Actually, it's not an issue of which terminal is for domestic vs. international. The issue is that in the USA, most travelers don't have their passport checked or stamped in person by government officials when departing the country as a matter of course. (Govt clearance to leave the country is obtained indirectly by the airlines in most cases.) As such, travelers don't legally "depart" the country until their plane is out of US airspace. By contrast, in most other countries (Europe, Asia, etc), when departing on an international flight, one clears exit immigration and is then in a no-man's land in the gate/lounge area, having legally been stamped out of the country. At this point, the traveler has no way of leaving the sterile departures area except by boarding the international flight. In other words, he cannot just walk out the exit door because he has already crossed the border and is no longer in the country. This is where U.S. airports would have a problem, because secure departures areas DO have exit doors where you can just walk out and be on US soil. It would take major reconfigurations of large international airports, and substantial staffing changes, to transform international departure areas into sterile areas, IMHO.


Now, I can see how the USA could reintroduce ITI lounges at select airports (like DFW and maybe ORD) that are set up for that by using the sterile arrivals corridors to escort ITI passengers back down to waiting aircraft AFTER all locally departing passengers were on board and the doors to the terminal concourse were sealed. The issue would be making sure that none of the ITI pax slipped out of the transit area into the concourse because, from there, they could simply walk out of the secure area into the USA without undergoing arrival FIS procedures.

That is simply not correct; you were being questioned about your travel plans which happened to be a trip through ORD to AMS. It is standard CBP examination: ask questions and see how people react and if the answers make sense. Had you been traveling YYC-ORD-MIA, he might have asked you what you plan on doing in MIA. Would you then consider that a prediction of internal immigration control? The fact that he was questioning you about why you were going to AMS is totally unrelated to "exit controls" and your linking the two is puzzling considering you were entering the country.

Correct. (I was actually stopped once by FRA in the green line-- took 30 seconds once he found out I was transfering).

There are already some kind of US passport exit controls: DHS questioning of people in/near a jet bridge/gate area for a flight departing internationally (which is, more often than not, a fishing expedition for money or other financial instruments); government requiring US citizens to depart the US on a US passport; government requiring US common carriers to supply DHS with a list of departing passengers' passport details and other PNR-type info.

If/when US passport exit controls get formalized in the manner that is quite common in civil law countries -- like most of the EU -- expect the situation of dealing with DHS to be closer to the relative nastiness that exists in the dealings between bureaucrats of some less developed nations and their own "subjects" at departure passport control desks.

The above strikes me as reading like work of fiction. There is no "no-man's land in the gate/lounge area"; and the post-"exit" passport control "sterile departures area" can be left in almost all countries in Europe and Asia without boarding the international flight.

In every single EU Schengen country, it's well possible to leave the "sterile departures area" by means other than boarding the international flight -- I do it a few times a month on a US passport, and I'm including even those former-Communist countries that are now EU Schengen countries.

Of course, you can always go back through entrance immigration control, but besides that and boarding the international flight what other options does a traveller have?

But if you wanted to leave, wouldn't you have to go back through passport control and legally re-enter the country? My point is that once you're stamped out, you can't just walk back in. You would have to be cleared back through entry immigration all over again if you wanted to go out landside. Right?


I'm thinking not only of Europe, but also South America, places like EZE, SCL, CCS. Once you pass through exit immigration, there's "no turning back." I suppose you could go back landside if you wish, but it would be a huge hassle to get an airline agent to escort you, etc.

It's not like in the States, where you can go in and out of the secure area as much as you want as long as you're holding your valid boarding pass and ID, even if you're departing internationally. No passport check or stamping out (for most travelers).

You don't even have to always go back through "entrance immigration control". Going back through "exit immigration control" works just fine to get back landside and/or into the "domestic" immigration/customs zone that was just "left", and it even works without taking the international flight or going through "entrance immigration control" (since that doesn't even exist at all times/places/hours in countries that have in place "entry" and "exit" passport control, a la the EU Schengen countries/Argentina/Chile/Malaysia/etc.)

The US does a passport check of all travelers using a common carrier to enter and/or depart the US. That there is no stamp in most passengers' passport and that there is no government official physically handling the physical passport doesn't change a thing.

The odds of getting out of the US on an invalidated/restricted/flagged US passport on a common carrier's flight out of the US is pretty poor compared to doing the same on an invalidated/restricted/flagged EU Schengen country's passport departing France or the Netherlands for non-EU localities.

Agreed to an extent - but what about the fact that those requiring an I-94 or I-94W (in the 'old' days )? They would have presumably surrendered these at check-in prior to clearing into the sterile area... Is this not a form of departure control?

Nope, the I-94 forms are surrendered to the airline agent at the moment of boarding (as your boarding pass is scanned and you enter the jetbridge). From that moment on, you are "undocumented" and need to continue down the jetbridge to the plane that will take you out of the country.

Of course, some airlines collect them at check-in counters (or prior to boarding begins, at the gate) for the sake of convenience, but that could pose a problem because then the foreigner could simply walk away, out of the airport, and be in the USA undocumented.

Make sure to bring back something interesting. I suggest brownies. Make sure you declare them on your customs form. Buy very expensive brownies.

It is indeed a form of exit control, and no less so given that DHS is supplied with actual passenger manifests from the airlines and also has the listing of passport details collected and filed for the departing passengers on the passenger manifest of the internationally-departed flight.

When it comes to flights on common carriers, US exit controls of a sort are in place, and part of those controls include DHS employees interrogating departing US citizens as part of fishing expeditions when and where DHS deems it appropriate; other part of those controls are as I mentioned above.

This was true until ESTA. With ESTA you get no I94s anymore, so nothing to surrender when you leave the country. I wonder what happened to all the guys in Kentucky where these I94s ended up being processed?

It is also true of non-common carriers. Private international flights (US-Canada) must report to Customs via internet the passenger list and pp # and may not depart until/unless they receive written permission from the US DHS/TSA via email.

And according to Nappy, coming soon to a marina near you...
And don't forget the Port Huron incident where a departing Canadian was detained and arrested after US CBP decided to question him on his way out of the country by car.

Now, where do we grow the bananas?

In my experience, apart from the three times that it has been forgotten, I have had the I94 removed at check-in across a variety of airlines over about 10 years of regular travel to the US.

With the introduction of the electronic I94 (on some flights now), the process is even less controlled.

In the UK often the customs area is not staffed at all. It's my understanding, though, that they pay attention to passenger manifests and such as well as probably CCTV as you state, and that if they suspect anything they're there in force. They're not really interested in people who have one bottle of beer too many, for instance - that's not worth the money.

Neil

Which is entirely my point...

On my latest departure from the USA, all 1-94s and I-94Ws were collected by British Airways at BWI at check-in. So from this point until departure I did not have one, yet as others have pointed out I could have theoretically re-entered the country at any point up until boarding, pretty much.

The only time I have not had it removed until the gate was when my first segment was US Domestic (ie. DCA-PHL-MAN). No-one cared about I-94s at any point at DCA - they were removed at PHL before boarding the TATL sector.

catandmouse - bear in mind that the I-94 (white, for visa holders) - is still being used.