. >> host: did you see the fancy semidey? >> guest: salles fancies their money with the goose-stepping. >> host: the last british legacy. >> guest: exactly. once you leave your not even leaving you're just coming in and everyone is gruff and stamping your visa and flipping through very judiciously and then you get to india and everyone is all smiles and it's like how do you sort of explain that geography? how do you explain a matter of 10 feet the border guards temperament? i never quite got to that but there is something distinctly different about the culture and sense of civic responsibility. >> host: leader in the show i would like to come back to the complexity of islam and pakistan but first i want to get to your book because apart from all the readers learn about the reality of everyday life in pakistan and the complexity behind it, they are great stories. i mean, you went there and it's an object of book. it's very honest. yet you were driven out of pakistan almost literally by the intelligence services in a fit of par

semidey think it is fair to recent somebody for an innocent mistake?>> i think that playing the knowing standard is much more objective and -- >> on the first panel no one had the knowledge and they were all rescinded -- >> i'm sorry? >> on the first panel no one had a misrepresentation but they had their policies rescinded from ms. beaton all the way down to the witnesses not material misrepresentations. >> we are to determine the applicant didn't know about a specific condition we would not rescind. >> okay. .. they were being treated for acne? does not bother you? >> yes sir, it does and we regret the necessity that that has to occur even a single time and we have made suggestions that would reform the system such so that would no longer be needed. >> well, i haven't heard your opening statement. i glanced at them and nyet not heard the first round of questions. we understand the need to verify that people are telling the truth. we are not asking you guys or the insurance industry to automatically take somebody's word for it. i understand that. but,

semidey think it is fair to recent somebody for an innocent mistake? >> i think that playing the knowing standard is much more objective and -- >> on the first panel no one had the knowledge and they were all rescinded -- >> i'm sorry? >> on the first panel no one had a misrepresentation but they had their policies rescinded from ms. beaton all the way down to