Newsstand - Visitors to US must supply address

Although the Times article (http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10295-1782223,00.html) mentions just the UK, I'm guessing this will apply to all visitors.
Travellers to the United States who lack precise details of their accommodation there may be barred from flights. From October 4 the US will require that airlines present first-night addresses or face a fine of £1,900 for each passenger not in compliance.

Passengers will need to supply a full address — street number, street, city, state and postcode — or risk being barred from flights or turned back by immigration officials. Airlines will be responsible for returning passengers to Britain if they land without the correct information.

The rules, issued by the US Department of Homeland Security, are designed to yield more information than the “Marriott. New York” that some of the September 11, 2001, hijackers submitted when they arrived. A six-month start-up period will allow passengers and airlines to get used to the regulations.

:td: :td:

DHS should be disbanded for harassing our guests with this idiocy! :mad:

What happens if I don't know the street address or phone number of the Marriott Times Square? Or if I'm driving down the PCH and don't have any accommodations planned? Or, or, or...

What happens if I don't know the street address or phone number of the Marriott Times Square? Or if I'm driving down the PCH and don't have any accommodations planned? Or, or, or...

Then you're obviously a terrorist, by DHS standards. :(

They can start with these rules whenever they want, it won't hurt me. I have already started my own rules almost a year ago by organizing all meetings that normally would take place in the US, in Asia.
Quite a lot of savings have been achieved already and my clients and partners enjoy the change. They all said better service, friendly immigration and customs, better airlines :)
Although American, I avoid any unnecessary trip home, that is anywhere except ATL.

They can start with these rules whenever they want, it won't hurt me. I have already started my own rules almost a year ago by organizing all meetings that normally would take place in the US, in Asia.
Quite a lot of savings have been achieved already and my clients and partners enjoy the change. They all said better service, friendly immigration and customs, better airlines :)
Although American, I avoid any unnecessary trip home, that is anywhere except ATL.

^

I hope the rest of the world continues to book away from the US until this nation comes to its senses and stops harassing its guests.

I visited UK over the summer.

When entering the UK, a form did specifically asked me where I was staying along with address.

I don't see any harm that the US is asking.

Perhaps, we should not visit UK also.

I visited UK over the summer.

When entering the UK, a form did specifically asked me where I was staying along with address.

I don't see any harm that the US is asking.

Perhaps, we should not visit UK also.

I've never had to supply a full street address when entering the UK.

Paddington Hilton, or similar has always been accepted.

When a previous thread on this topic was posted, I asked a question to which no answer was given:

What possible use is this ?
Assuming a 'terrorist' is not going to do his/her deed on the day of arrival, who cares where they sleep that night ? Mindless bureaucracy.

Ugh.

Thank goodness right now I'm in Montreal :cool:

What happens if I don't know the street address or phone number of the Marriott Times Square? Or if I'm driving down the PCH and don't have any accommodations planned? Or, or, or...What happens? You're screwed. It's that simple. They've been doing this absurd "must supply address" thing at points of entry for some time. In April, at a Continental-sponsored get together at IAH they gave us a tour of the new international arrival facility. Continental had a special desk set up just to look this kind of data up for its passengers so they could be admitted to the US if they didn't have the complete street address for their destination. With this change in the already absurd rules it will be near impossible for people to find the complete street address of their destination if they don't already have it. How is a someone in a foreign airport going to find the address of a Motel 6 in Peoria, IL so they can check in for their flight? Why does it matter whether they have this information before or after they arrive? If someone supplies an address that the government does not like will they be refused entry?

Of course, this whole exercise is just as stupid as the government asking people on forms whether they are terrorists. Anyone wishing to be deceitful will simply list whatever address they choose. The only ones who will be inconvenienced are those who are being honest and have nothing to hide. :td:

I don't see any harm that the US is asking.There's no harm in asking. There is harm in refusing people entry if they don't have the exact address with them, or not letting them get on a flight if they don't have the exact info. Knowing you are staying at the Marriott Marquis, NYC and writing that on the form should be just as good as providing the exact street address for the hotel. It's all bollox anyway, as once you've been admitted to the country you can go anywhere you like.

I wonder what would happen if you wrote "1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500-0001" on the form?

What if the person isn't staying overnight?

This really confused the Thai immigrattion guys at BKK 2 years ago. I arrived from TPE and had an 8 hour layover or so. They had to get their supervisor to clear me through. Even though their English was okay they didn't seem to get the idea that I was staying for 6 hours. I should have just put down some hotel...

I wonder what would happen if you wrote "1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500-0001" on the form?
With or without the plus 4? :p

Many countries ask for your address - I've not been to one yet that actually cared, or even looked at that entry. The US program sounds decidely different, which would fit with the policy of US immigration making visiting the US an unpleasant experience every non-citizen, including those with as close to zero risk of terrorism as possible (New Zealand!)

It seems like a questionable exercise with a dubious PITA-to-value quotient.

Am tempted to committ some other landmark to memory, not the White House, but like in the movie Blues Brothers where Dan Ackroyd gives the cops an address and it's Wrigley Field. :D

This address should work just fine:

1060 West Addisson
Chicago, IL 60613

:D

Let's see, how does this work?

Terrorist - puts down complete address of hotel or place he/she has no intention of staying the first night. An almost infinite number of complete addresses available on web-sites on the internet. He/she arrives in the USA and goes through immigration with no problem.

Non-terrorist - does not know complete address of hotel or place he/she is staying the first night. Gets to immigration and is harrassed, etc. for not having the full address of where he/she is staying the first night. Airline gets in trouble and innocent person is also in trouble.

Now according to DHS philosophy, this change is being done to make us all safer in America. I just don't get it. :confused:

Non-terrorist - does not know complete address of hotel or place he/she is staying the first night. Gets to immigration and is harrassed, etc. for not having the full address of where he/she is staying the first night. Airline gets in trouble and innocent person is also in trouble.You are quoting the current rule (except that the airline currently does not get in trouble). In the future it will be even worse. Airlines will be responsible for making sure you have an address for where you intend to stay and if you do not have one you will not be allowed on the aircraft to travel to the US because if you arrive without one the airline will be fined and will have to transport you back out of the US.

Let's see, how does this work?

Terrorist - puts down complete address of hotel or place he/she has no intention of staying the first night. An almost infinite number of complete addresses available on web-sites on the internet. He/she arrives in the USA and goes through immigration with no problem.

Non-terrorist - does not know complete address of hotel or place he/she is staying the first night. Gets to immigration and is harrassed, etc. for not having the full address of where he/she is staying the first night. Airline gets in trouble and innocent person is also in trouble.

Now according to DHS philosophy, this change is being done to make us all safer in America. I just don't get it. :confused:You give the DHS too much credit. There is no philosophy, just a bunch of dumbasses coming up with random whacky ideas to convince themselves they are actually having an effect in the War On Terrorism™. Unfortunately there seems to be nobody in the adminstration or Congress with the intelligence or cajones to question ... is going on.

Here's a flash - IF there is another terrorist attack in the US being planned, it won't be prevented by anything the DHS is doing. If we can see the holes in this nonsense, assuredly so can the bad guys.

Am tempted to committ some other landmark to memory, not the White House, but like in the movie Blues Brothers where Dan Ackroyd gives the cops an address and it's Wrigley Field. :D

When stores ask for a Zip code at checkout, for years I have used 10017. (I don't do unpaid marketing research for them and I don't care to help their Big Brother computer matching up my home zip and what I buy.)

A few clerks notice "You sure came a long way to shop here"(Local zips start with a 3) so I tell them I am a Citizen of the World.

10017 is the United Nations Building.

Guess every visitor from this planet could use their address, eh? :D It's not like you are lying, as every human on earth "belongs" to them, right? ;)

First Avenue at 46th Street
New York, NY 10017

It's not like you are lying, as every human on earth "belongs" to them, right? ;)

Fortunately no, otherwise we'd have a very schizophrenic population. For all the good that can come of a body like the United Nations, you have lots of really dumb attempts to use that organization to certain nations' own ends. Take for instance the recent attempts of China and a few other restrictive countries to take partial control of the internet away from ICANN. Can you imagine the consequences of THAT?

However, I am still madly in love with the idea of answering that zip code. It's a nice little protest and I think I'll adopt it or something like it.

Talking to London taxi drivers, a significant number of foreign tourists arriving at London Heathrow airport (notably those from the USA !) do not know the precise address of where they are going. This problem particularly afflicts the major hotel brands where there are multiple locations - visitors arrive knowing they have a reservation at the "Hilton in London" without understanding there are about 20 of them.

Part of the well known "Knowledge of London" test that London black cab drivers have to go through is precisely to handle such situations for visitors.

Do the security planners have any idea about what happens out there in the real world of travelling ?

Talking to London taxi drivers, a significant number of foreign tourists arriving at London Heathrow airport (notably those from the USA !) do not know the precise address of where they are going. This problem particularly afflicts the major hotel brands where there are multiple locations - visitors arrive knowing they have a reservation at the "Hilton in London" without understanding there are about 20 of them.

Part of the well known "Knowledge of London" test that London black cab drivers have to go through is precisely to handle such situations for visitors.

Do the security planners have any idea about what happens out there in the real world of travelling ?

Apparently not.... but the fools involved with US insecurity are paying big bucks to waste a lot of resources and deliver little that is any good.

Its dumb things like this that adds nothing to safety or security but time and cost and aggriation to a visitor.

MisterNIce

Take for instance the recent attempts of China and a few other restrictive countries to take partial control of the internet away from ICANN. Can you imagine the consequences of THAT?


Personally, I'd be happy with that.

The rest of the world can blackhole every Chinese IP and everything that passes thru Chinese IP space or contains a like to Chinese IP space. Most of the world's spam problem will be solved.

Its dumb things like this that adds nothing to safety or security but time and cost and aggriation to a visitor.

MisterNIce

Who then may decide to go elsewhere the next time he/she goes on holiday or goes abroad for business reasons. :(

This country is seriously on the wrong track. :td:

This rule about needing to supply the address of the place you are spending your first night has been in place for years. I remember visiting the US in 98 with a friend. We were just going to travel about and had no accomodation booked. When we arrived the immigration officer insisted that we put down where we are staying that night. We said we did not have any accomodation booked and were just going to find a motel somewhere. But he insisted either we put down where we were going to stay or else we could not enter. In the end we asked him for a recommendation on where to stay and he gave us a name of a motel near the airport which we put down. Of course we did not actually stay there.

This rule about needing to supply the address of the place you are spending your first night has been in place for years. I remember visiting the US in 98 with a friend. We were just going to travel about and had no accomodation booked. When we arrived the immigration officer insisted that we put down where we are staying that night. We said we did not have any accomodation booked and were just going to find a motel somewhere. But he insisted either we put down where we were going to stay or else we could not enter. In the end we asked him for a recommendation on where to stay and he gave us a name of a motel near the airport which we put down. Of course we did not actually stay there.

Reminds me of a trip to Paris I did back in 1992. We got an auto rental in LUX, drove into Paris - we had plans for the concert, but not a clue what we were going to do for lodging. After the concert we couldn't find a place to stay for the night, so we just found a park outside of Paris and slept in the car. I was 18 at the time, the friend of mine was a little older, but it worked just fine!

Weather was great the next day so we went back into Paris, did a lot of siteseeing and then drove back to LUX that night.

If France had a strict crossing station and requested an addresss, we would have been SOL.

I could understand 18 year olds from Europe doing the same thing. Fly to the USA and then plan your schedule as you go. I see nothing wrong with it -- when I was young, it made for some interesting trips as I spent a good amount of time driving through Europe -- we had set destinations, but other than that, nothing was set in stone. In some places we got hotels, other places Hostels, we crossed several borders, including into Switzerland where we were stopped & questioned. We just kept telling the immigrations officer "Geneva, day tour, Genava - stay in Chamonix"

Ok, it was a bit more than a day tour of Geneva -- in fact we later managed to drive through Switzerland to Germany (after spending time in Genava) and I believe there was a road tax we should have paid at the border to use the Swiss highway system. :eek:

Renting a car, getting petrol, and paying the tolls in France and various countries did not prove to be cheap -- but it was nice to use an auto to get off the beaten path.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

"Oh General Doodah, the terrorists came in to the US and just put down 'Marriott New York' as their destination".

"OK, let's nuke the Marriott New York".

"Sorry sir, they didn't give their zip code. We don't know which one they used".

"Never mind, son, just nuke them all then".