Travelers change course after U.S. requires visas for layovers

[Nambe]

MEXICO CITY (AP)

The suspension of two programs that allowed travelers without visas to pass through the United States is causing logistical nightmares for thousands of Latin American and Asian passengers who are scrambling to reroute flights or get emergency documents.

If the suspension becomes law, it could discourage passengers from using U.S. airlines in the future, travel agents warned.

The U.S. government on August 2 suspended for at least 60 days the programs that allowed foreigners to stop over in U.S. airports without visas while awaiting flights to other countries. ---

But while the government's latest action may prevent terror attacks, it creates huge headaches for thousands of passengers around the world who took advantage of the loopholes to travel through the United States while avoiding the extra hassle, and $100 fee, to obtain a U.S. visa.

"People can't afford another $100 on top of all the other expenses," said Rocio Valderamma of the Lima, Peru, travel agency Top Tours. "People will travel less." ---

Banish bush From Texas Too

[joeybee12]

1. Please explain the reasoning behind this.

I don't understand how they think this is a great idea--as far as I can see, there wasn't a problem with any of the 9-11 terrorists getting into the US this way; nor has any study showed this is a potential problem. It's just a headache that will further finacially damage the US airlines.

[realFedUp]

2. and as Sen. Markey pointed out, they don't screen the cargo....

Now how stupid is that?

They may now dig into your lipstick, but the airlines and
Bush refuse to enforce rules to inspect what actually goes
into the cargo hold aside from the passenger luggage.

[KamaAina]

3. Aren't there countries where most or all int'l flights are to the U.S.?

The Bahamas, for instance, and perhaps others in the Caribbean.

So, in effect, the almighty U. S. of A.(sscroft) can now determine who can travel to or from a foreign country?!

An absolute outrage. A coveted Top Ten Conservative Idiot slot should be guaranteed for this one.

Edit: My spelling's an absolute outrage, too.

[jiacinto]

5. n

ever mind

[jiacinto]

4. Here is a logistical question

I've travelled to Europe before from the US. I once flew from DCA to Greece via JFK. Leaving I just switched flights and didn't need to clear customes.

Coming back at JFK I had to pick up my luggage, clear customs, and then recheck in for the connecting flight to DCA.

Now, if you are flying from Tokyo to Latin America, what happens. Let's say you take ANA from NRT to Dulles Airport and then connect to a United Flight going to Latin America, what happens?

1) Do you have to take your luggage and then recheck into the United flight again?

2) Do you have to clear customs?

3) Or do you just go to the connecting flight and the luggage is checked in all the way for you?

[American Renaissance]

6. What does this accomplish?

I am at a complete loss as to what exactly the purpose of this execise is.

As it exists today, a connecting passanger passing through an American airport does not clear US customs, so why would they need a visa.

If a terrorist, or drug traffiker or any other bad dude wanted to get into the US by ditching a connecting flight at an American airport they aren't accomplishing anything because they would still need to go through immigration, where they would get turfed for not having a visa.

This is an utterly pointless exercise, it is going to seriously hurt US airlines, and Iberia will probably have to shut down their hub in Miami because this regulation makes their opperations impossible. Not to mention they will probably move their hub to Havana. Oh the Miami cubans will just llloooveeee that.

There is ZERO security benefit, it just further hurts the already suffering US airlines and will piss off millions of people every year.