In general I'd recommend Wikivoyage over Wikitravel - the material seems fresher and it is run by a community rather than a corporation with heavy-handed policies.
For anyone new to the distinction, Internet Brands bought Wikitravel and the community didn't like that, so they forked to Wikivoyage. IB tried suing Wikivoyage for this despite it being allowed under the content license -- either IB didn't do their due diligence on the license of the content they bought, or they thought they could bully the community fork through the cost of fighting it alone. It was eventually thrown out of court, as it should have been.
Wikivoyage is now hosted by Wikimedia, the same nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia.
Are there any community guidelines around linking to sources when making claims about what a party might have said? On that very page is the claim:
> US officials have said Canadians may be banned for life from entering the US for legally smoking it, or for working for or investing in the legal companies involved.
Which may very well be true, but cannot be verified without a source.
The moment I could afford to, I started avoiding connecting flights in the United States wherever possible.
The user experience is appalling, from parking lot to gate.
I have visited places that take security very, very seriously (Israel, Russia, China etc.) and all manage to make the entire process more bearable than the United States. I don't really understand why they can't make their airports function.
Seriously, this isn't hard to understand. The US is an unfriendly, hostile nation. While most Americans, individually, are not unfriendly or hostile to foreigners, the government is decidedly so and has been for decades.
Legacy. The US designed air transportation and had an airport in every city before any thought was even given to the concept of transit. The airports are designed to get people to and from the United States, not for people on a hop between other countries.
Yes, this is a competitive disadvantage. I don't think there is a lot of money around to solve this problem. I'm sure if, say, the Port Authority wanted to have a sterile transit area in JFK, they could probably convince the federal government to allow it. But they don't care. Nobody with money cares. Therein lies the problem.
Same here. In fact, I have actively avoided travelling to the US for the past four years, which means I have mostly missed conferences. I would really like to travel there again, I have friends and favourite places, but the hassle is just too much, even with a passport that makes things easier than average. Sad! :-)
I'm guessing the sheer volume of air travel in the US is one problem.
Example: I travelled to Israel a couple of times for work.
Their security is world class, but they take a more predictive approach: having trained people interview all passengers even before checkin and look for subtle body language clues or inconsistencies, as well as your nationality/ethnicity/previous travel to gauge the level of risk.
This is effective but it wouldn't be able to scale for a country as big as the US (300M vs 8M people); these are trained professionals, not folks that get paid a low hourly wage as is the case with the TSA.
Because of political correctness. All the airplane terrorism has been committed by Muslim males under 35, therefore the TSA has to search little old ladies.
So I always wondered - what happens if your flight has to make an emergency landing on US territory and you don't have a visa? Are the passengers held separately until they can board another flight, so they don't have to go through customs in that case?
This reminds me a recent story when Norvegian Airlines plane was forced to land in Iran due to [engine problem][1].
As a result:
The passengers have now officially entered Iran,
and no longer are allowed to enter the US under
the visa waiver program. This means if any of
them are flying onwards from Oslo to New York
(which many are) they have to go to a US embassy
and ask for permission. They might have to do it
for the rest of their lives.
From memory, there was a similar incident in China last year; where a flight had an emergency landing and passengers (without a Chinese passport) were kept in the airport terminal overnight, as the airlines didn't organise a temporary visa allowing them to enter the country.
Almost expectedly; food, drinks and bathrooms weren't necessary provided, which is how the incident made the news in the usual "worst flying experience" kind of way.
It happened to me, although it was a long time ago, and things have changed. I was en route going from the UK the long way to Australia. I was scheduled to change places in Los Angeles and we were diverted to Las Vegas. Due to the rules about crew flying times, etc., I had an unscheduled 24 hour stopover. Then instead of direct to Melbourne it was Honolulu, Papeete, Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne.
In our case we got processed, and and assuming nothing flagged up you were given a temporary visa, told not the leave the city, and told to be back by a certain time. Or else.
But times have changed - I don't know what would happen now.
I'm sure the Huawei executive was aware of this and actively avoided transiting through the US. She probably didn't assume Canada would also do the US's bidding.
The charges against her work with Iran had made headlines nearly 5+ yrs before she was arrested, so she must have known there was a risk travelling there.
I think the only way for the U.S. to go back to a sane system for international travelers is for people to stop visiting the U.S. for vacations. We won't change until large businesses like Disney take an economic hit.
>> "The United States does not allow sterile transit, which means that even if you have an immediate connecting flight, you have to pass through Customs and Immigration. This is time-consuming and tedious"
The history behind this isn't as simple as politics. Many US airports have evolved without the physical separation between local and international departures areas. So all of the airport is "in" the US. That makes perfect sense given the geography involved. The bulk of US flights are local. Even with Canadian flights it is normal to clear US customs and immigration within Canada prior to boarding the flight to the US. So, rather than politics or protectionism, there simply was no practical need for separate terminals. Starting from that history, it is far easier to screen all passengers as they land rather than retroactively divide an airport into zones.
LAX is notable for having separate local and international terminals, but iirc everyone is still screened on landing.
This isn't all that unusual either. From what I can tell from my travel, this is more of a European thing then anywhere else, as I have not been able to transit without clearing local customs in Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Seoul or Bangkok. Call it an accident of geography - most travel in the EU is technically international, because the EU is a loose confederation at best rather than a federal government.
A few more recent airports have been built to make this change possible should policy ever shift. IAH was specifically designed to allow future sterile transits without major construction.
Perhaps then atleast the airports & terminals where these segreations are in place should be allowed to do 'sterile transfers', and new constructions out to be designed with that in mind.
Otherwise asking someone to get a US visa for mere transfer in an airport (as I understand getting a transit visa is as difficult as other types of US visa required to actually visit US, involving the same lengthy process, with personal interviews at the US Consulates, which in big countries like China, India, Russia could be located at the other end of their country), often to the same aircraft is very onerous.
At the very least the transit visa should be a made a visa-on-arrival with a small fees. I sincerely wonder why the US want to hassle people who don't want to, don't intend to set foot on US soil, but merely want to change planes in there.
some of your points are fair, but I think you're making excuses. The "Even with Canadian flights it is normal to clear US customs and immigration..." is trying to justify.. something.. but what it's really describing is a policy by which the US is forcing its immigration enforcement on to foreign countries. This is a new thing.
I haven't travelled enough to say; I've noticed the 'sterile' zones in particular in Heathrow but of course they have a vast array of international flights, and their status as a non-Schengen country means virtually every transit will be an international one (in contrast to your fair point about the US being a large country with primarily domestic flights).
On a recent trip to South America, I was reminded of how few countries have sterile zones. I made the mistake of booking through Mexico, thinking it would save time, but not realizing I'd have to clear customs going through the country each way. I also took a number of flights such as Argentina -> Peru -> Chile requiring I clear customs on my connection, as well as going through exit and entrance immigration in each (another contrast to the US, which has no exit immigration at all).
I think I got something like 16 passport stamps in 3 weeks.
I would extend it to - avoid transfers anywhere in North America (including Canada). US and Canadian airports are pain in the ass regarding customs and immigration. Better to transfer in Europe or Asia and fly directly from there.
I had no idea you had to go through customs in the US simply to transfer international flights. That's INSANE!
I've had connecting flights though Moscow and Doha and didn't need to "enter" those countries or have a visa just to switch planes. Sometimes you go though another security checkpoint, but I've never had to present my passport until I reached the destination country.
I was under the impression that international flights connecting through the US put travellers in what is technically international territory, and doesn't involve any of the difficulty associated with entering the country. Is this no longer the case?
Maybe? All I can say is that last couple of times I transited through LAX, I had to go all the way out through security and passport control - I could have walked out the front doors of the airport - and then all the way back through. It was the same flight number, and the same physical plane that I was getting back on!
I then decided that was too much of a pain, and flew through Dubai instead, which has a vastly superior transit experience!
It's not international territory in any way, it's US territory. International airports being ports of entry is a bit of a legal fiction, because it's not feasible to conduct immigration and customs inspection immediately when the airplane enters US airspace. That doesn't mean that it's not US territory in any way.
Aliens (with certain exceptions) need either a US visa or an ESTA to transit through the United States. Technically speaking, the Immigration and Nationality Act permits transiting through the United States without a visa if certain conditions are met, but in practice this is not allowed anymore.
Many airports have an international transit zone, which is inside the legislation of the country, but in a legal fiction travelers haven't immigrated, yet. The only one having to go through border check there are travelers connections to domestic flights (in EU inner-Schengen flights are domestic) or for leaving the airport.
U.S. airports generally don't do that. Even when transferring from a flight between Europe and South America they request you to go through immigration and customs.
No, that's the way most airports work, but not in the US. Even if you are just transferring, you can easily just walk straight out of the airport.
I recently did a transfer in the US, took me 2.5 hours to go through customs. I booked before the govt shutdown, so I hadn't anticipated the delay. Not fun.
Not at all - when flying through Miami on a way to Bolivia in June last year, we had to get a full US visa (which caused us tons of problems due to company issuing them for wrong country, making them invalid).
Maybe it depends on airport design, but in Miami there is nothing stopping you from leaving the airport. In fact, we also experienced various issues with flights, and had to literally get out to check in area and chase airlines to take us (it is a long story, full of drama and missed flights due to external errors/issues).
US is special in this, now we heed the advice of many - don't travel through US in any way, potential troubles are not worth it.
It's always worth at least $100 - 200 dollars to avoid a US transfer. The machine guns, and tv's with propaganda of 'how great the US is' are all creepy as hell. Not to mention being yelled at by border security. Seems to be pretty common (in newark at least)
Like most airports in the EU? I've seen prominent military style weapons throughout Heathrow, CDG, and Frankfurt.
> tv's with propaganda of 'how great the US is'
Really? Either the TVs are showing TSA notices what not to carry or they are on something like CNN. I guess CNN could be considered US propaganda hah.
> being yelled at by border security
I've never been yelled at by anyone at any border. My only immigration snag has been in Frankfurt when trying to leave the EU. My visa was stamped in Greece, but it had so little ink the German officer could not find the stamp. Then there was quite a bit of discussion with his partner in German that I didn't understand. Finally, I interjected that I entered the EU through Greece and they laughed and waved me through.
I'm from the US and have been through a lot of US airports, and I've also been through a bunch in Europe and also Sao Paulo, Brazil. I don't ever recall seeing more than a handgun in the US, but in France and Germany they had automatic weapons and in Brazil I'm pretty sure they were full on machine guns.
Even as an American I find the US propaganda when you enter a little creepy. But I also found it odd that when I got to France I couldn't take a picture to celebrate because I couldn't find a single "Welcome to France" thing anywhere in the airport!
Sadly, there are heavily armed security forces in all major transit stations in Europe, these days, and I say "transit stations" because I mean to include train stations and ports. For instance, I've seen heavily armed guards in army fatigues in the train station in Brussels and in Paris and heavily armed border guards in the ports connecting France to the UK, but only on the French side I think.
I guess we're just as paranoid about terrorism in the EU, as anywhere.
I agree about the US border security guys being assholes but I have seen more weapons last year when I travelled to Great Britain, Netherlands and Germany. Especially Amsterdam airport was full of guys with big guns.
I can see the US perspective with concerns after 2001. It is hard to have to be scritinized, but it is a new reality.
Nothing wrong if you are a foreigner avoiding it. I don't think the anti US crowd is productive here, because they still will have to keep the measures in place.
[+] [-] owenmarshall|7 years ago|reply
In general I'd recommend Wikivoyage over Wikitravel - the material seems fresher and it is run by a community rather than a corporation with heavy-handed policies.
[+] [-] paulgb|7 years ago|reply
Wikivoyage is now hosted by Wikimedia, the same nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia.
[+] [-] medmunds|7 years ago|reply
Seconded. Wikivoyage was a fork of Wikitrsvel. The history is... interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Brands#Wikitravel_a...
[+] [-] turdnagel|7 years ago|reply
> US officials have said Canadians may be banned for life from entering the US for legally smoking it, or for working for or investing in the legal companies involved.
Which may very well be true, but cannot be verified without a source.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jordigh|7 years ago|reply
In my head, I've fantasised responding to border agents' questions of "why do you want to come into the US?" with "I don't. You're just in the way."
[+] [-] madcaptenor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bparsons|7 years ago|reply
The user experience is appalling, from parking lot to gate.
I have visited places that take security very, very seriously (Israel, Russia, China etc.) and all manage to make the entire process more bearable than the United States. I don't really understand why they can't make their airports function.
[+] [-] idontpost|7 years ago|reply
Seriously, this isn't hard to understand. The US is an unfriendly, hostile nation. While most Americans, individually, are not unfriendly or hostile to foreigners, the government is decidedly so and has been for decades.
[+] [-] jrockway|7 years ago|reply
Yes, this is a competitive disadvantage. I don't think there is a lot of money around to solve this problem. I'm sure if, say, the Port Authority wanted to have a sterile transit area in JFK, they could probably convince the federal government to allow it. But they don't care. Nobody with money cares. Therein lies the problem.
[+] [-] gonzus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] United857|7 years ago|reply
Example: I travelled to Israel a couple of times for work. Their security is world class, but they take a more predictive approach: having trained people interview all passengers even before checkin and look for subtle body language clues or inconsistencies, as well as your nationality/ethnicity/previous travel to gauge the level of risk.
This is effective but it wouldn't be able to scale for a country as big as the US (300M vs 8M people); these are trained professionals, not folks that get paid a low hourly wage as is the case with the TSA.
[+] [-] slowmovintarget|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madengr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeff_vader|7 years ago|reply
As a result:
[1]: https://www.airlive.net/boeing-737-max-8-stuck-in-iran-since...[+] [-] nness|7 years ago|reply
Almost expectedly; food, drinks and bathrooms weren't necessary provided, which is how the incident made the news in the usual "worst flying experience" kind of way.
[+] [-] ColinWright|7 years ago|reply
In our case we got processed, and and assuming nothing flagged up you were given a temporary visa, told not the leave the city, and told to be back by a certain time. Or else.
But times have changed - I don't know what would happen now.
[+] [-] dmix|7 years ago|reply
The charges against her work with Iran had made headlines nearly 5+ yrs before she was arrested, so she must have known there was a risk travelling there.
[+] [-] skh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|7 years ago|reply
The history behind this isn't as simple as politics. Many US airports have evolved without the physical separation between local and international departures areas. So all of the airport is "in" the US. That makes perfect sense given the geography involved. The bulk of US flights are local. Even with Canadian flights it is normal to clear US customs and immigration within Canada prior to boarding the flight to the US. So, rather than politics or protectionism, there simply was no practical need for separate terminals. Starting from that history, it is far easier to screen all passengers as they land rather than retroactively divide an airport into zones.
LAX is notable for having separate local and international terminals, but iirc everyone is still screened on landing.
[+] [-] InTheArena|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saryant|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billfruit|7 years ago|reply
Otherwise asking someone to get a US visa for mere transfer in an airport (as I understand getting a transit visa is as difficult as other types of US visa required to actually visit US, involving the same lengthy process, with personal interviews at the US Consulates, which in big countries like China, India, Russia could be located at the other end of their country), often to the same aircraft is very onerous.
At the very least the transit visa should be a made a visa-on-arrival with a small fees. I sincerely wonder why the US want to hassle people who don't want to, don't intend to set foot on US soil, but merely want to change planes in there.
[+] [-] rconti|7 years ago|reply
I haven't travelled enough to say; I've noticed the 'sterile' zones in particular in Heathrow but of course they have a vast array of international flights, and their status as a non-Schengen country means virtually every transit will be an international one (in contrast to your fair point about the US being a large country with primarily domestic flights).
On a recent trip to South America, I was reminded of how few countries have sterile zones. I made the mistake of booking through Mexico, thinking it would save time, but not realizing I'd have to clear customs going through the country each way. I also took a number of flights such as Argentina -> Peru -> Chile requiring I clear customs on my connection, as well as going through exit and entrance immigration in each (another contrast to the US, which has no exit immigration at all).
I think I got something like 16 passport stamps in 3 weeks.
[+] [-] vanekjar|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djsumdog|7 years ago|reply
I've had connecting flights though Moscow and Doha and didn't need to "enter" those countries or have a visa just to switch planes. Sometimes you go though another security checkpoint, but I've never had to present my passport until I reached the destination country.
[+] [-] m0skit0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dooglius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ipsi|7 years ago|reply
I then decided that was too much of a pain, and flew through Dubai instead, which has a vastly superior transit experience!
[+] [-] DrJokepu|7 years ago|reply
Aliens (with certain exceptions) need either a US visa or an ESTA to transit through the United States. Technically speaking, the Immigration and Nationality Act permits transiting through the United States without a visa if certain conditions are met, but in practice this is not allowed anymore.
[+] [-] johannes1234321|7 years ago|reply
U.S. airports generally don't do that. Even when transferring from a flight between Europe and South America they request you to go through immigration and customs.
[+] [-] superhuzza|7 years ago|reply
I recently did a transfer in the US, took me 2.5 hours to go through customs. I booked before the govt shutdown, so I hadn't anticipated the delay. Not fun.
[+] [-] saiya-jin|7 years ago|reply
Maybe it depends on airport design, but in Miami there is nothing stopping you from leaving the airport. In fact, we also experienced various issues with flights, and had to literally get out to check in area and chase airlines to take us (it is a long story, full of drama and missed flights due to external errors/issues).
US is special in this, now we heed the advice of many - don't travel through US in any way, potential troubles are not worth it.
[+] [-] lvs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treve|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matwood|7 years ago|reply
Like most airports in the EU? I've seen prominent military style weapons throughout Heathrow, CDG, and Frankfurt.
> tv's with propaganda of 'how great the US is'
Really? Either the TVs are showing TSA notices what not to carry or they are on something like CNN. I guess CNN could be considered US propaganda hah.
> being yelled at by border security
I've never been yelled at by anyone at any border. My only immigration snag has been in Frankfurt when trying to leave the EU. My visa was stamped in Greece, but it had so little ink the German officer could not find the stamp. Then there was quite a bit of discussion with his partner in German that I didn't understand. Finally, I interjected that I entered the EU through Greece and they laughed and waved me through.
[+] [-] reaperducer|7 years ago|reply
Funny. The first time I saw machine guns in an airport was in Paris in the 80's and 90's. There were no machine guns in U.S. airports until 2001.
tv's with propaganda of 'how great the US is'
You should try Thailand. Or pretty much every other non-EU country. It's everywhere. And to be honest, I've never noticed it in American airports.
Not to mention being yelled at by border security.
I've been yelled at by plenty of border security agents. Austria, U.K., even Canada. Though the Canadian lady was trying to be funny.
Contrary to stereotypes, the nicest border agent interaction I ever had was in Germany.
[+] [-] mtrpcic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|7 years ago|reply
I've seen them plenty in France, Germany, and other European nations.
That said, I generally recommend avoiding transits in places that have restrictive policies or excessive landing fees.
[+] [-] jedberg|7 years ago|reply
Even as an American I find the US propaganda when you enter a little creepy. But I also found it odd that when I got to France I couldn't take a picture to celebrate because I couldn't find a single "Welcome to France" thing anywhere in the airport!
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|7 years ago|reply
I guess we're just as paranoid about terrorism in the EU, as anywhere.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakebasile|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vertline3|7 years ago|reply
Nothing wrong if you are a foreigner avoiding it. I don't think the anti US crowd is productive here, because they still will have to keep the measures in place.