How it Works1 min ago
Visa For America
Do you require anything for a tourist/traveler going for one week (Vegas) pre arrival in the states? And how far in advance do you need to complete?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
https:/
You need to do this in plenty of time before you leave and you will need to complete some forms that will be given to you at the airport or on the plane.
You need to do this in plenty of time before you leave and you will need to complete some forms that will be given to you at the airport or on the plane.
Correct answers above but they assume that you've not got any criminal convictions. (Given that over a third of British men acquire a criminal record before their 30th birthday, that's always a possibility).
The US Immigration and Nationality Act places an automatic lifetime ban from entering the USA upon anyone who has ever been convicted of an offence of 'moral turpitude'. (Simply nicking a Mars bar would count). If you've got such a conviction there is a process for applying for a 'waiver of permanent ineligibility' but it often takes over a year.
Further, the rules laid down by the Department for Homeland Security prohibit anyone who has ever been arrested (even if totally innocent) or convicted of any offence (even if not involving 'moral turpitude') from using the Visa Waiver Program (i.e. travelling with an 'ESTA', as above). Such people have to apply for a visa, obtain and submit a copy of their 'police record' and attend an interview at the US Embassy, before waiting to hear the result of their application.
The US Immigration and Nationality Act places an automatic lifetime ban from entering the USA upon anyone who has ever been convicted of an offence of 'moral turpitude'. (Simply nicking a Mars bar would count). If you've got such a conviction there is a process for applying for a 'waiver of permanent ineligibility' but it often takes over a year.
Further, the rules laid down by the Department for Homeland Security prohibit anyone who has ever been arrested (even if totally innocent) or convicted of any offence (even if not involving 'moral turpitude') from using the Visa Waiver Program (i.e. travelling with an 'ESTA', as above). Such people have to apply for a visa, obtain and submit a copy of their 'police record' and attend an interview at the US Embassy, before waiting to hear the result of their application.
==ESTA process is simply a visa by another name - without it you cannot even travel on transportation destined for the USA. ==
Not true - you do not need ESTA if you have a visa
And it's not a visa by another name - it's the exact opposite. It's leave to travel to the US WITHOUT a visa and (when you get there) to apply for permission to enter WITHOUT a visa.
Not true - you do not need ESTA if you have a visa
And it's not a visa by another name - it's the exact opposite. It's leave to travel to the US WITHOUT a visa and (when you get there) to apply for permission to enter WITHOUT a visa.
Nationals of most European countries do not need a visa to enter the USA but must apply for permission to travel to the USA - ESTA. Once they are approved via ESTA they can enter unless turned away on arrival. This would never be due to not having a visa but for some other reason.
Those nationalities requiring a visa cannot travel without it either because the ESTA process is incorporated in the "visa" process.
ESTA is in fact the same as a visa, no matter what it is called, although perhaps a lower level one in terms of ease of application - except that by moving the cordon (and writ of the USA government) out to foreign airports the concept behind ESTA actually increases restrictions on foreign nationals. It is a reintroduction of travel restrictions on those formerly at liberty to travel and enter without a visa. A "visa" or waiver of its requirement is an official approval to travel and enter, not having the ESTA clearance is equally restricting as not having a "visa".
International protocol dictates that visa requirements are reciprocal and lifting the requirements is normally reciprocal. A visa requirement is the default position, doing away with it is a case of bi-lateral agreement and leads to free travel. Introducing a visa requirement normally invokes the other country also stipulating a visa requirement. ESTA is so called on the basis/pretext of national security (like PRISM and all the rest) and it is clearly a blanket travel restriction. It is likely deliberately not called a visa so as not to provoke reciprocal visa considerations and/or in order to avoid evoking parallels with its nemesis, the USSR which required visas of everyone except its very closest allies. But ESTA's effect is precisely that of a visa - everyone has to get one.
None of this should be confused with permission to reside and take up employment, called a green card in the USA. That is an altogether different thing. When the USA lifted visa restrictions on most European nationals they at the same time permitted a limited length of stay, but not to take up employment. With ESTA, the same still applies. Whether you have ESTA or a visa, you can still be turned away at immigration - not a high likelihood, but a possibility all the same.
Those nationalities requiring a visa cannot travel without it either because the ESTA process is incorporated in the "visa" process.
ESTA is in fact the same as a visa, no matter what it is called, although perhaps a lower level one in terms of ease of application - except that by moving the cordon (and writ of the USA government) out to foreign airports the concept behind ESTA actually increases restrictions on foreign nationals. It is a reintroduction of travel restrictions on those formerly at liberty to travel and enter without a visa. A "visa" or waiver of its requirement is an official approval to travel and enter, not having the ESTA clearance is equally restricting as not having a "visa".
International protocol dictates that visa requirements are reciprocal and lifting the requirements is normally reciprocal. A visa requirement is the default position, doing away with it is a case of bi-lateral agreement and leads to free travel. Introducing a visa requirement normally invokes the other country also stipulating a visa requirement. ESTA is so called on the basis/pretext of national security (like PRISM and all the rest) and it is clearly a blanket travel restriction. It is likely deliberately not called a visa so as not to provoke reciprocal visa considerations and/or in order to avoid evoking parallels with its nemesis, the USSR which required visas of everyone except its very closest allies. But ESTA's effect is precisely that of a visa - everyone has to get one.
None of this should be confused with permission to reside and take up employment, called a green card in the USA. That is an altogether different thing. When the USA lifted visa restrictions on most European nationals they at the same time permitted a limited length of stay, but not to take up employment. With ESTA, the same still applies. Whether you have ESTA or a visa, you can still be turned away at immigration - not a high likelihood, but a possibility all the same.
Was the visa in your old passport? If it is still in date, then it would be valid (I presume). I don`t know much about tourist visas but I have two working visas in my old passport. The passport expired a couple of years ago but the visas run until this October so I have to carry two passports into the US. I`m in the process of renewing it - a nightmare.
The visa was issued in August 1990 and the passport expired in 2000. There is no expiry date for the visa, it states 'indefinitely' so the question I should be asking is do I need a stamp on a sheet in my current passport or am I now electronically linked to the US immigration database.
I should probably contact them.
Thanks for the reply.
I should probably contact them.
Thanks for the reply.
Landing cards are required by a number of countries, Britain included. These are required as a form of record of the individual entering the country and is filed on his/her passing through immigration and is generally used for those not requiring to apply for a right to enter - it is not a form of screening for permission to enter.
A visa is a formality that must be applied for and its issue is a prerequisite for entry - in some countries one can apply on arrival at an airport or sea port. ESTA is not only a form of screening and a prerequisite for entry but a prerequisite for travel by air, by far the most common way people reach the USA, certainly from allied countries such as those of the EEA.
ESTA is not called a visa but it has the same and more far reaching effect: No-one without ESTA CLEARANCE can even board an aircraft to the USA. Thus ESTA is at least a visa by another name if not more than that because its physical constraints are designed to reach into other countries. We know the thinking behind it but that does not change the fact that ESTA has most/all of the effects of a visa and also additional ones on top.
A visa is a formality that must be applied for and its issue is a prerequisite for entry - in some countries one can apply on arrival at an airport or sea port. ESTA is not only a form of screening and a prerequisite for entry but a prerequisite for travel by air, by far the most common way people reach the USA, certainly from allied countries such as those of the EEA.
ESTA is not called a visa but it has the same and more far reaching effect: No-one without ESTA CLEARANCE can even board an aircraft to the USA. Thus ESTA is at least a visa by another name if not more than that because its physical constraints are designed to reach into other countries. We know the thinking behind it but that does not change the fact that ESTA has most/all of the effects of a visa and also additional ones on top.
I`ve just found one of those old visas in my first passport. It was in the form of a stamp and says 'Indefinitely'. I`ve got the feeling that they expired with the passport as it hasn`t been cancelled but there`s no way it would be valid now. I remember when I applied for it, I had to write a letter stating why I intended to come home and not run off to be an illegal immigrant in the US. Nowadays, a visit to the US Embassy is part of the process along with a load of other red tape. The Moral Turpitude "thing" has been overblown. They`re not interested in whether you`ve nicked a Mars Bar etc. They want to know about the serious stuff - whether I`ve been a child trafficer, been deported, drug smuggling, gun smuggling etc.
Kark - your info isn`t up to date. Landing cards (the green ones which ESTA replaced - the same thing but online) were discontinued a couple of years ago and now the white forms (for people with visas) are also discontinued. So no landing cards into the US (at last - a soul destroying job) - just a Customs declaration.
Kark - your info isn`t up to date. Landing cards (the green ones which ESTA replaced - the same thing but online) were discontinued a couple of years ago and now the white forms (for people with visas) are also discontinued. So no landing cards into the US (at last - a soul destroying job) - just a Customs declaration.
1 to 18 of 18
