Which country is "the country of one beyond the borders of the other"?

When this "agreement" was done, even the Belgians who signed up to put on the diplomatic "we are allies" show weren't all that thrilled with the USG. At least then, there wouldn't have been many (if any) tears shed if the Belgian federal parliament said "Non"/"Nee". There would probably have been a lounder bunch of cheers in French and Flemish for it being rejected.

Then that is your view. We must agree to disagree.

Under the US-Canada treaty, both countries have the right to set up preclearance stations in the other. Canada has not done so, presumably because the passenger counts don't justify it. But the option exists.

Governments have all kinds of operations on each other's soil, both military and civilian. Thousands of US federal employees go abroad for work each year, for all kinds of purposes. The reverse also happens.

It is important to note that CBP officers stationed abroad are not diplomats and don't get any special treatment. They don't have arrest powers, cannot carry guns, and cannot search passengers without permission. Their function is basically reduced to a clerical role of
checking paperwork and admitting or denying entry.

I personally have found preclearance officers to be far more respectful and less authoritarian, and have a better attitude, than those at US airports, presumably because of the lower amount of power they wield. They know that local law enforcement is less likely to back them up.

Whether it's a convenience or a burden depends on many factors, including whether you have a connecting flight after landing in the US, whether you have GE, lounge access, lots of luggage, etc. But overall, I would say that it on average, it's a convenience. For example, many India-US passengers are now willing to pay extra to fly Etihad rather than Emirates for this reason.

Canada can’t set up passengers preclearance at US airports unless the US airport is commercially for it or pushed to go for it by nook or by crook.

The terms of US-Canada agreements relevant to CBP Preclearance in Canada are not completely bi-directionally equal.

CBP officers assigned abroad do get some special treatment. I’ve seen a bunch of US diplomatic passports for CBP employees working outside of the US, including assignments at foreign airports with CBP Preclearance or IAP type work.

If Belgium decides to go for this, I hope Belgium pushes for and gets a complete and comprehensive pre-waiver from the US when it comes to criminal and civil immunity protections for CBP and other DHS employees working BRU and for their relatives regardless of assignment/employment relationships of those on or accompanying a foreign tour of duty.

The discussion of "bilateral" agreements needs to be taken in context. The US has, ahem, a bit more power than Belgium I'd say.. So "mutual agreement" is basically strongarming in my book. The US wants control. It has the means to demand it.

My point about convenience is that is how it is sold/portrayed. Call it what you may, but it is territorial overreach. In my mind, and it is a philosophical take, the US has no purpose setting up shop on foreign soil. No country should do so.

"Governments have all kinds of operations on each other's soil, both military and civilian." Again, who do you think has more operations on whose soil? Can you imagine if the Saudis or the Chinese opened shop in the US? Americans would be outraged. It would never be allowed.

Of course there isn't enough traffic to justify Canada's setting up shop in the US. The US has already done so in Canada. Duplicating this would be silly.

I'll give you an example of one "bilateral" agreement with the US. The US implemented FATCA to keep tabs on bank accounts of American citizens and permanent residents abroad. Like citizenship-based taxation, it's a massive overreach. It strongarmed governments to force banks around the world to provide full access to accounts held by American citizens. Of course, promising reciprocity (the US is a major "fiscal paradise" along with the UK). Well guess, what? Foreign banks must report to the US but the US isn't reporting monies to foreign governments. Several goverments- notably France- have threatened to end their agreements. The US says "sure, end your agreement", you just won't be able to trade in dollars. That's the kind of "agreements" we make.

There is a disturbing aspect to having overseas clearance facilities. In essence, it is an attempt to push our borders out overseas. Don't be fooled into thinking that these are just "clerical" positions. They are strategic positions and ones that give intelligence and shield potential travelers from legal recourse (they are refused on foreign soil), etc etc.

If you haven't noticed I have great distrust of government in general, but particularly of the US goverment (and a few others)... they have too many tentacles in too many places around the world under the guise of "security". It's been almost 20 years of this post 9/11.

Finally I disagree with you on the professionalism of these folks. My experiences in Canada and Ireland have been pretty poor.

Finally! Toronto-Billy Bishop International Airport to have US Preclearance by 2023. You don't have go through customs in United States anymore. Once you clearance Immigration & Customs before US flights.

https://www.thestar.com/business/202...s-traffic.html

It's long overdue!

I wouldn't hold my breath until actual renovation work is underway. It and Montreal rail station preclearance has been talked about since Obama was in office.

Hopefully it will become reality in 2023 and not pushed out further.

I can see how preclearance is of some benefit if you are making a connection.

But for point to point traffic, preclearance sucks. Without preclearance, when you go to the airport you leave time for security, not immigration/customs. The, when you arrive in the US, you go through customs/immigration. If you have Global Entry, that's pretty quick.

With preclearance, you have to add time to get to the airport for customs/immigration, and inevitably to be safe you leave more time than is necessary. So your trip ends up taking longer than without preclearance, because you don't know how long customs/immigration will take so you add extra time that is wasted.

Without preclearance, you don't add the unnecessary time.

I generally strongly agree. However, YTZ is an exception. Preclearance would allow Porter to serve LGA and DCA (instead of or in addition to JFK and IAD, respectively.) I would love Porter to serve DCA.

Beside some political discussion (see above ;-) ), does anyone have recent news about preclearance in BRU airport ?

Most 'recent' news are dated 2022... https://www.brusselstimes.com/233396...visitors-to-us

There's no official news, and for airports nominally "on the list" for preclearance expansion in the Schengen zone (AMS, ARN, BRU, FCO, KEF, MAD, MXP, OSL) I would not expect any news about it moving forward before 2025 at the earliest. Right now they're all focused on implementing EES, then ETIAS. Even if they weren't, I suspect the shaky political situation vis-a-vis the upcoming US presidential election and its potential impact on US-European relations would be reason enough to put any preclearance expansion plans on ice.

Forget one thing about this. Still haven�t add Preclearance in PUJ, BOG, and SDQ. There�s no official news yet. I�m hoping to see what happens after US presidential elections.

There's been no news on actual start dates or implementation. Just lots of aspirations and statements. The last of which were aspirations for US preclearance at BFS for economic purposes and restart US-bound flights from there:

https://www.travelgossip.co.uk/latestnews/uk-to-push-for-us-pre-clearance-customs-and-immigration-checks-at-belfast-international/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-68172444