more security - or lack of ??
Feb 17, 2000 | 9:50 am
#17
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Washington DC
Programs: UA GS, SAS Gold, EK Gold, BA Gold, Marriott Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 801
james - it could have been the 90 day thing. but i have asked the local INS office about that (b/c i was concenred about her return which ended up being no problem) and they seemed to think it was OK. anyways better safe than sorry so turn in the card if they dont collect it 
Feb 17, 2000 | 2:56 pm
#18
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 3,373
Don't worry about the I94. The US do not track departure.
There is legislation on the books (the infamous section 110) requiring INS to track, but INS have bluntly said that neither the technology nor the resources are in place to do so.
Once you have left the US, you can just throw it away.
There is legislation on the books (the infamous section 110) requiring INS to track, but INS have bluntly said that neither the technology nor the resources are in place to do so.
Once you have left the US, you can just throw it away.
Feb 17, 2000 | 5:10 pm
#19
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 363
The big advantage of allowing only passengers access to the concourses is that the load of people requiring screening is less. Personally questioning everyone in detail is a major step that should be included if the security level is suppose to be high. The 2 questions now used are a joke. They should also ask if "anyone, KNOWN or unknown, has given you anything." The last case of a bomb put in someone's luggage was given by a boyfriend who hated Israel AND his Irish girlfriend.