I don't blame people for not wanting even a layover in the States. We've easily become the most unwelcoming (even to citizens!) and foreigner-hostile country around, short of some backwater dictatorship. Last time I flew back from LHR->ORD I was actually scared that I'd have to go through a body scanner after landing (this a few months back, after a news story of a citizen refusing a body scan at ORD after landing from an int'l flight).
It's frustrating to read things like this. If you think the US is easily the most unwelcoming country even to citizens -- to be frank -- you just haven't been through that many countries.
Does flying through the US as the citizen of a non-waived-visa country suck? Yup. But it's not like the US is the only country that has these policies. The UK has a list of countries that require transit visas. The Schengen Zone has a list of countries that require transit visas. Russia does.
And to add further anecdotal fuel to the fire (and counter yours): As a US citizen the worst customs I've been through is far and away the UK.
Check the website of my company, http://turkeysandwichindustries.com, for a map of places I've been. The past few years I've been living an expat traveler lifestyle.
Yes, other countries have visa requirements; I myself was bitten by the Schengen Zone requirement last time I was in Belgium and Germany. But the point is that I don't need to spend hundreds of dollars, navigate a series of confusing bureaucratic hurdles, and then have my body and bags x-rayed and the minutiae of my personal life cross-examined by high-school graduates on a power trip just to have a 4-hour layover in most other countries... unlike America.
To contrast this, the last international flight I took was entering Mexico last month (where I am now); the line was long, but I wasn't asked a single question before my passport was stamped. The 2nd to last international landing I had was in Belgium: I was asked the purpose of my visit and was waved along in 30 seconds.
The most complicated visa requirement I've run in to was Vietnam, which required a stamped visa to be processed before you crossed the border. Even then it was a matter of giving $25 to my travel agent along with a short customs-style form.
Yes you can say that, say, an Iraqi citizen will have a hard time getting in to any country, not just the US; but when we're talking people from England, Europe, China, hell, even Mexico and Canada--neighbors and close allies for generations--the process can still be harrowing. And that's not just unfriendly, it's damaging to relations in the long-term. 20-something backpackers who get hassled crossing into America today, or who choose to go to a different country for 6 months instead of face American border bureaucracy, will take those experiences with them when they enter industry and leadership positions in the future.
Edit: another anecdote--on entering New Zealand I was asked for proof of onward travel (as I later found out, a requirement to enter the country). I didn't have any; I had planned on staying a few months then carrying on to Australia when I felt like it. When I told the agent this, she laughed and waved me on. Can you imagine a US border agent doing that?
I didn't mean it as a pejorative. I've been living out of a backpack and travelling (adventuring?) for the last two plus years (well, until very recently), and I've grown something of a thin skin for when people vilify the US without much travel experience of their own.
> Yes you can say that, say, an Iraqi citizen will have a hard time getting in to any country, not just the US; but when we're talking people from England, Europe, China, hell, even Mexico and Canada
England and most western European countries don't require visas to enter the US at all, since they qualify under the VWP. Mexico and Canada only recently required a passport to entry, and at most high-volume crossings you can use a special state/federal ID instead.
Harrowing, I think, is too strong of a word. Several years ago I was stopped at the Canadian border on I5 (between Seattle and Vancouver) and had my car searched. I had to sit in an immigration office for an hour and answer a ton of questions. That's about as bad as it can get between NAFTA countries and it's hardly what I'd call harrowing.
All of that having been said: You're preaching to the choir. I'm 100% in favor of relaxing entry and work requirements for foreigners into the US. I think that people overreact about the US requirements when for most first world citizens it's not that big of a deal, and for the rest of the world it's complicated just about everywhere else too.
> 20-something backpackers who get hassled crossing into America today, or who choose to go to a different country for 6 months instead of face American border bureaucracy, will take those experiences with them when they enter industry and leadership positions in the future.
Agreed, but this has more to do with foreign policy and international PR rather than just border security and hassle.
> Edit: another anecdote--on entering New Zealand I was asked for proof of onward travel (as I later found out, a requirement to enter the country). I didn't have any; I had planned on staying a few months then carrying on to Australia when I felt like it. When I told the agent this, she laughed and waved me on. Can you imagine a US border agent doing that?
Counter anecdote: I once flew back from Mexico without a passport or any identification other than a driver's license (this was right after the passport requirements for flight went into effect -- Mexico didn't require a US passport for entry, but the US required a passport for re-entry) and had to convince the CBP agent that I was an American. He asked me a couple questions and ended with "Who was your freshman English teacher?" which I laughed at and said: "Are you serious?! Does anyone remember that?" and he laughed and let me in. Took just about as long as a normal border crossing.
I'm in such a scenario myself. Typically you'd have an offshore company in a place like BVI, Hong Kong or ironically in some states in the US, like Delaware (if you are not a US citizen).
For most countries in EU at least, you are only tax liable if you spend more than half the year there.
I spend my time between Russia, Denmark and Asia and I am less than half a year at each place, in a given year. This means my only tax responsibility is corporate tax, and in such places as I mentioned above, that percentage is 0.
As for visas, this varies of course from country to country. A lot of countries will allow you in for 1-3 months at a time, as long as you do the necessary paperwork.
Some countries like Thailand, gives you "visa on arrival", while some countries like Russia, require you to get a visa before you even arrive. When a visa is expired, some countries allows you to get a new 1-3 month visa, after just leaving the country for a day (such a one-day trip is what's referred to as a "visa run").
Working is generally allowed as long as you are a one man operation, doing your own thing with foreign clients. If you start to deal heavily with local companies, or start renting offices and hiring local personnel, you'd need to get a work permit and often also a locally incorporated company. Getting work permits are often much harder to obtain, as you'd generally also need a full time living permit for that.
Sam, as a British Citizen who has spent far too much time traveling through the UK border, and as a world traveller who's been through his fair share of borders, I'd agree that other countries are tricky, maybe even trickier.
However, I'd have to say that the most nerve-wracking insane experience is the US border. You cannot believe policies, as they are implemented in strange and weird ways, dependent on the officer you get to speak to.
Who are all armed. And trained in special-ops interrogation techniques.
I'd say Israel is on par with that, (though i haven't been through), however they fear daily attacks in Tel Aviv, so there's plenty to worry about.
The US Border - possibly the most trafficked today, is also the most hostile compared to what it _needs_ to be. It doesn't even matter if you are a visa waived traveller, you still go through the same crap as if you were on any other visa.
Fair enough. I obviously only ever experience it from the perspective of an American, and theoretical knowledge doesn't hold a candle to experience.
As a deal: You tell your guys stop being dicks to me when I fly to London, and I'll tell my guys to stop being dicks to you when you fly to [US city of choice] :-D
As an American citizen I also avoid domestic air travel. The U.S. is becoming a bizarre, irrational police state-- we cannot even travel freely within our own borders without enduring unconstitutional searches that serve absolutely no security purpose.
Even when eligible for a visa waiver, the process sucks. You have to register with the ESTA 72 hours before flying. You have to leave North America within 3 months, so if you're transitting to Canada or Mexico, you have to get an actual visa, otherwise you're in violation of the visa waiver.
From the cbp.gov website:
"While CBP recommends that you apply at least 72 hours before travel, you may apply anytime prior to boarding. In most cases, a response is received within seconds of submitting an application."
You have to leave North America within 3 months
I know the US is powerful, but I really doubt they can require you to leave North America. I think you're reading something wrong.
Yeah, 72 hours is just the recommended time, but you certainly can't do it once you land.
The US can't make you leave North America, but if they find out you're in violation of a visa waiver (e.g. if you transit back through the US on the way home), then they can deny entry.
The US can't make you leave North America, but if they find out you're in violation of a visa waiver
I don't understand. If you fly into the US, then enter Canada via land crossing, they will stamp your passport upon leaving the US, thereby terminating your automatic tourist 'visa'. When you return to the US via land crossing, they will give you a new passport stamp.
To clarify: on entry to the US, a visa-waiver national is given allowance for a 90 day stay (usually). If the traveller leaves the US, but remains in North America, and then re-enters the US, they won't give you an additional 90 days. Instead, they'll just treat it as a continuation of your initial 90 day authorization.
Note that it isn't illegal to enter the US for two months, and then spend two months in Canada. It's just that the US won't let you back in until you've left North America. How exactly (or even if) they know you've left North America, I have no idea.
I'm appalled at how hard it is to find any usable information. The many government websites involved are full of rapidly changing links, so even links between government organizations are broken.
From what I can turn up, you are correct about the Visa Waiver Program. Once you enter the USA, your 90 days begins ticking. The one and only way to reset it is to leave the region of the USA, Canada, Mexico, and minor islands.
It appears, however, that if you skip VWP in favor of of a B-2 tourist visa, you can renew this upon reentry, with no hard-set limit on renewals.
As in all things, everything is up to the discretion of border patrol. It seems that while reentry renewal of a B-2 visa is considered normal, they generally want you to go back home for six months out of the year.
I can confirm this, I applied for my ESTA online a few weeks before leaving and I paid with my credit card and printed it in a few minutes.
That said, the process of going to the US was every bit as onerous as described, being asked questions multiple times, being subjected to a backscatter scan (which I declined and got patted down, tested for explosives, etc), etc.
Interesting. As a Brit I generally don't have trouble at UK immigration, but being married to a Turk my wife did (before she became naturalised).
The big problem with UK immigration is that it seems to take the lead from the US. Unfortunately we end up with more theatre and less security as a result.
