TO THE ENGLISH, AMERICA IS A DANGEROUS PLACE NOW

The Buffalo News/Baltimore Sun ^ | January 18, 2004 | Todd Richissin

[Marianne]

LONDON - Not so long ago, when the world seemed a safer place, Britons such as Julia and Paul Chattenton would hop on a plane to the United States with little concern beyond how awful the meal would be and whether the flight would be delayed.

Last week, though, as the couple waited for their British Airways flight to New York, they stood in Heathrow Airport more than two hours before their scheduled departure and worried, just a little, about whether they would be allowed into the United States. And they told themselves to remember to call their parents after they checked into their hotel, because the United States just isn't safe anymore.

[Kirkwood]

"When I visited Europe earlier, in 1952, I had to leave my passport with the concierge at each hotel I stayed at."

You still have to do this in some EU states.

If security were better in the UK and EU, then the US wouldn't have to take these measures. The truth is that the UK and EU are contaminated with terrorists and we're doing our best to fight off the disease. Some of our methods may be of questionable value, and time will tell what works and what doesn't. Frankly I think the EU airport security sucks, having seen it first hand last week.

[Arpege92]

"And they told themselves to remember to call their parents after they checked in their hotel, because the United States just isn't safe anymore."

If they honestly feel that way about the United States, then why are they complaining about the security measures post 9/11?

[Restorer]

I fly a lot, and I still haven't seen any tanks at an American airport.

BTW, you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NYC.

(Still more likely to get killed in the US, but they're closing on us!)

[Cicero]

Just so. A lot of Muslim terrorists happen to be UK citizens, or French citizens. And with the relaxation of customs controls in most EU countries, terrorists can move around pretty much as they please.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Coming from the European country where Muslim terrorists made most of their plots; coming from the country that is home to Richard Reid the shoe bomber, coming from the country where Pakistani Muslims chase Vicars out of their rectories; why would we not look more carefully at which Briton is coming to America.

[optimistically_conservative]

http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html#2

The Secretary of State, working with the Department of Homeland Security, has granted a postponement until October 26, 2004, as the date by which visa waiver program travelers from 21 countries must present a machine-readable passport at a U.S. port of entry to be admitted to the United States without a visa. Five countries will continue with the October 1, 2003 deadline. The Patriot Act legislated the machine-readable passport requirement for visa waiver program travelers and additionally gave the Secretary of State authority to postpone the effective date.

Countries With an October 1, 2003 MRP Date - Four visa waiver program countries, specifically Andorra, Brunei, Liechtenstein, and Slovenia, did not request a postponement of the machine-readable passport effective date, because all or virtually all of their citizens already have machine-readable passports.

As of October 1, 2003, visa waiver travelers from Andorra, Brunei, Liechtenstein, and Slovenia must present either a machine-readable passport (MRP) or a U.S. visa at the port of entry to enter the U.S. This includes all categories of passports -- regular, diplomatic, and official, when the traveler is seeking to enter the U.S. for business or tourist purposes, for a maximum of 90 days without needing a visa.

Countries With a October 26, 2004 MRP Date - Travelers from countries granted the postponement can continue to travel, as they have in the past, without a machine-readable passport. On October 26, 2004 a machine-readable passport or U.S. visa will be required at the port of entry, to enter the U.S. without a visa. Countries with the machine-readable passport postponement until October 26, 2004 are:

Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Belgium, which is also a visa waiver country, was not eligible to receive this extension. Belgian nationals who wish to travel under the visa waiver program have been required to present a machine-readable passport since May 15, 2003.

[helives]

hi, Im australian and there are 2 pieces of inforamtion here that are misleading as I understand it, as is always the case when you only get half the facts.

Firstly people from Britain are treated the same as Australians so I pint out the following: a) You do not need a visa for the USA or Canada unless you plan to stay longer than 3 months.

b) You will NOT have to be photographed or fingerprinted unless you plan to stay longer than 3 months.

I dont know about you guys but most of us can only afford trips of this nature for perhaps 1 month, maybe 2 months at the most.

I have been to the US and Canada in the last 3 years and have had a great time and I would not hesitate to go back tomorrow, funds and time permitting. I think the Brits tend to get a little overdramatic about these things, I mean after all their police force still dont carry handguns. We have had armed police here for 10 years. So anyway I think those Brits planning to travel to the US need to keep things in perspective and not make mountains outta molehills

[anonymous_user]

Two words: "Stay home." There's already plenty of whiners on this side of the pond.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..beginning in October, thousands of Britons will be required to first visit the U.S. Embassy in London, submit to an interview about their plans and background and then pay more than $100 for a visa, if one is granted....

Nice way to treat an allies' citizens.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..it's a different world since 9-11-01...

You got that right, Theresa.

With red tape and pointless hassles driving people off planes and into (far more dangerous) cars for family holidays, one has to wonder whether the TSA has already been responsible for more deaths than Al-Qaeda?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...coming from the country that is home to Richard Reid the shoe bomber...

Yeah. Trying to light his shoe with a cigarette lighter. What an evil mastermind! Every Briton should suffer, for that.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...two words: "Stay home."...

Three words: "come to Australia." Where we don't automatically treat you like a terrorist.

[Sir Gawain]

Anyone living in London that thinks America is dangerous should be in an insane asylum.

[USF]

No, its not $100 for a greencard.. its for those who get new passports after October that do not (will not) have biometric data on it...

See: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/mrp.htm

And: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3378057.stm

[Imal]

The point of the article is that the 90-day exemption is effectively being eliminated by the Machine Readable Passport requirement.

For example, a U.S. nonimmigrant visa does cost $100, regardless of length of stay, as best I can tell.

Meanwhile, visitors from countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which specifically includes the U.K., do not currently require a visa at all to enter the U.S. for less than 90 days, thus entry is free. However, this is changing. From the State Department:

"Countries With a October 26, 2004 MRP Date - Travelers from countries granted the postponement can continue to travel, as they have in the past, without a machine-readable passport. On October 26, 2004 a machine-readable passport or U.S. visa will be required at the port of entry, to enter the U.S. without a visa. Countries with the machine-readable passport postponement until October 26, 2004 are:

"Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom."

Since the British government has said it cannot meet the Machine Readable Passport (MRP) requirements by October 26, 2004, then that means all Britons traveling to the U.S. for any reason without said MRP will be required to obtain a U.S. nonimmigrant visa, which does indeed cost $100.

While the article may indeed be crap, the issue of Britons needing to pay $100 to visit the U.S. after October 26, 2004 is a real one.

For my part, I support the U.S. on this, but I would hope that perhaps we and our VWP partners might find a better way to resolve this issue. I also have no use for those who would try to stigmatize the U.S. for taking reasonable measures to defend itself against a proven, deadly and continuing terrorist threat.

But I don't think charging our allies a hundred bucks to visit the U.S. is the way to go either. I wouldn't pay a $100 entrance fee to visit any of them.

My recent visits to Singapore and Malaysia were quite pleasant and unmarred by such extortion. I showed my U.S. passport and went right in to both countries without any hassles at all, and without paying any fees.

I would prefer that we Americans show greater hospitality to those who have stood by us in thick and thin.

[Cogadh na Sith]

OK, thanks for the info... You are right--it sucks.

[CzarNicky]

No offense to the Brits but when going over to England I fear for my safety in being gunned down in the street by some Jamaican drug gang that doesn't care who they mow down.

[kitkat]

Typical Buffalo Snooze and Baltimore Sun reporting. They used the WORST quotes they could get from travelers, and ignored the good quotes.

As for the travel agent, one might say that she has a vested interest which skews her thinking.

[Imal]

Please see my post #35 about the facts in this case. The issue is that these things are changing, and that the new U.S. MRP requirement is what is causing the stir.

Perhaps the Brits are being a bit more overwrought about the issue than need be, but it is indeed a real issue. For my part, I am hopeful that the U.S. and its allies will be able to find a reasonable solution to the MRP issue.

Frankly, I suspect the U.K. of fishing for some sort of grant or U.S. assistance out of this, and I smell some backchannel politicking going on.

I wholeheartedly support the MRP requirement, and am surprised it hasn't already been made mandatory, frankly. It is both long overdue and will have a significant impact on U.S. security.

Regardless, I can't abide the thought of a Briton, or an Aussie, or any U.S. ally being charged an admission fee of a hundred bucks simply to set foot on American soil for a short visit. We should be better friends than that.

The idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth as an American.

[cwb]

If they can't even represent the truth in the first paragraph, there's a good chance they're lying about other facts.

"but also of a nation armed to the teeth against large, undefined threats."

I think the threat is well defined. The fact that Briton (or any other European nation) can't acknowledge it only reveals their ignorance.