Visa-free travel to Europe for U.S. citizens to end in 2024,requiring ETIAS form
npr.orgsummary:
1. it's still "visa-free", but increasingly countries are making that shit by requiring an "electronic travel authority" which is not technically a visa but is a bit of imaginary paper you get in exchange for money (e.g. Australia and the US)
2. the US already requires EU citizens to do this exact fucking thing to enter the US: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/
3. the US refused to even grant visa free access at all to some EU citizens (those from Romania and Bulgaria): https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/eu-visa-reciprocity-wi...
it is unfortunate that ~2003 may end up being a high point for ease of travel for citizens of rich countries
2003? How about pre-1920 when passports weren't even required to enter a country?
I'll trade a slightly slower border crossing for faster trains and airplanes.
Most trains today actually run slower than their 1920 version on the same track. We invented high speed rail in the 1960s which of course goes much faster, but most trains are not high speed and most operators of regular lines (including subways) have slowed the trains down.
My brief googling suggests this is not so in the UK at any rate.
>Some trains, such as the famous "Flying Scotsman" in the United Kingdom, were able to reach speeds of up to around 90 miles per hour (145 kilometers per hour). However, this was not the norm and most trains had a top speed of around 50-60 miles per hour
They are quicker now - 130mph, 80 mph is normal
They run a lot more smoother nowadays though due to continuous welded rail.
Despite smoother rail, computer dispatching, and computer safety controls: the trains are still running slower.
Fair enough. There is a certain romance to crossing the atlantic by ship, though. That's been on my bucket list for a while - IIRC a ticket is on the order of $1-2k for a weeklong journey from UK to US.
Really? That seems like a very reasonable cost! Any idea where you book something like that?
Any major cruise line has both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cruises. You'll have to book two voyages for a round trip or fly for one of the legs.
The round trip idea is unlikely to work well unless you're willing to wait awhile as the cruise ships are repositioning to handle specific seasons (e.g. Northern Europe in the summer, the Caribbean in the winter).
The exception is the Queen Mary II, which is an ocean liner that still does regular trans-Atlantics.
If you can afford 2 weeks off for a round trip, you should really take at least a week in the country to arrive at to see it. Cruises are nice, but you don't see the culture of the places you go. Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks. I recommend fly back, the one way trip is a once in a lifetime thing, but the return trip seems like it would be repetitive (having taken several cruises, though none trans ocean)
Of course both Europe and North America are large continents with a lot more to see than you can do in a week, but few of us have the budget to be a world traveler for a few decades to see everything.
> Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks.
Right, the point is it might be six months, since a lot of cruise lines will do only one crossing for northern/southern hemisphere summer toggling.
e.g. here in Seattle the cruise ships that go between here and Alaska make a single trip down to Australia or somewhere in the fall, and then don't come back for half a year.
So yes, like you said - probably fly back.
Ah okay, I guess I was thinking that OP was talking about a more traditional sailing ship or something rather than a cruise ship! I've lived in Europe a few times and really enjoyed it but going across the Atlantic by boat is on the bucket list
Yeah we were talking cruise ships, which are by far the cheapest way to cross the ocean on a ship. A sailing ship is gonna be unbelievably more expensive, as that's a more bespoke experience on a much smaller vessel with worse economies of scale. Repositioning cruises on cruise ships are actually the cheapest ones per day to make up for the inconvenience of not ending where you started. The ship needs to move from one region to another for the season anyway, so from their perspective any revenue during the repositioning is an added bonus.
You can be one of the passengers on a cargo ship like Greta Thunberg if cruises aren't for you. There are different places to book.
The Queen Mary 2 sails from Southampton to NYC [0].
I think you can get a ticket for less than $1k,though you'd probably be cramped with no window.
3. And Cyprus. Visiting US requires an embassy appointment for interview that costs 120USD or more now. Takes up to 2 weeks so quick trips are out of the question.
You'd want to go back to early 2001, as the BS and red tape ramped up dramatically after 9/11.
I'm nostalgic for the pre-9/11 flying experience well except for one thing: anyone being allowed to wait at the gate.
Imagine the mad house if friends and family could accompany a traveler to the gate, or wait for their loved one to arrive?
> the US refused to even grant visa free access at all to some EU citizens (those from Romania and Bulgaria)
Are Romania and Bulgaria part of the Schengen Area?
Nope, they are not, but they are bound to eventually join as they are obligated to by their Treaties of Accession[0].
Seems like the grandparent comment just didn't bother checking their facts first and jumped the gun on blaming the US for this, while the US doesn't really have anything to do with it.
It's not actually a schengen issue
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/MEMO_1...
Technically any country of which citizens are allowed visa free entry to eu should reciprocate. Of course this is doesn't seem to apply in practice.
To be added into the visa waiver program, there are a couple criteria that countries need to meet. Things like reporting lost or stolen passports through INTERPOL. Or accepting repatriation of their citizens that are ordered to be removed from the US.
https://www.dhs.gov/visa-waiver-program
I think last I heard Romania meets all requirements except that B visa refusal rates which is still >3%. I think once Romania is added to Schengen Area the refusal rate should drop a lot since many of those individuals can have an easier time moving to other Schengen Area countries for economic reasons.
Romania being in the Schengen area makes absolutely no difference to Romanians' rights to work, study or live in other European Union countries.
So what restriction do they have not being in the Schengen area?
They must show an identity card or passport when they cross the border into the Schengen area (or into Bulgaria, Cyprus or Ireland, the other non-Schengen states). Citizens of Schengen states must do the same when travelling to RO/BG/CY/IE.
In some places this is done efficiently — I'll bet Irish and Cypriot airports are fast — but at others, especially the land borders between Romania/Hungary and Bulgaria/Greece, there can be long queues.
Visas for foreigners are managed separately, so a Chinese tourist can take a holiday round Austria and Hungary on a single-entry Schengen visa, but will need an additional visa to enter Romania.
physical border control between them and their Schengen neighbours. note, "physical" - it doesn't affect their rights to go to or work or live in other EU countries, just how annoying it is to physically cross the border into the Schengen zone.
The refusal rate is something that’s completely controlled by the US as it’s based on a subjective interview with a person.
It’s not a “meet this criteria and you’re in”, it’s a “you look poor enough in person to try and stay in the US - denied”
I work for a US based company and my boss and I wanted to visit clients in the states - my boss got denied a visa, because our company had already bought him a ticket…
it's not just a schengen issue, the EU has decided it's a fairness issue and doesn't want some citizens being treated worse than others.
No, thanks to us being second-class EU members.
The annoying thing is when you want to visit the EU accidentally.
Like if you're in Switzerland and you just feel like hopping on a train to Italy on a whim. You used to be able to do that, now you need a pre-approval I suppose.
They're both in Schengen, so you just do that
US passports don't need Shenanigan visa for Switzerland.
The weird thing is that all the bordering countries need a pre-approval now but not Switzerland itself.
Like if you're in Mexico and you just feel like hoping on a train to the US on a whim.
Unironically the US should be pushing very very hard to be best buds with Mexico and help it become a stable state that does a lot of our manufacturing. Want to make illegal immigration less of a problem? Help Mexico become a country you want to live in.
If there were trains I'd totally do that. I absolutely love living on border regions and spending weekends in another country where it's possible and cheap.
I have used ESTA. Very simple and worked great for me. And the fee is like 3-4 coffees. Not bad.
Felt effortless to me, too, but I would still call it a visa.
As instructed on the website we didn’t print anything out, so we just brought our passports and immigration was completely without any problems in Miami. Our passports also weren’t stamped as seems to be common now.
When we got into an immigration check near White Sands national park (closed road and checkpoint next to the road) the guards checking us were nightly confused that our passports weren’t stamped and we didn’t have a visa or any kind of printed documentation. And we were confused that we needed any of that?
One guard went to check on us with his computer, I guess, and everything seems to have checked out. So we didn’t need anything after all, it just seems that when you get into an immigration check those checking you might prefer to not go check with a computer, so printed documentation of some kind can get you going faster. (The guard also told me that we should have printed out documentation that we paid for ESTA?! Which seems confusing to me since presumably if we didn’t have paid we wouldn’t have been let in.)
Oh yeah, I guess (like with many systems) there are tons of edge cases and pit falls one can fall into. I recall my plane ticket having a completely different middle name than my passport, and TSA actually asked me about that. Got real worried for a second. This was back in 2014 entering the US via Atlanta.
Normal visas tend to involve far more bs and expense than ESTAs.
Yes it is sort of simple. But you need to be aware of it, remember it, fill it in time (some processing can take 2 weeks), carry reference number.
I'm somewhat organised, but didn't really knew I need for for AU. Filled while checking in, but got it 8 minutes after gates closed.
Edit: kinda feel should be integrated with flight booking. The amount of bureaucracy, esp. during covid era, travelling across many countries, with a big party - it's maddening.
I was not suggesting it was complicated or expensive, just that it is in almost all ways effectively a visa, including that people may be denied for no particular reason (though they can then attempt to get a US visa).
Calling it a Visa is hyperbole, even the linked article suggests it is more like a US style ESTA, which the US has forced on us since 2008 (which is only compatible with visa waiver programme).
The thing that makes me truly sad, as a UK citizen, I will also need this to travel to Europe since Brexit. It isn't a US-centric requirement, which the headline suggests.
Yeah it doesn't seem directed at the US. It applies to 60 countries, including Singapore, which is currently the world's best passport.
it's a document that needs to be prepared ahead of time, costs money, and can be denied. what is your definition of a visa if not this?
To add to your point: Aren't there countries that have "online visas" for short stays (I'm thinking central asia and I hear russia has done the same) that are equal to this "not-a-visa"? Do people think visa by definition requires an in person meeting?
That...doesn't define a visa at all? Like that straight-up describes such a wide range of documents as to be completely useless as a definition.
It isn't a US-centric requirement, which the headline suggests.
I don't think it's surprising that a radio network that serves Americans and is paid for by Americans in part with American taxes should tailor its story for an American audience.
Do you also complain that the BBC is too British?
You've picked on a single part of my comment, which was more as an informational part to clarify that the headline doesn't tell the whole story. At no point did I make it a complaint.
You can still fly over to Ireland, and even live there. :)
Would take you about five years to get naturalised though.
As an EU citizen I need to apply for an ESTA to travel into US. They get my fingerprints and a photograph besides a scan of my password when applying to said ESTA. Seems it's only fair US citizens get the same treatment? Alas, I'd prefer a much easier entry system for both sides. Aren't we all supposed to be friendly allies?
The general custom in international relations is tit for tat on this kind of thing. Hopefully the EU signals they will be happy to drop or simplify the requirements if the USA agrees to as well.
Unfortunately, while as a Canadian I am sympathetic to your point about the obnoxiousness of US passport / border entry controls... it's not just a symmetrical tit-for-tat, as the EU has also imposed this stuff on Canadians.
In the past a passport was sufficient on both ends, as far as I understand it. Now Canadians will have to do this same thing.
It's funny how everyone framed this as US vs. EU. It really didn't have to be framed that way.
The US launched the first violation of visa free travel agreements, which the EU had to accept but could not have done first.
Given a world where they would have had to back down on US/Canada, it would have been a diplomatic disaster to go through and try to justify why they are not going to back down with the other countries.
Canada has required its own eTA garbage for EU citizens since late 2016 or so.
But only when flying commercial.
Europeans also have to apply for an electronic thing to go to Canada.
It was only recently that Americans could visit Canada without a passport. It's amazing how every country has clamped down.
That was a post-9/11 thing, and came from the US side as I recall. Used to be able to enter with just a driver's license. Then you could only do that at the land border. Then it was passport only.
And at each point the volume of hostile tone from US homeland security guards has increased. It can be quite stressful crossing at times and I generally avoid it, even though I'm only 45 minutes from the border.
Our family in northern maine used to go shopping in Canada every few weekends to abuse the weak Canadian Dollar, but then those damn terrorists came in through the exact border crossing we would use and wouldn't you know it, crossings got a little less liberal after that.
Americans can still visit Canada without a passport by land as long as they can satisfy proof of citizenship.
It’s technically the US that requires Americans to have a US passport to re-enter USA. Not sure what they do, can’t refuse a US citizen entry into USA but I guess they could give you a hard time.
On a work trip to the US recently I lost my passport for a bit and spent some time frantically searching what would happen if I showed up at a land crossing back into Canada without it. TLDR they would have given me a hard time, put me through the ringer, but ultimately would have to let me back in assuming all my other ID, references, etc. check out. I'm sure it would be highly unpleasant.
Airlines of course would imply have returned to board me without it.
Luckily I recovered it (bless you, friendly helpful people at the Sioux Falls airport) before my return flight.
(Replacing it would have had me stuck there for many days and requiring me to travel to Minneapolis or Chicago and beg for mercy at the consulate.)
Reciprocal/fair treatment makes sense from a moral perspective, but businesses actually don't like it. Every little added burden reduces the number of tourists.
The US, given its popularity as a destination, believes that people will deal with it. It has always been like that, traveling to the US from anywhere is generally annoying. Not sure how American tourists will feel about this friction, even if fair in theory.
>> Aren't we all supposed to be friendly allies?
We are allies -- but it is not a symmetric alliance.
DeGaulle's observation that "nations do not have friends, only interests" comes to mind.
"scan of my password" you meant "passport", right?
my voice is my passport
Yes, my bad.
It's not fair in the context of American exceptionalism.
I have to say my last trip to the US (Austin this spring) in spite of the ESTA thing was the easiest ever. I didn't even have to fill a paper form or answer dumb questions - just fingerprints and in.
You used to have to fill out in writing if you'd ever been affiliated to a communist party or done, drugs, where are you staying, how long, and be interrogated. I almost got deported a couple of times for saying I hadn't figured which hotel or how long I was staying.
Reminds me of when I showed up at SFO for my 2nd business trip to Australia, about 90mins before the flight. I had been unable to check in online (united's site gave me an unhelpful error) but I didn't think too much of it.
The kiosk at the airport also balked.
When I went to talk to a human, he casually asked me if I had a visa/ETA. This totally perplexed me as I didn't remember having to do anything in the past. He told me I'd just need to fill out a web form and "they usually approve it within an hour".
Minor panic while I tried to fill out a complicated web form on my iphone at the airport with shaking hands. Ultimately it was approved within about 20 minutes and I had no issues with my flight. Lesson learned! I guess on my previous trip I used my company's travel portal and it must have done the ETA for me automagically, so I never had any awareness I needed such a thing.
One lesson I learned the hard way (somewhat related to last minute panic at the airport) is: don't try to update/change something in your online check in process that has working, before a critical check-in time, because it can always be fixed at the airport.
Several years ago I got a new passport, and thought to use that to check in online for an intl flight. The app had my old passport and would have worked fine, but puked on scanning the new passport, and suddenly I was not / could not be checked in.
I started going to the airport, to arrive at my usual 1 hr before, but got delayed by traffic. Only by miracle of begging supervisor to reopen check in did they allow me to do it.
I should've just went with the old passport in the record that worked, and changed it out at the gate/checkin counter when at the airport.
90 minutes before the international flight? Without checking in before you arrive?!
Lesson learnt I hope!
Even priority security often takes that long (or longer!) discounting every over queue you have to stand in at an airport.
Nope, I spend as little time in the airport as possible. For domestic (US) flights, I target arriving ~30mins before boarding begins if not checking a bag. I typically find security takes around 5 minutes (TSA Pre-Check). I typically fly out of SFO although of course at least half my flights are coming home so I'm flying out of some other random airport. When things are REALLY bad, it's 15 minutes, which still leaves me 15 minutes with nothing to do. And that's before boarding begins. There is still around 30-45 minutes before the gate close, of additional buffer time.
I typically fly United and have their lowest tier frequent flier thing (silver), which means I get priority access baggage check for when I am checking a bag (go to kiosk, scan boarding pass, tag bag, drop at baggage drop). But even without that, you sometimes wait 5 minutes for a computer to print your bag tag.
For international flights, of course, it's more. Usually 1h+ before boarding begins.
Amusingly, my 3 worst experience were when I arrived super early and still barely made my flight. One was an Uber driver from Valparaiso Chile to the Santiago airport, who could NOT find where to drop me off, and I was trying to guide him, but I didn't know any Spanish. No joke, we drove around the runway multiple times.
2 others were on the same trip and both in Germany. Berlin Brandenberg, arrived exactly 2 hours before departure as EasyJet told me to do (counters do not open until 2h before). Bag drop took all of 2 minutes, and then I stood in a security line for at LEAST 1h20mins. Absolutely pants-on-head-insane. Other one was flying out of Frankfurt, opted to splurge on a taxi instead of public transit because I was excited to begin my journey home. Arrived at least 2 hours before the flight. Stood in a Lufthansa bag check line for well over an hour, it went absolutely nowhere. Panicked, found baggage check to have moved to another terminal for international flights (the adjacent bag check windows across the hallway were closed for construction) .. checked bags quickly, and still ended up having to navigate MULTIPLE lines for security that appeared to be correct but were so long (hundreds of meters) that they curved past other signage directing me to other places. What an ordeal.
A few years ago, I went on a vacation intending to visit Panama and Costa Rica. After a few days in Panama, I decided to go to Ecuador for a few days before Costa Rica. When I got to the airport in Ecuador to check in for my flight to Costa Rica, I was asked for my yellow fever vaccination certificate. "My what?" Turns out that if you spend even one day in Ecuador, you need a yellow fever vaccination certificate to go to Costa Rica.
And that's how I got stranded in Ecuador for the rest of the vacation . . . .
I was sweating just reading this!
The timing on this is suspect. With all the Airbnb travel and remote work dynamics, it seems like its an effort to clamp down on tax loopholes.
It's splitting hairs not calling this a 'visa'. If you have to pay a fee and fill out forms before arrival IT IS intended to regulate foreign entry, which is the definition of a visa, since you're exchanging information with immigration authorities before they let you in.
This has been under discussion for a lot of time and negotiating with US to remove their Electronic registration system. Europeans are tired of this asymetric treatment and EU can not postpone this anymore. It's tit for tat with the excuse of security.
This. It’s basically tit for tat by the EU.
Its also great timing for them with the massive uptick in tourism they’re seeing
It's not that simple. Same regulations affect citizens of Balkan counties who don't need visa at the moment.
This has been in discussion for like 10 years, long before brexit and the pandemic even. It’s just only coming to fruition now.
This was discussed and planned pre-pandemic, this was even delayed due to the pandemic
Whatever definition you'd like to use for it applies to ESTA as well
And the ESTA absolutely is a visa. I hate this double-standard of _saying_ you've got visa-free travel, you just gotta fill out this form with all your details so we can decide whether or not you've got permission to visit.
The title is a lie and the content of the article is hyberbolic. When the new requirement comes in it'll be the same as it is now for people who visit the US visa-free. The US has had this for years and Canada also has it for non-US citizens.
Canada’s (and previously the USA’s) mental gymnastics was that it was only required for air travel. You can still drive to Canada without an eTA and get entry. You used to be able to drive to USA without an ESTA (for non-Canadians), but USA is even now (or soon to be…) requiring it at land borders.
Sounds more and more like a visa.
There will be fingerprint and face scans on arrival too.
I'm a frequent traveler, but I've avoided Global Entry as a minor form of protest. The government doesn't need and shouldn't have my biometrics.
I've been reconsidering my position lately, as I've traveled places where biometric registration is compulsory, and the US surely has some deal in place to scoop up all that data.
They already have your facial biometrics. And if you've had to apply for a visa to another country, you might have been required to submit your fingerprints, which you do through a facility in your home country (so both countries end up with the biometrics).
I fly often. 2 flights ago coming home to the US the border patrol flagged me into “pilot/flight attendant lane” as it was open.
I walked up and within 1 second of getting to the US border agent he said “hello Mr.botos, passport please.”
I’m here on hacker news so I’m both not surprised at the speed of technology but it’s jarring.
He knew who I was before I could even read his name badge. I don’t have global entry, but I do have precheck.
I have neither and I was admitted through SFO based solely on facial recognition. My passport never left my pocket.
Was exactly the feeling you're describing: whoa that was cool, but holy shit the ramifications are potentially terrifying.
If it makes you feel better, they trim down the list of people to match to based on who is expected to arrive.
If you are a naturalized US citizen the government has your biometrics already, you can't become a citizen without giving them up.
If you are a natural born citizen and have a passport the government has your picture. If not, there's the one in your driver's license. If not, a Google/Facebook search might dig one up.
So if you don't have a passport, or DL, or social media presence at all then I agree, don't sign up for Global Entry. But otherwise...
No you're not. All that's required to be a naturalized US citizen is to be physically born in the U.S. Or to be born to U.S. citizen parents. They also do not do biometrics for driver's licenses. A bad, 4 year old driver license photo from the local dmv is quite different than having an international database containing irrevocable details about your physiology.
Among many lessons in history are the degree to which such details have been abused by those in power.
> All that's required to be a naturalized US citizen is to be physically born in the U.S. Or to be born to U.S. citizen parents.
A naturalized citizen is someone who was not born a citizen and then becomes one. Both of your examples are of natural citizens.
> No you're not. All that's required to be a naturalized US citizen is to be physically born in the U.S. Or to be born to U.S. citizen parents.
If you're a citizen by birth, you don't get naturalized (unless you've renounced and changed your mind), and that clause won't apply to you.
> They also do not do biometrics for driver's licenses.
California takes a thumbprint. I haven't done a survey of other states (I don't remember WA taking one, but it also wouldn't have been that surprising, so I might just not remember)
You need to check on those definitions.
And Global Entry only requires to show a valid passport and state ID. There’s no thumbprints involved.
So in effect, Global Entry requires only information that the government already has, especially if you have a passport.
>All that's required to be a naturalized US citizen is to be physically born in the U.S.
You're getting "naturalized citizen" confused with "natural born citizen."
Naturalized means you immigrated.
Naturalized = became a US citizen.
Born in the US or born to US parents = natural born citizen
Title should be updated to match the article.
A travel authorization is not a visa, visa free travel for US citizens will remain.
A travel authorization is not a visa
OF course it is, it's just a very accessible temporary one. Let's look at an uncontroversial definition of a visa (from Wikipedia): 'A visa is a conditional authorization granted by a polity to a foreigner that allows them to enter, remain within, or leave its territory.'
Just because you give things different labels doesn't make them actually different.
Well, then the USA doesn't issue any visas in this case.
Because the only thing that my US tourist visa allows me to do is to show up and ask politely to enter the country.
A US visa also does not give you permission to remain within the country, an I-94 does.
I don't see the point of such extreme pedantry. Even the State Department uses 'visa' as a generic term. There are also other countries besides the US, and whichever one you come from probably also uses 'visa' as a generic term on their English-language websites.
What is the real difference between the 2? One is manual while the other one is highly automated? Given the number of question on an ESTA application, visa to other countries are a piece of cake (and I don’t even talk about visa on arrival).
This is just a semantic trick to make people that there is still a visa free travel but this is no more the case.
Not just a semantic trick, but a legal one. A lot of euro countries have treaties with US, Canada, etc. for mutual visa-free travel that pre-date EU.
Soooo, they just create something that walks and talks like a visa without calling it one because the treaties never bothered to define what a visa is or isn’t.
> walks and talks like a visa
The requirements for the travel authorizations to Canada, the EU, and the USA are not comparable to an actual visa application. Visas are more expensive, more privacy invasive, and you have to go to an embassy/consulate to get it.
All these travel authorizations are really doing is telling the governments "Hey, I am coming over".
visiting an embassy is not mandatory to get a lot of visa (even a Chinese one) most of the time you just ship your passport with a form that has less invasive question than an ESTA. Nobody but the US require you to give the handle of all your social network account…
So what dollar threshold makes it a visa? If it’s free, is it not a visa?
Over what number of questions makes it a visa?
If it’s electronically attached to your passport number, is it no longer a visa?
If they ask you the questions on the travel authorization form at the port of entry instead, would it be better?
If you get denied the travel authorization, there is a chance you would have been denied in person after a long flight instead without this initial step.
They are just asking questions ahead of time.
EU border police has never seemed very interested in asking Canadians or Americans any questions at all in my experience.
France and other countries even let us use their e-gates nowadays.
> At the heart of ETIAS is an electronic database system to better track who's coming and going.
Lots of people online annoyed at having to pay a fee (7 euro) to travel but this is what it's actually about.
Curious to know if EU governments are limited in what they can currently do with passport entry/exit data and if this expansion allows them to do more?
I should be exempt from the fee part (EU spouse), but I’m still annoyed by it because my country (Canada) signed treaties with several EU countries granting visa-free travel.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c06...
I’m kinda confused by the whole “entry-exit” aspect because I thought my passport was scanned in and out of the Schengen already.
Anywho, for anyone with some EU ancestors, see if you’re eligible to apply for citizenship (or get it recognized if you technically already are one).
ETIAS announcements pushed me to start that process and now doing the waiting game.
“And the pandemic is another one of the many reasons this new requirement has been delayed by decades — there was no need for ETIAS when countries closed their borders to all travel amid fears of spreading COVID-19.”
Decades? The pandemic is only a few years old. I guess the writer had to shoehorn the pandemic into their piece somehow.
Misleading title, ETIAS is not a visa and it not directed at Americans as it applies to 60 countries including Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore, and South Korea.
If I’m living in the UK i guess I’m still required until I get my passport? That’s sad, ez travelling to Europe was a big draw for moving.
As long as it's the same when US citizens go to Europe I'm cool with this. If not, they should make it so.
After being forced to submit face and fingerprints in Asia this summer, and no clue where the data went. I’m thinking my traveling days are over. A shame as travel has been beneficial.
This reminds me of a motorcycle forum I was on where some guy was outraged Canada wouldn't let him bring in his handgun while on his roadtrip, and while everyone tried to provide helpful suggestions of where he could safely secure it before crossing the border (and pick it up again on his return to the US), he instead was fixated on how obviously Canada didn't want his tourist dollars and didn't respect his freedom.
Well it's quite different isn't it, because you can't leave your retinas or fingerprints behind, these are irrevocable details about your personhood. These details could be abused by a foreign or domestic government and could also be leaked in any number of ways or used to target individuals.
Obtuse non-sequitur. No one is talking about traveling with a gun. Chrisco already explains why.
Countries can make whatever restrictions they like; we don’t have to support them. That’s the power of choice. Has nothing to do with entitlement.
It’s not an obtuse non-sequitur, they’re just pointing out how ridiculous the parent comments stance is.
Travel has a lot to offer in terms of experience and it sounds like they already submitted the data points, may as well continue. Individual protest won’t solve it here, this would take significant changes in governments to ever pull off.
>pointing out how ridiculous the parent comments stance is.
So now it's ridiculous for someone to want to not have to lay out their entire life story to a border agent to go into a different country? Funny, we did that a lot before now.
US requires exactly that from a lot of countries. Good to see it being reciprocated.
This, yeah.
Travel to one country does not "already submit" in others. No one said "protest" would "solve it." Only thing one could possibly do is vote with currency, and one doesn't have to be even mildly outraged to just go elsewhere.
Please reread the full thread before responding. Don't need any more hot takes based on rejections of ideas not expressed.
I read the thread, but I appreciate your condescending tone and attempt to imply I hadn't. That's surely worked throughout the course of internet history. ;P
(I consider your root comment take to be shallow and I've noted that clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so. You're free to ignore it.)
I think Chrisco does a great job of explaining why they are not at all on the same level (a possession versus something that is an innate part of you) but it's also not an obtuse non-sequitur. You cannot revoke your fingerprints or face scan; on the other hand, it's also probably already too late, especially as the parent pointed out they had already submitted to this in one location. And no doubt your facial scan data can be collected surreptitiously anyway.
Explain how the original post about a peaceful traveler has anything to do with feeling entitled to travel with a gun! You can't, there's no connection. That's why it's obtuse and a dishonest argument to boot.
The parent poster no longer wishes to travel as a result of conditions of border crossing they don't agree with. Had they not elected to travel to Asia, they would have not been subjected to this particular set of laws, and a form of search they did not expect.
I imagine there were times in the past when one might not expect to have one's baggage searched at a border, and when the authorities in a given country began searching baggage, that would have been a bridge too far for some people.
I wouldn't expect to have to disrobe at the border to prove I wasn't carrying contraband, but I can't imagine why a country wouldn't be able to implement such a law if they so desired. The biometric "search" is considered much less intrusive than a strip search by many, though on the other hand, a strip search is merely embarrassing, while some folks might consider the examination of one's biometrics to be theft (although, of course, it is not actually theft).
I mean, really, the presumably peaceful gun-toting motorcyclist would have probably been turned away at the border, or worse. Whereas, on the other hand, the parent post did not imply that they would have been turned away (or worse) for having the "wrong shape" fingerprints. Unless, of course, those fingerprints indicated that the traveler was a convicted criminal on the run from that country's authorities. They're merely objecting to a form of data collection.
> Countries can make whatever restrictions they like; we don’t have to support them. That’s the power of choice. Has nothing to do with entitlement.
Indeed.
Face and/or fingerprints have been a requirement in in every developed country (including US) since at least 2012. Might be even earlier than that, that's just the clearest memory of myself going through the immigration in Europe. It's a tiny bit different when you're citizen of the country you're entering into, but that's just details.
At this point, I live with the expectation that my biometrics are available for sale in some 3rd party data broker, and try to live with having that kind of threat model in my mind. Something something, adapt and survive.
Not fingerprints or live facial recognition between trusting countries, no. It’s rather new.
I’m also taking about a tourism, not immigration.
You go through "customs and immigration control", that's what I was referring to, apologies. Whether you're a tourist or not, you still go through the same process. Live facial recognition is not new. I know at least in Canada, since my close friend used to work for CBSA and used to tell stories back in 2014, and assuming other countries are more advanced than us.
Fingerprinting surely was a thing when you travelled by air into the US for the first time. If i'm not mistaken, after that, they scan your passport to see if they already have the data, and don't ask for it again.
Also, if you ever had to apply for non-tourism visas, or visas for countries that require in person visits, they will absolutely take your fingerprints during document collection. I don't think servers of those countries are secure or sophisticated, so either you limit your life and live in the woods, or accept your biometrics are floating around through brokers.
Despite this being a US-centric site it seems you've assumed I'm not. The only other fingerprinting I've seen pre-pandemic was in Brazil, mid 2010s, due to visa reciprocity policy.
The sane thing to do would be to discount fingerprint evidence in any judicial (and other) proceeding.
It just doesn’t mean much when everyone has a copy of everyone else’s.
First, everyone does not have a copy of everyone else's, second it's pretty difficult to fake someone else's fingerprints. Honestly, a lot of tech people just do no seem to live in the real world. Please, take this on as a challenge and try to swap your fingerprints with those of a friend and see if you can fool a forensic technician. The experience will be well worth the small cost of hiring an expert for a few hours.
I was forced to give private medical information while visiting restaurant. War for privacy was lost long time ago.
You mean a COVID proof-of-vaccination?
No, their deadly allergy to peanuts ;)