemned the Monday takeover in a statement on Tuesday that said the actions of Panama were “unlawful” and raised risks to the operations, health and safety of the Balboa and Critobal terminals that its subsidiary, Panama Ports, has been operating for decades.
“None of the actions by the Panama State were advised to or coordinate with PPC,” Hutchison Holdings said.
“The Panama State is responsible for harm and damage caused by the confiscatory actions it has taken.”
On Monday morning, Panama’s official gazette published a late-January Supreme Court ruling that made final the court’s decision that the contract law granting Panama Ports Company’s concession extension to operate the ports was unconstitutional.
The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits filed challenging the contract, which was issued by the Maritime Authority of Panama on June 23, 2021. According to a statement from the Panama presidency’s office, the contract was found unconstitutional because it gave a foreign-based company broad rights that limited the state’s control over the use and management of its resources.
After the gazette was published, Panama authorities arrived at the two ports and informed representatives of the Panama Ports Company that it must cease operations, and that those who do not comply with their orders will be prosecuted.
“PPC and CKHH will continue to consult with their legal advisors regarding the ruling and forceful takeover, the purported termination of PPC’s concession and all available recourse, including additional national and international legal proceedings against the Republic of Panama and its agents and third parties colluding with them,” CK Hutchison Holdings said.
The two ports and their Hong Kong connection were thrust into the spotlight on the first day of Trump’s second presidency, when in his inaugural address he said the United States has been “treated very badly” by Panama and that “China is operating the Panama Canal.”
Trump has repeatedly made the claim since, drawing attention to the Hong Kong-based conglomerate that has operated the two ports since 1997.
CAREFREE, Ariz. — Elizabeth H. paused recently outside the post office in this small, high-desert community, not far from where Easy Street meets Nonchalant Avenue.
She felt neither easy nor nonchalant.
“I think the climate imposed by the Trump administration is really sad and scary,” said Elizabeth, who asked to withhold her last name to avoid being attacked for the views she expressed.
For his part, Anthony D. finds little not to like about President Trump. He, too, asked not to use his last name, as did several others who agreed to talk politics.
“We finally don’t have a— in office that are destroying our country and worrying about everybody else in the world,” said Anthony, 66, a plumbing contractor and proudly blunt-spoken New York native. (Just like Trump, he pointed out.) “I mean, his tariffs are working. The negotiations are working. I just see a lot of positive coming out of that office.”
“Most people don’t like what he says, but look what he’s doing,” Anthony said as the late-morning crowd trickled into an upscale North Scottsdale shopping center. “You can hate the person, but don’t hate the message. He’s trying to do the right thing.”
Here in central Arizona, a prime battleground in November’s midterm election, there is precious little agreement about Trump, his policies and motivations.
Supporters see the president turning things around after four disastrous years of Joe Biden. Critics see him turning the country into a place they barely recognize.
There is puzzlement on both sides.
Over what others believe. Over how others can possibly believe what they believe, see the things they see and perceive Trump the way they perceive him.
And although some are eager for the midterm elections as a way to corral the president — “I don’t think they should only impeach, I think they should imprison,” Brent Bond, a 59-year-old Scottsdale artist, said of his hopes for a Democratic Congress — others fear an end to Trump’s nearly unfettered reign.
Or that nothing will change, regardless of what happens at the polls in November.
“The fact is, Trump is going to keep Trumping until he’s done,” said Elizabeth H., who’s semiretired at age 55 after a career in financial services. “My only relief is that he’s an old, old man and he’s not going to be here forever.”
Brent Bond would like to see Trump imprisoned, not just impeached.
(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)
Arizona’s 1st Congressional District climbs from northeastern Phoenix to the mountainous heart of the Sonoran Desert. It takes in the affluent enclaves of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley and — where the urban sprawl finally yields to cactus, palo verde and other flora — Carefree and the Old West-themed Cave Creek.
It is the whitest, wealthiest and best-educated of Arizona’s nine congressional districts, home to numerous upscale resorts, major medical campuses and a large population of retirees comfortably settled in one of many gated communities.
In 2020, Biden carried the district 50% to 49%. Four years later, Trump beat Kamala Harris 51% to 48%.
(The Down Ballot, which crunches election data, rated Arizona’s 1st District the median of 435 congressional districts nationwide, meaning in 2024 half were redder on the presidential level and half were bluer.)
For more than a decade, the area has been represented by Republican Dave Schweikert, a local political fixture since the 1990s.
He’s had to fight hard for reelection in recent years as the district, like the whole of Arizona, has grown more competitive. Rather than run again, Schweikert announced he would give up his seat to try for governor. The result is a free-for-all and one of the relatively few toss-up House races anywhere in the country.
A passel of candidates is running and the result will help determine whether Democrats, who need to flip three seats, will seize control of the House in November.
Despite those high stakes, however, the race doesn’t seem to have generated much voter interest, at least not yet. In dozens of interviews across the district, it was the relentless Trump who drew the most attention, admiration and exasperation.
Moe Modjeski, a supporter, allowed as how the president “is no altar boy.”
Even so, “I’ll take his policies over someone that might be nice and polite,” said the 69-year-old Scottsdale resident, a financial advisor who cited the sky-scraping stock market as one example of Trump’s success. “I mean, gas is about half the price it was a year or two ago.”
“I lived through the ‘60s and 70s and can’t remember a time when I feared so much for the future of our country,” said Liz, a retired medical technologist.
She’ll vote for a Democrat in November — to put a check on Trump, not because the Carefree resident has great faith in the party or its direction.
“I wish the Dems would get it together and maybe we could get more of a centrist that could unite and not get hung up on some of these social issues,” she said. “There’s a lot of economic issues, bread-and-butter issues, and I think that’s why the Republicans won [in 2024], because of the problems with immigration and inflation.”
As a border state, Arizona has long been at the forefront of the political fight over immigration. It was here lawmakers passed — and opponents spent years battling — legislation that effectively turned police into immigration officers, requiring them to demand the papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally
Thomas Campbell, with Keegan and Guinness, blamed blue-state politicians for any overreach by ICE agents.
(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)
Now that aggressive approach has become national policy, which is fine by Thomas Campbell, a retired architect and staunch Trump backer. He blamed any enforcement overreach on blue-state lawmakers.
“For some reason, the Democrats have decided they want to side with the criminals, so they don’t allow their police departments to cooperate,” said Campbell, 72, who stopped outside Paradise Valley’s town hall while running errands with his Irish setters, Guinness and Keegan. “If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be any” controversy over ICE’s tactics.
But why, she wondered, are immigration agents scooping up honest taxpayers, parents with children born in the U.S. and others keeping on the straight and narrow?
“I think they’re going after the wrong people,” said the 76-year-old Scottsdale retiree as a friend, Lily, nodded in agreement. The two were sharing a bench in Scottsdale’s pueblo-inspired civic plaza, a nearby fountain burbling in the 80-degree sunshine.
“I think we need to look at our county jails, look at our city jails,” said Cornelison, who made her living selling large appliances. “How many illegal immigrants are, say, in Florence, which is our state prison? Send them back. Don’t go after Mr. Gonzalez who’s doing my lawn. Empty out our prisons.”
Back at the North Scottsdale shopping center, Denise F. was walking Chase, her Shih Tzu, past a parking lot brimming with Teslas, Mercedes and Cadillac SUVs.
The 73-year-old voted for Trump because she couldn’t abide Harris. But she’s disgusted with the president.
“I don’t like the division in the country. I think Trump thinks he’s a king,” said Denise, a retired banker. “He’s poking the bear with Venezuela and Greenland, Iran” — she poked the air as she named each country — “to see who he can engage in a possible war, which is not the way I think the United States should be.”
As Denise was finishing up, Anthony D., her friend and neighbor, strolled up and joined the conversation, offering his laudatory view of the president. “Trump’s a businessman and he’s running the country like a business,” Anthony said, as Denise looked on impassively.
“How did I do?” he asked after saying his piece.
“Great,” Denise replied amiably and the two walked off together, Chase between them.
