Jump to content

Talk:Electronic System for Travel Authorization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ETA name change claim

[edit]

I removed the claim that the name was changed from ETA to ESTA at the behest of the Spanish government, as it had been left uncited since 2009. Besides, the US government introduced the Individual retirement account, universally abbreviated to IRA, at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, so I doubt they're that tactful.. Mike (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity Trust of South Australia

[edit]

This article should be replaced with a redirect to Electricity Trust of South Australia. Rocksong 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rocksong 01:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy?

[edit]

This page is no longer about/redirecting to the Electricity Trust of South Australia. Should it be expanded? Should it be here at all? --TomDæmon (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been turned from a redirect into a page on Electronic Travel System Authorization. You can't just ususp an article title like that! I'll rename it to Electronic Travel System Authorization and turn ETSA into a disambiguation page. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the link, the travel system is actually called "ESTA" not "ETSA" anyway. grumble. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've made several changes to this, because as a UK travaller to the US, I was surprised, confused and discusted to find the many scam web-sites out there charging a fee for a free service. I hope my changes/editing meets with approval —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.42.128 (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Required information

[edit]

A lot of information that can be submitted as part of an ESTA application is not mandatory, such as flight number, airport, address in the US. What are the advantages and disadvantages of submitting that information? --137.138.4.37 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the fill-in list missing completely! On this list, U.S. authorities enquire about private data of the traveler which would be protected by privacy laws in the home country. Even though the general American public might be unaware of how their visitors are treated and the behavior is not reciprocal (yet), this list has been the center of much controversial debates and press coverage in other Western countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.46.138 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optional information now includes a request for social media accounts, which is a very dubious exercise. Who knows if bad-mouthing some aspect of the USA on social media becomes a reason to be barred from entry. Vicarage (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is ESTA not a visa?

[edit]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..... Just because the US State Department doesn't call it a visa does not make it so. Is there any citation for the claim that it doesn't rise to the level of scrutiny of a visa? Captain Nemo III (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Is a travel authorization a visa? a reliable source? However that sentence does look misplaced. Edgepedia (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At best that page could be a citation for "the US Department of State claims that ESTA is not a visa under US law".Captain Nemo III (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Electronic Travel Authorizations have been used by other countries before, Australia has one on hand for certain countries for example. A visa requires a person to make certain proofs of their intentions prior to arrival to the country they are asking for a visa, this includes an interview, documents supporting their stay (business proposals, family or friend invitation letters, hotel or resort reservations, etc) as well as a financial support. They are also required to show support of their current financial status in their home country and how they will support themselves upon their visit. Visas can also indicate that a person may enter multiple times because they prove their intentions will be for pleasure or business and no more but will be multiple, this is normally implemented by countries n nationalities that they feel may have larger number of people who will violate this than other nationalities. An Electronic Travel Authority, however, is an authorization that a country inputs to document, or charge, nationals of certain countries who are already allowed to enter without being subject to the aforementioned regulations. EU Citizens entering the USA are not being asked to prove their intentions and/or support as they enter, they are being asked to identify themselves before they arrive for purposes of security. The fact they charge for it is, clearly (Despite what anyone says), for profit. This is not new, it has been implemented before. 99.63.125.189 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Travel round Africa and you will find that in many cases, the only requirement for a visa is the willingness to pay the appropriate fee. Again, just because many countires have strict requirements to qualify for a visa does not make ALL of those requirements part of the definition of the word "visa". As for Australia's electronic travel authorization -- Australia calls it a visa, bolstering the case that the US ESTA is, in fact, a form of visa. Captain Nemo III (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a visa. Visas come from he US Department of State, through US Embassies and Consulates. Travel authorizations (ESTA) come from the Department of Homeland Security. DHS doesn't "do" visas. It is a security measure added to the existing Visa WAIVER program. A visa gives someone the right to enter a country; the citizens of visa waiver countries already have that right. The ESTA program isn't challenging that.
Regarding Australia, according to http://www.immi.gov.au/e_visa/eta.htm, the ETA system there is like a visa. That doesn't mea it's a visa. Even if Australia calls it a visa doesn't "bolster the case that the US ESTA is, in fact, a form of visa." Australia calls their head of state a "prime minister." Does that "bolster the case that the US head of state is also a prime minister"? On the other hand, the EU is considering an ESTA program...which it says is not a visa: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_rights_en.htm --Lacarids (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The application even has the same questions and burdening bureaucratic process of the regular visa, only for a reduced price. The US doesn't officially call it a visa, but it's the same thing as a visa. 93.172.140.177 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ESTA application has 10 pages of questions asked for a visa? It has the same process where the applicant has to visit the embassy, go through interview, give biometrics and prove means of subsistence? Tell us more about it please.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of visitors to the USA it is a VISA, the department of state which issues it is irrelevent. 178.78.100.201 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of visitors to the USA it is not a VISA.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition of visa according to Webster/Google is an official mark (1) or stamp on a passport that allows someone to enter or leave a country(2) usually for a particular reason. ESTA is an official mark (1), albeit in an electronic format. However in regards to (2) (see https://www.estaonline.com/questions.html):

  • ESTA is more restrictive than a (US) visa as "[i]t does not meet the legal requirements to serve in lieu of a U.S. visa when a visa is required"
  • "In the same way that a valid visa does not guarantee admission to the United States, an approved ESTA is not a guarantee of admission to the United States"
  • The verification process can be much more intrusive (see http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/foreign-travelers-social-media-232930)

In conclusion, ESTA meets the dictionary definition of a visa while the US government states that it is not an visa as described in US law. CultureArchitect (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled onto this page. Based on the U.S. government's official explanation [1], ESTA is "an automated system used to determine the eligibility of visitors to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and whether such travel poses any law enforcement or security risk". So, yeah, it is the name of the system. As this is a page related to the U.S. bureaucracy and governmental institutions, editors should be following the U.S. definition. Many other countries have the same requirement (e.g., Canada) and while some are called visas, some are not. Hence, the first paragraph should be amended based on the official explanation.C-GAUN (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of points:
  1. This is using exclusively a single primary source of information, which is particularly unreliable in this instance (think double-speak). Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources - see WP:PRIMARY.
  2. The "many others" countries that implement "travel authorization" are Canada & Australia. Australia specifically calls their "travel authorization" a visa, consistently- see [2] .
CultureArchitect (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not seen as a visa by anyone relevant, neither by the US or the VWP countries. So therefore to state that it is a visa would be exactly against the requirement to use reliable and published sources, it would be the textbook example of original research where editors define what meets a dictionary definition. Unless there is a reliable and published source that states that "ESTA meets the dictionary definition of a visa" we cannot state that.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Electronic System for Travel Authorization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Electronic System for Travel Authorization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"British Subjects" (with abode) holders denied access to system

[edit]

I have added a cited comment confirming the issue for UK nationals with this passport type, along with the contradictory ESTA information, pertaining to long-term permanent residential citizens with passport type "British Subject". This is a major point of confusion, and seemingly infers that such British passport holders have to apply for a full visa at great time and expense to this needlessly discriminated against minority passport holding group. -Jimthing (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_System_for_Travel_Authorization&oldid=1196695170"