Newsstand - British? Need a US visa? Apply by 31.12.02 to avoid personal interview, hassle, cost!

In today's Independent newspaper, London, Simon Calder reports on new immigration regulations for UK travellers to the US. No link yet - The Independent takes a few days to do this - but it should be at www.independent.co.uk (http://www.independent.co.uk) in a few days, click on 'Travel'. Or buy The Independent today! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Here are some quotes:

- '... from New Year's Day, the many thousands of British travellers who need visa to visit America will also face a trip to London or Belfast.

'Starting in 2003, the US Embassy is insisting that applicants for American visas will face an interview, either at the Embassy in Grosvenor Square [London] or the Consulate-General in Belfast.'

The article goes on to describe those who need visas. For example, 'Should Euan Blair, the Prime Minister's son, decide to leave his [apartment] for a trip to America he will be obliged to undergo an interview because of the caution he received two years ago for under age drinking.'

'To apply for a visa, you must spend £67 [$107] - and a day in London or Belfast. If the official decides they don't want your sort in America, you get no refund.'

'A few exceptions to the rule that insists on personal attendance: the under-18s, over-60s, and, curiously, entertainers and journalists, can still apply by post. Everyone else who needs a visa and prefers not to make a special trip should apply by post to the US Embassy by New Year's Eve, to avoid the neeed to turn up in person.'

The article points out that most tourists can enter under the visa waiver scheme, but that is being tightened up.

'The best source of information about whether you will need a visa is the Embassy's website: www.usembassy.org.uk (http://www.usembassy.org.uk) ; or, if you don't mind paying £1.30 a minute [$2 a minute!!!], you could call the premium-rate number 09055 44 45 46.'

I find it remarkable that the UK still allows visa-free entry to US citizens for virtually all journeys. Given the 'security' steps the US authorities are taking against their own citizens, as reported in countless FT posts, how can it be that the UK feels it is not under threat from those thousands of US citizens who land in the UK every day? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

That's crap. 97% of British travellers enter the US under the visa waiver scheme. Furthermore Blair's son was not CONVICTED of any felony therefore he too would qualify under the visa waiver scheme.

Students, worker visas, etc all needed visits before, so I do not see exactly what changed here. Sounds like really crappy reporting.

Thank you for your enlightened reaction, hfly.

The article goes into much greater detail about those who require visas. If and when you read it, you will see that you are wrong. Conviction has nothing to do with it - Mr Blair's son would need a visa, as the article describes, unless diplomacy intervened.

FT requests that we do not reprint whole articles (and I am not volunteering to reproduce all of it, anyway). You will need to see the whole article to see why you are wrong.

97%? 130,000 visitors from the UK do need US visas each year. If your figure of 97% come in on the visa waiver program, that would mean a total of 4,333,333 UK visitors a year. Can you substantiate this? (No, I don't really want to know. As a visa-holder, I'm more concerned with the INS's actions.)

Your vulgar opinion of the quality of reporting is irrelevant, and I'm sure Simon Calder will sleep tonight. The fact is that 'the many thousands of British travellers who need visas to visit America will also face a trip to London or Belfast' and, as I posted (did you miss it?) 'The article points out that most tourists can enter under the visa waiver scheme, but that is being tightened up.'

I certainly belive this. It sounds stupid enough for the US Guv-mint to try this kind of crap. Some of our UK friends used to have visas. It made things very easy when they came over for visits because they didn't have to fill out the visa waiver form every time.

A couple of years ago the visas were cancelled upon their entry on the grounds that since they qualified for the visa waiver they didn't need them any more. I wish I could see the article...

Well technically anyone conducting a large fiduciary transaction in the US from the UK would need to have some sort of business visa. Hardly anyone does this. If someone like Blair's son were to visit under the visa waiver system there is no computer cross checking available that would deny him entry into the US. This is a simple fact.

As the article does not yet exist online, and I am NOT currently in the UK I cannot comment on what is or is NOT in the article.

BTW, airlift exists to carry appx. 24000 pax DIRECTLY between the US and UK EVERYDAY!! That equals 8760000 possible passengers per year DIRECTLY between the two countries. Assuming that half of them were UK citizens, it would almost EXACTLY match your numbers (yes I am aware that overall load factor is less than 100% and that other nationalities travel on these flights. I am also aware however that Brits transit the US from many other corners of the world as well.)

130,000 seems like nothing considering that there are appx 40,000 UK citizens getting working papers every year and another 30,000 or so as students or on student work programmes. These two categories alone cover more than half your purported number.

This new Visa requirtement sounds like a big problem logistically for the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square in London.

The Embassy is going to be overrun w/ Visa applicants starting January 2, 2003!

Good Luck!

Soon Concorde will no longer be allowed to fly over the Atlantic for fear that the sonic boom will inflict damage on the 35,000 foot concrete wall being built by Americans around the boundaries of the U.S.

The link:

http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=364143

About 'conviction' or otherwise, people who need visas include crucially, anyone who has ever been arrested, anywhere in the world, regardless of whether or not they were convicted of any offence and "people who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction".

The article also points out the possible need for visas when transferring via the US to Canada, Mexico or Latin America. There is a TWOV - Transit WithOut Visa - scheme costing £100 ($160).

Note to hfly: the point about this is that it is new - it is a change - it is different.

This may or may not affect you but it does affect 130,000 or so travelers from the UK and the no doubt overwhelmed consular staff in London and Belfast, whose public hours are mornings only. Allowing for holidays, they will have to interview an extra 2,600 persons a week, or around an average of 116 an hour across the two offices, largely in addition to their existing duties.

Unless of course the US taxpayer funds additional resources - ah, hfly may be affected after all if he/she is a US taxpayer - or the idea is modified.

Today's Financial Times, London ( INSIDE TRACK BUSINESS TRAVEL: US tightens rules on visas ) has main points, and adds

'The US Embassy in Germany has introduced a similar procedure, which is intended to improve security vetting. More US embassies in Europe are expected to follow suit in the next year.'

[edited to delete extra long link, which distorted the FT page]

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 12-24-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
97%? 130,000 visitors from the UK do need US visas each year. If your figure of 97% come in on the visa waiver program, that would mean a total of 4,333,333 UK visitors a year. Can you substantiate this? </font>

Actually, the article you are quoting substantiates this:

"For the vast majority of the five million or so British holidaymakers and business travellers who go to America each year, nothing has changed: you will continue to fill in a form on the plane, and most people will qualify for a 90-day stay."

http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=364143

Another important point (also mentioned in the article):

"But around 130,000 travellers from the UK each year need visas. That figure includes students on exchange schemes or work programmes, people with overseas passports who are resident in Britain -- and, crucially, anyone who has ever been arrested, anywhere in the world, regardless of whether or not they were convicted of any offence."

I'm wondering how many of these 130,000 are not UK citizens. Keep in mind that people with overseas passports who are resident in the US have to apply for a visa to go to the UK, unless their country of citizenship has a visa-free travel arrangement with the UK.

AFAIK, in Europe only Switzerland allows visa-free entry based on US permanent residency (i.e., US Green Card holders can travel to Switzerland as tourists without a visa even if their citizenship does not provide for such an arrangement).

&lt;Edited for UBB code&gt;

[This message has been edited by Eugene (edited 12-24-2002).]

The FT article says 'About 60,000 non-UK nationals living in the UK apply for visas to the US each year'.

The 97% extrapolition is no so far from the truth - around 4.1 million Brits visited the US in 2001, down on 2000. Not sure how 202 will turn out after recent events.

The Swiss also allow visa-free entry to permanent EU residents regardless of nationality. Not sure though how what the Swiss do is relevant to many thousands of UK citizens having to attend the US Embassy, London or Consulate-General, Belfast for personal interview as of the end of next week.

The "Swiss" comment was relevant to the issue of non-citizens. And for the rest of it, with the numbers both you and hfly provided (60,000 non-UK nationals, 30,000 students, and 40,000 UK citizens getting working papers, to the grand total of 130,000, so there is no measurable increase), the real issue here is the new requirement to appear personally at the embassy for the interview. I agree, this is an inconvenience, but not nearly enough an issue as it can be percieved from the article you quoted. Just my opinion.

In the old days (and by old I mean pre-1988 or so (I'm a bit hazy on it now), EVERY British citizen needed a visa to visit the US and many of them were interviewed as par for the course. Nothing has really changed except that interviews will be needed. BTW, although interviews will be needed for a few certain individuals, how much you want to bet that they become a formality for UK citizens and more onerous for those who are not.

I guess when the US decides what biometric data is acceptable we may all need visa's if the UK passport does not conform.

There was a time (in the late 1970s?) when the French got so miffed at the U.S.'s requiring visas from French passport holders that they demanded visas of all U.S. citizens visiting France. I went and got one, but before I actually travelled to France the requirement was dropped. Was that when the U.S. visa-waiver program started?

[This message has been edited by Track (edited 12-25-2002).]

It was 1985-1986 that the French did that. Shortly thereafter the VWP started.

What happens? I go away for a few days and I see that the position has developed in unexpected ways.

It seems that George W won't let the Prince of Wales (that's Prince Charles) come to the US on a visit that was pencilled in for February or March. The story is the main lead in today's Mail on Sunday, London, but is not (yet) on thisislondon.co.uk.

Apparently Dubya, or his advisers, think that Charles may not be wholly in support of George's war. Nobody has asked him, and if he were to comment, it would be unconstitutional, but no doubt the Secret Service have their sources.

I don't get it myself. I had no idea that Prince Charles's views were so important.

And if support for George's war were made mandatory for visitors to the US, it would have a huge impact on visitor numbers http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif .