Foreign Nationals' Rights on Entry to the US
May 29, 2010, 11:37 am
#46
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PDX
Posts: 908
The key difference between the US immigration system and that of most other countries is that whereas in most systems the issuance of a visa establishes bonafides for the purpose of admissability (and hence the PoE requires only to establish identity and that the bonafides are still valid), the US system requires that a full independant assesment of bonafides is made at PoE starting from a default assumption of inadmissability.
May 29, 2010, 5:25 pm
#47
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,656
That is a great idea in theory but reality is much different. The consular post does not do a bang up job at verifying information at all. Many times the consular post has foreign nationals working in the system which has caused problems in the past. This idea also doesn't address countries that do not require entry visa's. I would also point out that it is by no means a turf war the system was set up this way for a purpose. The powers that be want the checks and balance that currently exist in the system.
The system is what it is and I don't see the NIV process being a high priority for immigration reform so we are probably stuck with it for the immediate future. That doesn't mean it is fit for purpose though, its just less dysfunctional than some other aspects of the system.
From a personal standpoint, as someone who has been to ~75 countries in my lifetime, crosses an international border about twice a week for work and has lived on 5 continents, I have had my worst PoE experience (some details of which I alluded to earlier on this thread) with the USA but I now view that as an anomaly rather than indicative of any larger trend there. I avoid traveling to the USA, but that's a personal choice that I'm willing and fortunately able to make. Rationally or irrationally, I don't feel comfortable with the process - once bitten twice shy I guess. C'est la vie.
May 29, 2010, 5:38 pm
#48
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand/ UK
Programs: NZ, EK, QF, SQ.
Posts: 776
I don't know about the actual rights, but the US entry process is the most invasive and ridiculous compared to many other countries, not just democracies (I take you meant 'western' countries?) Not only with respect to foreign nationals but one's own citizens. Actually, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have similar entry procedures to the US one.
The OP is on a flight from Australia to the UK that passes through (transits) the US. While I can't speak for Canada or South Africa, I do know that Australia, New Zealand (and the UK) do not require passengers in transit to pass through immigration at all. In these countries, transit passengers remain in the airside part of the airports and do not, technically, enter these countries. Only the US requires passengers merely passing through an airport (even if getting back on the same flight) to go through the immigration rigmarole. Only the US requires passengers in transit to submit in advance an on-line ESTA application.
Australia and New Zealand do not do fingerprinting or (yet) facial recognition.
I agree that the US immigration process is "ďnvasive and ridiculous". It's just one of those irritating events that are necessary, if you want to travel.
10-digit fingerprinting of non-US citizens is unlikely to discover any terrorists trying to enter the US.
Facial recognition only matches the person's face with the passport they are presenting. It does not prevent a genuine photo of the person who is to use it being attached to a fake passport.
Iris scanning, when implemented, will still only detect that the bearer of the passport is the person for whom the passport was issued.
In the OP's case, he/she will most likely (if fitting some profile) be asked some additional questions, but should still be allowed to re-board their flight.
Being returned to the original flight's point of origin would also present problems: the OP will have gone through procedures to depart Australia and could need to apply on-line for a visa to re-enter Australia.
May 29, 2010, 7:30 pm
#49
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
US citizens are subjected to extensive questioning as well upon returning to their own country. Firebug indicated that CBP is not only responsible for determining who is admissible but also finding out who may have broken what laws. The last part makes me wonder because my other country of citizenship admits me without any questioning at all.
I thought that an earlier post in this thread stated that somebody has not "departed" one country until they have been "admitted" to another (or, presumably, if they don't need to be admitted, such as a citizen of the second country).
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; May 29, 2010 at 11:32 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
May 29, 2010, 7:34 pm
#50
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,849
Right. That's a good thing, isn't it?
Last edited by yyzvoyageur; May 29, 2010 at 8:21 pm
May 29, 2010, 8:15 pm
#51
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
I've passed through security in Canada, France, and Bulgaria in recent years. Going both ways at border stations between US and Canada were acceptable to me. Going through security at CDG in France was pretty smooth. They wanded me and detected my security wallet because of a metal clip that held it to the waistband of my pants. I said oops and through it on the conveyor. I and the security guard had kind of a laugh about it. But no real grief. The process in Bulgaria had no problems at all. When I think on the whole thing, it seems to me that Bulgaria had the least tension. So that's why I conclude that sitting on the sidelines leads to an unemotional process.
May 29, 2010, 9:38 pm
#52
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PDX
Posts: 908
LuvAirFrance, we are talking about the passport control at the POE, right? Going through security and being admitted to the country are two very different things. How about your experience going through immigraton in the above countries compared to each other?
May 30, 2010, 1:29 am
#54
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ICN / 평택
Programs: AA, DL Gold, UA Gold, HHonors Gold
Posts: 8,714
It is unclear to me why the US does not allow airside transits at the larger airports. It might not work at the smaller airports (think Charlotte or Denver, perhaps), but the large airports like LAX, JFK or DFW should offer passengers the ability to transit through the US without having to undergo an immigration process. This would also speed up the queues at these airports, since the officers would no longer have to spend time with passengers who are merely in transit and could devote their resources to those who actually wished to enter.
May 30, 2010, 1:49 am
#55
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PDX
Posts: 908
May 30, 2010, 3:58 am
#56
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand/ UK
Programs: NZ, EK, QF, SQ.
Posts: 776
[QUOTE
I thought that an earlier post in this thread stated that somebody has not "departed" one country until they have been "admitted" to another (or, presumably, if they don't need to be admitted, such as a citizen of the second country).[/QUOTE]
Yes it did and, because of personal experience, I disagree with that opinion. I would love to know the official source of his/her assertion that this is so.
Once you have passed through the checkpoint where you show your passport and surrender your departure card, you pass into the secure air-side part of the airport.
At that point, you have officially departed the country. If, for any reason, your flight is canceled and you then have to leave the airport, you must again pass through immigration, to re-enter the country. This has happened to me on more than one occasion, when due to mechanical problems with the aircraft.
On another occasion, I was refused entry into Vietnam (due to an incorrect visa which had been issued by the Vietnamese embassy in my own country). I was flown back to Bangkok - at a cost to the airline that had allowed me to board with an incorrect visa - and had to fill in documentation and go through immigration to re-enter Thailand. I can assure you that neither I nor the Thai immigration officials considered that I had still been in Thai territory when I was attempting to enter Vietnam!!
And yes, I did feel like Tom Hanks in the movie "Terminal"!
Exactly!
And did that happen a lot before the current system of requiring transit passengers to go through immigration came into effect? Or it the current system just another product of the previous President's attempts to make the American public think that their government is "doing something to prevent terrorism"?
I thought that an earlier post in this thread stated that somebody has not "departed" one country until they have been "admitted" to another (or, presumably, if they don't need to be admitted, such as a citizen of the second country).[/QUOTE]
Yes it did and, because of personal experience, I disagree with that opinion. I would love to know the official source of his/her assertion that this is so.
Once you have passed through the checkpoint where you show your passport and surrender your departure card, you pass into the secure air-side part of the airport.
At that point, you have officially departed the country. If, for any reason, your flight is canceled and you then have to leave the airport, you must again pass through immigration, to re-enter the country. This has happened to me on more than one occasion, when due to mechanical problems with the aircraft.
On another occasion, I was refused entry into Vietnam (due to an incorrect visa which had been issued by the Vietnamese embassy in my own country). I was flown back to Bangkok - at a cost to the airline that had allowed me to board with an incorrect visa - and had to fill in documentation and go through immigration to re-enter Thailand. I can assure you that neither I nor the Thai immigration officials considered that I had still been in Thai territory when I was attempting to enter Vietnam!!
And yes, I did feel like Tom Hanks in the movie "Terminal"!
It is unclear to me why the US does not allow airside transits at the larger airports. It might not work at the smaller airports (think Charlotte or Denver, perhaps), but the large airports like LAX, JFK or DFW should offer passengers the ability to transit through the US without having to undergo an immigration process. This would also speed up the queues at these airports, since the officers would no longer have to spend time with passengers who are merely in transit and could devote their resources to those who actually wished to enter.
And did that happen a lot before the current system of requiring transit passengers to go through immigration came into effect? Or it the current system just another product of the previous President's attempts to make the American public think that their government is "doing something to prevent terrorism"?
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; May 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
May 30, 2010, 5:28 am
#57
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
What role does immigration play with potential terrorists? Abdulmuttalab was a citizen. Immigration would have passed him through, no problem. He needed stateside inspection by security. If he was allowed to transfer planes in the airside area, he'd only get the screening overseas which, as we saw, didn't work.
May 30, 2010, 6:27 am
#58
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Partly, but since I think this was a post-9/11 change, I think the main reason was that a person presenting themselves for a visa would be an additional "layer".
May 30, 2010, 7:19 am
#59
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,656
While I can't speak for Canada or South Africa, I do know that Australia, New Zealand (and the UK) do not require passengers in transit to pass through immigration at all. In these countries, transit passengers remain in the airside part of the airports and do not, technically, enter these countries. Only the US requires passengers merely passing through an airport (even if getting back on the same flight) to go through the immigration rigmarole. Only the US requires passengers in transit to submit in advance an on-line ESTA application.
May 30, 2010, 1:37 pm
#60
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand/ UK
Programs: NZ, EK, QF, SQ.
Posts: 776
Australia has one of the more ridiculous transit systems, which requires that passengers from most countries hold a transit visa even if they are in continuous transit through Australia on the same aircraft (eg. flying DXB-SYD-AKL requires you to obtain an Australian visa). This also needs to be acquired from an Australian High Commision with visa services, of which there are only a handful in the world. The nearest ones to me for example are a 5 hour flight away. At least the US requires you to disembark and be inspected - Australia requires you to obtain one to simply sit on board a plane for an hour. So lets not hold Australia up as a shining example of a smooth transit system!!
I think you are misinformed.
I don't know where you got your information, but it clearly contradicts the informaiton on the Australian government sites, namely:
http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/tran...sa-options.htm
http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/transit/no-visa.htm
http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/transit/771/
These state (emphasis mine):
Transit Without Visa
Some travellers do not need a transit visa if they:
* depart Australia by air within 8 hours of the scheduled time of their arrival
* hold confirmed onward booking and documentation necessary to enter the country of their destination
and
* remain in the transit lounge at an airport.
Note: Travellers changing airlines in Australia are advised to verify with their airlines whether they will need to personally re-check their luggage as part of the transiting process. If so, a visa will be required to retrieve and re-check their luggage before departure.
The following categories of travellers are covered under this arrangement:
1. Citizens of the these countries:
Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of South Africa, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, U.S.A., Vanuatu and Vatican City.
2. Residents of Taiwan holding a passport issued by the authorities of Taiwan (other than passports purported to be official or diplomatic passports).
3. People holding British passports (irrespective of endorsement in passport regarding national status)
4. People who are nationals of the People's Republic of China and who hold Hong Kong (SAR China) passports.
5. People who hold diplomatic passports. However, this is not applicable to nationals of these countries:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, the Republic of Yemen, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Arab Non-National Passport Holders (ANNPH) or Taiwanese holding diplomatic or official passports.
Transit With Visa
This visa allows people to transit through Australia.
Who is this visa for?
This visa is for:
* people who wish to transit through Australia and who do not qualify for transit without a visa
or
* people travelling to Australia to join a vessel as crew.
A transit visa is required even if:
* you fly out on the same aircraft and from the same airport at which you arrived
* you stay in the transit lounge and do not leave the airport.
For more information about transit without a visa, please click on the link below.
See: Transit without visa arrangements
For more information about sea crew members, please click on the link below.
See: A Guide to Visas for Foreign Sea Crew
How much will this visa cost?
This visa is free of charge.
What does this visa let me do?
If you are granted this visa, you can:
* transit through Australia
* enter and remain in Australia for up to 72 hours.
I have transitted through Australia many times, sat in the same plane on the runway occasionally, transferred from one flight to another, and (usually) got back on the same plane. At no time have I had to go through any immigration procedures if I remained in the transit area. I have not even had to show my passport (except when re-boarding the aircraft) and have never been asked about a transit visa.
If you have had to apply for a transit visa, I assume you come from a country not covered by the transit-without-visa arrangements. However, you should not have had to pay for it. If that it your experience, please don't assume tha the same is true for all people transiting Australia.
My point its that only the USA requires transit passengers who are continuing on the same flight, and who remain in the transit area, to re-claim their checked baggage for re-screening, and to go through immigration procedures (having first applied for an on-line ESTA). Most countries, including Australia, allow passengers who remain in the transit area to re-board their flights without that hassle.