US Visa Requirements

[Michael James]

We are booked on the November TA to Fort Lauderdale. My wife discovered via someone at her work that the new US visa requirements mean that anyone with a criminal conviction needs to get a visa and can't use the visa waiver scheme. The new rules include motoring offences so a traffic fine of £100 10 years ago means my wife is now lumped in with murderers etc. We are considering cancelling the voyage. Has anyone else had any experiences either positive or negative regarding US visas?

 

Thanks

 

Mike

[smeyer418]

Hello Mike. I personally think the US has gone overboard on this. I hope they don't mean just the normally speeding etc. But they may mean reckless driving or an alcohol related offenses which are criminal in nature. But I would check with our witless homeland security who will allow knives and knitting needles but not matches or lighters- a bomb don't you know... (like the bombers never heard of a battery)

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/index.htm

 

here's a good example

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060421/us_nm/britain_iraq_actor_dc

[travel-to-go]

Mike,

If the US citizens had half of the requirements applied to them as foreigners (including Green card holders wishing to become citizens) we certainly would have no worries about overcrowding,. Most of us born here wouldn't qualify to live here!

 

That said, here is the main US government Visa web page. With the understanding that nothing is engraved in stone, and the requirements which were supposed to take affect last December were pushed out, and things may change again, who know? I would bookmark this site and check back as time draws nearer.

 

Heck, I'll bet half our or senators and congressmen coudln't qualify to be citizens or live here these days. And certainly there are a few of them who have had drunk driving arrests or have otherwise been known to indulge in illegal activities!

 

Here's the site:

http://firstgov.gov/Citizen/Topics/Visas.shtml

 

Karie,

who believes that some are trying to pervert the meaning and the promise of our constitution under the guise of "Security" but really have other agendas they are persuing. If we throw out those protections our fore-fathers tried to codify in the constitution, then we have lost the battle AND the war.

 

Good luck. Those of us who don't have an agenda welcome you and your "Hardened Criminal" speeding wife to our country!

[smeyer418]

Mike,

If the US citizens had half of the requirements applied to them as foreigners (including Green card holders wishing to become citizens) we certainly would have no worries about overcrowding,. Most of us born here wouldn't qualify to live here!

 

That said, here is the main US government Visa web page. With the understanding that nothing is engraved in stone, and the requirements which were supposed to take affect last December were pushed out, and things may change again, who know? I would bookmark this site and check back as time draws nearer.

 

Heck, I'll bet half our or senators and congressmen coudln't qualify to be citizens or live here these days. And certainly there are a few of them who have had drunk driving arrests or have otherwise been known to indulge in illegal activities!

 

Here's the site:

http://firstgov.gov/Citizen/Topics/Visas.shtml

 

Karie,

who believes that some are trying to pervert the meaning and the promise of our constitution under the guise of "Security" but really have other agendas they are persuing. If we throw out those protections our fore-fathers tried to codify in the constitution, then we have lost the battle AND the war.

 

Good luck. Those of us who don't have an agenda welcome you and your "Hardened Criminal" speeding wife to our country!

 

and clearly none of the founding fathers would qualify..

[bonni99]

The key thing here is whether an individual was formally arrested in relation to a motoring offense- examples such as drink driving, dangerous driving, death by reckless driving etc- all mean that a visit to the Embassy is required and an individual cannot travel visa free- other speeding offenses which result in a fine through the door and no formal police arrest- do not render an individual ineligible to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver program (VWP). I actually work at the US Embassy in London and hope that this information makes things a little clearer.

[Michael James]

I'm assuming that bonni99's words are true and so the US will have to do without several thousand dollars of our tourist money. The offence was driving without due care and attention which is basically what you get for crashing into someone elses car if you don't cause any injuries - other than to pride. I note that major travel web sites such as Cunard and Virgin mention the criminal element and visas but don't list what constitutes a criminal offence. I'm sure if motoring offences (except speeding and parking) were listed they'd be a lot more of a stink raised and maybe some politicians would see sense in the US or is that an oxymoron?

 

Thanks for the kind words and info.

 

Mike.

[Bollinge]

More pertinent and stupid is the fact that the Visa Waiver Scheme does not apply to anyone who has ever been arrested, regardless of whether they were subsequently charged or convicted of any criminal offence.

 

Anyway, the fact is that the British Criminal Records Office does not share information on ordinary British Citizens with the American government, so if you don't tell 'em they aint gonna know.

 

I have had three American visas over the last twenty five years, and have visited the States over forty times. Now if I want to renew my visa I have to go to London for an interview???? and pay fifty or sixty quid! Why?

 

More post 9/11 paranoia. Didn't the hijackers all have visas?

 

I'll just travel on the Visa Waiver scheme. Incidentally, when I went though US immigration in St Thomas on QM2 last week, there was no fingerprinting or biometric scanning. Just a man with a rubber stamp.

 

You may have noticed that certain cruise lines and ships are starting to avoid the States and its outlying islands (Puerto Rico and U.S.V.I). This is for two reasons. Firstly the hassle of going through US immigration and second, they avoid inspection by the US Public Health inspectors.

[bonni99]

Please be aware that there is a lot more inter-agency sharing of information than in previous years- and those who choose to travel visa waiver without disclosing previous arrests and/or convictions- do risk encountering difficulties at the port of entry- and even being denied entry- for misrepresentation- an offense in itself which can make it extremely difficult to enter or transit through the US for many years.

 

A formal arrest and conviction for driving without due care and attention would not render an inidividual ineligible for a visa- and it is likely that Michael's wife would qualify for a ten year visa- so yes a little extra is required of said individuals- but a fee of £63.00 for a 10 year visa and the resulting freedom of travel that the visa will afford- doesn't seem too high a price to pay for those who love traveling toand through the US.

 

Just my opinion.

[Bollinge]

There may be "inter-agency" sharing of information but if Joe Bloggs of Liverpool pitches up at Orlando airport tomorrow there is no way that US immigration will know anything about his conviction for assault outside the Cavern Club years ago.

 

Moreover, 30% of British males have a "criminal record", so you can bet that 99.9% of them who travel to the US do so without visas under the visa waiver scheme.

[smeyer418]

I haveno idea why the US Government expects terrorist to answer these questions honestly. This only hurts honest people. Such stupidity.

[bonni99]

Well rules are there for a reason so disregard them at your own peril.

[Bollinge]

From "The Daily Telegraph" London, yesterday:

 

US immigration made me feel like a criminal

 

Nick Jones writes from Fordingbridge, Hants:

 

My wife and I travel through Miami each year and have had no problems with immigration officials on arrival. On March 9, we were first in the queue at Miami airport at 2.30pm. My wife went through the fingerprint check and photo procedure without problems, but I was not so lucky.

 

I was processed by a trainee being closely supervised by his superior. For some reason, the scan of my right forefinger was unsuccessful and we were ordered to stand against a wall and wait to be escorted to a detention centre. My passport was confiscated.

A very rude female officer then took us into a locked room, already occupied by a mixture of Europeans and Hispanics. No explanation was offered as to why or how long this detention would last. We were seated opposite a young Swiss woman who had been detained the day before and was waiting to be returned to Switzerland. We felt like criminals.

 

Gradually the attendant immigration officers worked through the queue of detainees. I tried to use the loo, only to find the door locked. This was finally opened electronically, on request.

 

After an hour, someone yelled "Jones". I chose to ignore this until the "Mr" was added.

 

Once again, I was asked the reason for my visit and once again I was fingerprinted. Then, without a word of explanation or apology I was told I could go. As a frequent visitor to the US, and as someone who worked closely with both the US Air Force and Navy during my 30 years in the RAF, I was extremely resentful at such treatment. Do you have any explanation for it?

 

Gill (Telegraph travel reporter) replies:

 

The Orwellian-sounding Department for Homeland Security takes its role in checking the ID of those entering the US very seriously, for obvious reasons.

 

While I have not been able to look into your particular case (the US Embassy will not comment on individual cases), it is standard practice to pull over people who fail the fingerprint ID test and subject them to further scrutiny.

 

You are not alone. A British employee of an American airline told me that he, too, had been detained at O'Hare Airport, Chicago after failing the fingerprint test. He had cut the pad of one finger between visits to the US and although this had long healed it created enough of a discrepancy to worry an immigration official.

 

It could well be that something similar happened in your case. But whatever the reason for your detention, I do agree that passengers should be handled with more sensitivity and that an explanation should be given.

 

Ironically, it was only last week at the annual Global Travel and Tourism Summit in Washington that the Us Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, told travel industry leaders: "We're making entry into America faster; we're also trying to make it friendlier and still secure…"

 

She did go on to admit that "the US government is not exactly known for customer service."

[mufi]

Well rules are there for a reason QUOTE]

 

When imposed by national governments this is seldom true.

 

David

[bonni99]

Well travel to or through the US is not a right and post 9-11 I think it only appropriate that governments tighten up border controls when and where necessary- I only hope that we will follow suit in Britain- perhaps then we wouldn't allow all and sundry who decide to enter our contry to do us harm. Strange that so many people seem so against the US and yet where do all you guys want to travel to?

[smeyer418]

Well travel to or through the US is not a right and post 9-11 I think it only appropriate that governments tighten up border controls when and where necessary- I only hope that we will follow suit in Britain- perhaps then we wouldn't allow all and sundry who decide to enter our contry to do us harm. Strange that so many people seem so against the US and yet where do all you guys want to travel to?

 

Frankly what you say makes no sense. I brook no one in trying to protect the US and trying to keep out terrorists. What I complain about the utter stupidity in the way we do it. It only angers friends and lets through all the enemies. Stopping Mr. Jones is ok if you treat him or anyone esle with respect and tell them we are holding you until we confirm your identity. Treating him rudely is just wrong. Stopping someone becuase of a traffic ticket(even it it was reckless driving etc) who is just visiting has never stopped anyone hell bent on doing us harm. You from England where the bombing in London was done mostly by citizens(and in the US OK City was homegrown as well). The enscription on the Statute of Liberty says it all. But what we have done has made us the target for all the crazies in the world and I don't see us stopping that. Being a bully, redering people tortouring them in our base in Cuba hasn't helped one bit.

 

and all this nonesense will have its affect on tourism needlessly so.

[berry22192]

I haveno idea why the US Government expects terrorist to answer these questions honestly. This only hurts honest people. Such stupidity.

 

 

 

Sometime during the mid 1950s, the British radio and TV personality Gilbert Harding wished to travel to the U.S. [remember this was in the McCarthy era when it was believed by some that there were Communists under every bed] and went to the U.S. embassy in London to apply for a tourist visa. One question on the application form was, "Do you intend to overthrow the U.S. government by force?" Harding's response: "It is the sole purpose of my visit."

Whether he was allowed admittance or not is unknown.

 

 

Chris

[travel-to-go]

Well rules are there for a reason QUOTE]

 

When imposed by national governments this is seldom true.

 

David

 

That's not true, David! There's usually a reason. Just not the one they are trying to get you (or us) to believe!

 

There are times that I am embarassed to be an American. We want everyone to care about our troubles, yet have blinders on to the rest of the world, and lately, the atmosphere has at times been, that if you take a position other than the officially spouted one, you are accused of being unpatriotic or worse. We hassle regular ordinary people and then let huge things (people or what-have you, such as the previously discussed lack of a plan at cargo ports when the Dubai Ports World thing came up) slip through the net without a second thought. We are up in arms about visitors and immigrants, when the country was "founded" by "foreigners" taking the land that "belonged" to those who were already here! Home-rule- I've got my piece- now everybody else stay out!

 

As a technician, I sometimes deal with frustrated customers who have already been through the mill with people who have not helped them, or made promises that were not or could not be kept. By the time they reach me, it is usually something which has escalated and does not have an easy answer, and they are usually about at the end of their rope. Still, it costs me nothing to listen, be attentive, treat them with respect, and their problems as valid concerns. I find that if I take a minute to let them breathe and get it off their chests, then sympathize with what they have been through and are going through- validate them, in short- they are usually gracious, easy to work with, will laugh with me (even through their pain) and we get through it. It gives me the ability to do my job easier, and them the feeling that someone cares and will take care of them. It is not rocket science. And a little kindness and respect FROM me, makes my job a whole lot easier. I had very good customer service training when I was a customer service rep. I have never forgotten those lessons from 27 years ago. They have stood me in good stead in all facets of my life, including standing in a hot, crowded, illl-tempered queue. There's nothing you can do, so you might as well laugh and make friends with those around you!

 

Karie,

Who apologizes on behalf of the US government for an and all mistreatment we have perpetrated.

P.S. I would treat such an indiginity as a chance to learn about another's land or culture or circumstances (without prying) and perhaps to help ease their fears a bit. The one thing which could make such a situation worse for a foreginer is the fear, uncertainty and not knowing the language!

[Bramcruiser]

Well travel to or through the US is not a right and post 9-11 I think it only appropriate that governments tighten up border controls when and where necessary- I only hope that we will follow suit in Britain- perhaps then we wouldn't allow all and sundry who decide to enter our contry to do us harm. Strange that so many people seem so against the US and yet where do all you guys want to travel to?

 

Travel into any country is not a right and its understandable how the US wants to tighten border controls. 9/11 is indeed a wake up call to most of the western world let alone the US. Heck, we Canadians are just going to have to get used to the fact we'll need a passport just for a day trip across the border after a century and more of being able to cross with relative ease. However, that being said it is sad that much of this appears to the public to be badly planned and handled by people with horrible people handling skills. Yes, discrepancies can be followed up but I fail to see how treating everyone like a criminal is going to stop criminals. I agree that customs officials and their "processing" should be taken seriously and I think those who joke at airports about bombs and guns at security are idiots but sometimes those in control are just not able to deal with managing people.

 

People do want to vacation but that last sentence makes one wonder nowadays why people are still travelling to the US? Well, not all Americans are bad and there are a lot of good reasons to visit the US just like much of the rest of the world. Not every custom official is bad and I have had some good experiences crossing the border in post 9/11. I only had one experience that I would put down as not pleasant. However, I truly believe the harder it becomes to visit the more people will eventually decide to go somewhere else. Its a double edged sword.

 

It'll be very interesting to see if visits to the US drop after the new rules take place in 2007. I expect a temporary blip and them business as usual though.

[merryecho]

Canada has had the same requirement for several years now. Many people on our Alaska cruise were concerned about stopping in Victoria BC because they had a DUI in their past. Didn't turn out to be a problem, but it has been cause for refusal of entry to people driving over the border. You can get a waiver for $200 if you have a DUI. ( I wonder if GW Bush had to get a waiver before his visit?) So, while I don't like the policy either, it was a British commenwealth country that started it.

[Bramcruiser]

Yet we let some of our politicians continue on as politicians with their drinking records? Gordon Campbell and Ralph Klein wouldn't likely be allowed into the country easily if they came from outside yet they can easily get re-elected.

 

I guess Canada is just as crazy as the rest of the world!

[Kindlychap]

Well travel to or through the US is not a right and post 9-11 I think it only appropriate that governments tighten up border controls when and where necessary- I only hope that we will follow suit in Britain- perhaps then we wouldn't allow all and sundry who decide to enter our contry to do us harm. Strange that so many people seem so against the US and yet where do all you guys want to travel to?

 

Who says that everyone wants to travel to America?

 

I'd be perfectly happy to do a back to back transatlantic without getting off the ship in New York. In fact, I might well do that anyway - especially if it docks in Brooklyn.

 

For me, the endless queues for a rubber stamp are a real reason NOT to sail to the USA. Having said that, if one waits long enough, the queue is very short........