Israel and Canada questions its citizens when returning home, but spare the unnecessary secondary screening unless you are really acting suspicious (though, Israel unashamingly racial and religious profiles).

U.S. immigration is rather paranoid on what is outside its borders. Why do you think that the DHS still requires to take off your shoes and recheck your luggage through security for your connecting flight just because you came from an international origin? Even if you are a US citizen.

It does not surprise me why the DHS want to open up more US pre-clearance methods in foreign airports.

Canada doesn't require the information on the declaration form only your incoming flight information and whether you arrived from the U.S., via the U.S. or directly from another country.

You may be asked "where are you coming from" which to me means the last country I was in. I have occasionally been asked "did you visit any other countries" and provided the information.

This can be viewed as entrapment, lets say you visit Cuba without a Treasury licence or a valid licence exemption. If you do not list Cuba you have made a false declaration to CBP. If you list Cuba you have admitted to a crime.

Of course, the Cuba travel issue should be "fixed" in the next few years. Also as far as I know the US government does not prohibit travel to any other nations. But I am sure there are other cases where this could be entrapment for some.

It is simple only for those whose main residence is in the US and who take a straightforward "trip" out of the US to 1 or 5 or 12 countries.

As others noted above, it is NOT simple for those of us who live out of the USA (in my case, in Australia) and who take numerous "trips" to other parts of the world between visits to the US.

Say, for example, that I last visited the USA 10 years ago, and since then I have traveled frequently to other parts of the world.

Now I fly direct SYD-LAX where I am asked "countries visited on this trip prior to U.S. arrival". Options:

• None: on this trip I started in Australia, and I wasn't visiting, I live there.
• One: on this trip I was in Australia "prior to US arrival".
• 15: All the countries I've been in the last 10 years since I was in the US. (Maybe 8 European countries, 3 in Oceania, and 4 in Asia will look a bit odd for one "trip.")
• 20: The above plus another 5 countries where I was only in transit.

Please suggest the "simple" option for the above.
Australia asks "residents departing temporarily" (note, not the same as "citizens") to specify (on departure) "the country where you will spend the most time abroad" and asks "returning residents" (on arrival) "the country where you spent the most time abroad." In both cases they ask how long you will be (were) away.

Foreign visitors are asked only for their country of residence and Australians emigrating are asked for their new country of residence.

For many trips in recent years I've been working in one country and staying in a hotel 15 minutes away in another country, so I always hesitate at "which country will you (did you) spend the most time?" :D

You need to recheck your luggage because it needs to be available for inspection by CBP at your first point of entry. After you've had contact with your checked luggage all bets are off as to security as there are many things that can be transported in checked luggage that are prohibited in the cabin, hence the need to re-screen passengers regardless of their citizenship.

That's not what "entrapment" means. Nobody is tricking you into committing a crime or compromising the law.

Shame the US can't go to a model of clearing immigration & customs on arrival at your final destination, though I sort of get why that would be impractical at many airports in the US. (Staff CBP agents at a small regional airport that gets 2x turboprops a day and typically 0 of the pax arriving are coming from international flights?!)

I do wish they'd come up with a way for true transit pax who are not setting foot in the US itself to avoid clearing immigration & customs, but that would require we redesign terminals at many airports to keep the international and domestic flights segregated.

Okay entrapment was not the correct word to use. But it is a catch-22 situation.

what you are talking about is forced self-incrimination - in the US this is usually protected by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

That's more or less impossible though. Forget about the staffing issue. Think about this: you're coming in from an international flight and then taking a regional flight. 95% of the people on that regional flight are flying domestically, how would they know to single out 1 or 2 people for inspection because their point of origin was from a foreign country? And how would that work? They'd have to check every single passenger, whereas normally when you're leaving a domestic flight you can just walk out of the airport.

The luggage recheck is inevitable. There are many things permitted in checked baggage that are not permitted in carry-on baggage. Since you have to take your bags through customs you are now not sterile as far as airside security is concerned.

I've managed to rack up 20+ twice--while actually living in the US. I believe my father just listed continents on the form because there was no hope of fitting the countries in.

Some people think that using racial and religious profiling is bad for security reasons but i don't have a problem what that at all.
Reality is that some group of people are a higher risk and requires more attention.
We should reduce the political correctness behavior and say and act on how it is in reality.

No it isn't, because it has never been illegal for US citizens to travel to Cuba - it was the act of spending money there without the proper license, etc. So, simply declaring you visited Cuba on a customs form would not be admitting to a crime.

OFAC operates on a "presumption of guilt" where they basically assume that anyone who went to Cuba must have spent money there. Unless you claim that you were somehow given food, water and shelter completely free of charge, you aren't going to have much of a defense to that. Declaring that you visited Cuba would not be admitting to a crime, but it would be giving the government everything they need (under their own standards) to find you guilty of a crime.