Talk:Visa requirements for United States citizens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
 
WikiProject Travel and Tourism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Complete overhaul (November 2013)[edit]

After a few days of work I've managed to completely re-edit this article.

The article until yesterday had multiple issues:

  • no references for many inputs
  • dead links
  • non specific references
  • old references
  • outdated information
  • lack of information

What I've done is:

  • I went through every single country and territory and checked their policy on both Timatic and Bureau of Consular Affairs.
  • I re-edited everything
  • I placed information in a nice consistent table
  • I've expanded the article with many new territories

The article now has:

  • Up to date information on every UN member state
  • Up to date information on many other regions
  • Significantly expanded scope of information covering many issues such as
    • limited availability of visas on arrival
    • departure taxes
    • strict immigration rules regarding additional documents asked at border in otherwise supposedly visa free countries
    • registration rules
    • information regarding "within" period for all countries where it applies
    • information on Israeli stamps
    • information regarding fingerprinting
    • information regarding Carte Jaune
    • information regarding blank pages and passport validity
    • information regarding online obtaining of certain visas
    • etc.

I hope the article is now mostly free of errors, but feel free to proof-read all information.

Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. —Quintucket (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I never edited a Wikipedia page before and I don't want to mess this up. I will try to learn by watching Youtube or something. Under Vietnam, Americans and probably many other countries can get a visa on arrival at major airports. You do need to apply online just 2 days before, and pick it up at the airport when you arrive. This might not be technically Visa on arrival, but it is so easy to fill out the only application just 2 days before arrival and when you get to the airport you really have nothing to do. What I can't remember though is about 4 years ago I took a bus from Cambodia to Vietnam and did the same thing, but according to to the Vietnamese Government website it says for airports only.Rich allen71 (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Rich_Allen71 [1]

Well that is already noted as "Pre-arranged visa obtained online through travel agencies available at Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City or Da Nang airports.". Whether in reality they accept it on ground crossings is a different thing, but officially they don't. It's possible also that things have changed since you've visited 4 years ago.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

References

A mistake[edit]

This article has one mistake. Israel has a visa on arrival policy, rather than visa-free access, for US tourists. Even the source says so. --RM (Be my friend) 00:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Visa is not required, State Department is wrong - [1]--Twofortnights (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response, but how do you know this? No offense, but I think we should go along with what the source says rather than your personal testimony. Do you have a source that says a visa is not required?--RM (Be my friend) 20:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean how do I know? "Personal testimony"? Seriously? I provided you with an official link of the Israeli Government that is a supreme source of Visa policy of Israel. That is the source you are looking for.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, same thing for Indonesia. US passport holders must apply for a visa on arrivial and pay a small fee. I can show you the visa in my passport if you need proof. In fact, if you look at your own link

http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/wordpress/?page_id=188

it says right there that there, copying and pasting from the page:

"The fees for Visa On Arrival are:

Visa for stay up to 7 (seven) days in several Special Economic Zones (SEZ)= US$ 15,- Visa for stay up to 30 (thirty) days = US$ 35,- Extension of stay for up to 30 (thirty) days = US$ 35,-"

Actually - http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/wordpress/?p=4010 - Tourist Visa Exemption for US Citizen --Twofortnights (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan status[edit]

According to Wikipedia itself political status of Taiwan is disputed - Political status of Taiwan. Unless the IP user (96.237.251.126) has some arguments to share (which I obviously want to read) then I'll consider that he is editing on a political agenda of one of the opposing sides in Taiwan political status dispute. So I open this discussion, where this editor can actually share the reasoning behind his edits instead of just blindly reverting. I have made some clarification to the article, but if that is not enough, please first discuss it here.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Unlike any of the other "territories" listed in the section, Taiwan is a sovereign country with its own democratically elected government, military, and laws. It is not administered by or part of any other country's territory. Even though China disputes the political status of Taiwan, when it comes to the Taiwanese government's entry requirements for United States citizens there is no differentiation from customs processes that other countries follow. No special permission is needed (from other entities) to visit Taiwan and US citizens need not seek entry to the country anywhere else except through official entry points or through overseas diplomatic missions. Taiwan itself is part of the Visa Waiver program of the US Government and therefore its citizens do not need a visa when entering the United states either. Again, there are no restrictions for US citizens to enter any area administered by Taiwan and they need not seek permission to visit the country from any other authority except that of the government of Taiwan. Therefore I would argue that Taiwan should be moved from the Dependent, Disputed, or Restricted territories section. Kowl00n (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Taiwan has an autonomous immigration policy, but so does Hong Kong. Also it is a fact that the status of Taiwan is disputed and we are not here to solve that dispute, we are merely stating that there is a dispute, who is right or wrong is not relevant for us.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, 20 countries do not recognize the People's Republic of China, and in many cases in which Taiwan is not recognized, there is still unofficial diplomacy occurring. And at the same time, Israel's status is very much disputed but there is no article on the political status of Israel and it is not mentioned as having limited recognition on the Politics of Israel. And while both Palestine and Kosovo are disputed, these countries are recognized by more than half of all United Nations members. So it doesn't make sense for 1 disputed country to be regarded as universally recognized and another disputed country to simply be called disputed. There should be a metric to decide whether one country is internationally recognized or if it's disputed. (Also, my opinion on Taiwan is that it could go in either category, it is a wild card disputed nation.) Elephantyarn3 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
"a metric to decide whether one country is internationally recognized or if it's disputed" - the only objective metric that we have is the UN membership. It's not perfect but it's all we've got.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Svalbard[edit]

Svalbard has different rules than the rest of Norway because of the Svalbard Treaty, . It is not part of the Schengen Area for one thing. See http://www.emb-norway.or.th/studywork/visaandresidence/Svalbard/#.VEg95Pl4r7s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.144.16 (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That is the information for Thailand citizens who need a visa for Norway. It's different for the US citizens, there is no de facto difference for them as they do not require a visa for Norway.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The key is here de facto. There is a differnce of course, and that is the entry which is formally governed through the Svalbard Treaty indeed.... L.tak (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirement for Venezuela[edit]

After the 1st March the USA citizens need a visa for entry to venezuela territory. See http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/01/us-venezuela-usa-idUSKBN0LX10J20150301 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:660:3203:401:0:0:0:A23 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OK could you please point out in that article where it says "1st March"?--Twofortnights (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Palau[edit]

The note states that, according to the Compact of Free Association, US citizens can live and work freely in Palau, but that the time limit is ony 1 year. Shouldn't it be unlimited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalNomad (talkcontribs) 05:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess they can renew the 1 year stay indefinitely.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

UK requires a visa for US citizens[edit]

According to this website http://www.travelinsurancereview.net/2010/04/15/is-a-visa-needed-for-a-us-citizen-to-travel-to-uk/ Visas are required for all U.S. citizens traveling to the United Kingdom and are usually applied for upon arrival.

That is absolute nonsense and you may check on the following official page https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa where it clearly says "You won’t need a visa to come to the UK" when you select the US.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thats UK law. US law requires visa to go to UK
Aaah I see, you are trying to troll us. Great, now please find some other place for your "fun".--Twofortnights (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mercury, Nevada[edit]

It's silly to have Mercury, Nevada listed on this page. One might as well add every military base, restricted portions of public and governmental buildings, and perhaps even closed environmentally-sensitive areas to the list. Seriously, the restrictions in place have nothing to do with getting a visa. Etamni | ✉   09:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Mercury does appear to have had a sizable civilian population in the 1960s (maybe 10,000 people). It would have been a "closed city" in the same sense that Los Alamos was during World War 2. I think it is fair to distinguish 1960s Mercury and World War 2 Los Alamos from military bases with mostly non-civilian populations. An alternative description might be "secret city" or "classified city". I have to admit I found the reference to a closed city being in the United States as thought provoking. I'm not sure we'll ever have these types of cities or towns again in the U.S. 223.204.241.101 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The city definitely should be covered in its own article (which it is); I just don't think it belongs as a listing in this article, which is about visa requirements for US citizens when traveling outside the 50 states. As a side matter, I'm fine with listing US territories here since some people are oblivious to the fact that, as territories, they are still part of the US and a visa is not required.

Property of Wikipedia[edit]

May I remind Twofortnights (talk · contribs) that Wikipedia is a shared encyclopedia, not a reserved domain to someone. --Bouzinac (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Bouzinac OK and I undid your edit because you aligned one part of text to the right for no apparent reason and without an edit summary. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia being a shared encyclopedia I think.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Twofortnights (talk · contribs) I was being putting numbers right-aligned and was interrupted in my work. Thought to finish later and find that someone undid that "work". So I won't go on.--Bouzinac (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cuba visa requirement[edit]

Can we establish consensus on travel to Cuba? There seems to be lack of clarity on how the visa requirement is being described. "Travel Banned" has been applied a few times to Cuba's entry in the table, but that doesn't seem to be technically correct, per the sources.

"Tourist travel to Cuba is not yet authorized by current U.S. law. There are however, twelve categories of people who may visit Cuba without incurring a violation of the travel restrictions. In all 12 existing categories of authorized travel, travel previously authorized by specific license will be authorized by general license, subject to appropriate conditions. This means that individuals who meet the conditions laid out in the regulations will not need to apply for a license to travel to Cuba.

These 12 categories include: family visits; official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; journalistic activity; professional research and professional meetings; educational activities; religious activities; public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions; support for the Cuban people; humanitarian projects; activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes; exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials; and certain authorized export transactions." [2]

"All travelers to Cuba, including religious workers, should contact the Cuban Embassy in Washington to determine the appropriate type of visa required for their purpose of travel." [3]

So while yes there is a "travel ban" in the most basic sense, it isn't to say that every single form of travel is completely banned, and a visa requirement still technically does exist for eligible U.S. citizens.

Aesthetically speaking, it also is rather inconsistent with the rest of the table/map and its established color code (Red, green, etc.) to create just one block in black for "Travel Banned." I don't recall any other visa requirements tables having such a denomination, but I am happy to be pointed to any examples otherwise.

Additionally, since the table column "Visa required?" has an implicit Yes or No, the labels "Travel Restricted" or "Travel Banned" do not directly answer this and thus aren't appropriate to list in that column.

Thus, my preference would be that Cuba continues to have "Visa required" marked in the table as opposed to "Travel restricted" or "Travel banned", unless others disagree and feel an exception needs to be made here. Any thoughts? GabeIglesia (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(Arton Capital) Passport Index[edit]

This is relevant and not an ad. The methodology is discussed here. https://www.passportindex.org/about.php
--92.4.96.96 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the ranking methods is "United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index (UNDP HDI) is used as a tie breaker. The UNDP HDI is a significant measure on the country’s perception abroad.". This is ridiculous, hope you understand that the HDI has no bearing on passport ranking.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I never said their ranking system was perfect, but I think due to it being mentioned by many sources it should be included to avoid undue weight.

--92.4.96.96 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could include it in the United States passport article (with explaining the methodology of course) but here it makes no sense as the ranking is not based on visa requirements but on some imaginary quality.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Visa requirements for United States citizens. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Slight Changes to Jordan rules[edit]

Hello friends,

As of January 1, 2016 Jordan is requiring visas to be obtained in advance for US citizens crossing at the Eilat "Yitzak Rabin" border crossing, as well as the Allenby Bridge crossing. However, this change was very poorly documented on official Jordanian sources. If anyone has a nice official looking source I'd like to change this data point.

Thannks, 50.232.41.78 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

New Map[edit]

I'm new to editing on here, but I've created a more detailed map that people might find useful. Could anyone help me upload it to the page properly? Or even if it's appropriate for the page?

Visa Reqs US Citizens Oct 16.jpg

Dragonflame67 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for this. However the map you used is completely different to all the other maps in Visa requirements articles series, it is very complicated featuring all those subnational and disputed entities plus textual notes that exist in the article making it practically unusable as a thumbnail and almost uneditable for anyone else but you. A very similar map that you probably used as a reference on Visa requirements for Romanian citizens caused a major dispute and an edit war and was subsequently removed.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It is completely different because I wasn't creating it to replace the map on the page necessarily, but to act as a more detailed resource. The map as it exists right now is overly simplistic, and although it can certainly act as a rough reference, it's not a complete resource. The fact that my map is complicated is a feature of it. It's true that it certainly doesn't work as a thumbnail because it's not designed for that purpose. I didn't think about the fact that it's uneditable, but I can upload an svg instead of a jpg to fix that. I did not know about the map or the problems on the Romanian page. What was the problem with it? Dragonflame67 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

While the additional comments and note clutters the map too much, the categories are spot on. I think it should be standard across all visa related articles. Too many pages use e-visa, travel authorization and visa free interchangeably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:106:200:2162:B70:6880:E7D1 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by user Twofortnights[edit]

User Twofortnights is behaving like he owns the page. For unknown reasons, he doesn't allow the new Iranian ban of US citizens be shown on the page and map.Nochyyy (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I will ignore the nonsense about vandalism and get straight to the point. Iran does not ban US citizens. Iranian Foreign Minister clearly said that already issued visas remain valid. That means those Americans can visit Iran. That means there is no such thing as "ban of US citizens".--Twofortnights (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
So the situation has not changed a bit since Iran said it no longer issue visas for American citizens? Iranian green cart holders can still come to USA, so change US visa policy there too and put "visa required". I even changed the phrasing that Iran no longer grant visa. It seems to me you don't like other people write facts on this page. What you are doing is called vandalism. A very bad case of vandalism. Nochyyy (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The situation has changed. New visas are no longer issued. That is not the same thing as refusal of admission of all Iranian citizens. How difficult is it to understand?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Where is there any trace of current situation on the map? I got tired of dealing with vandals. If you believe vandalism is giving you any satisfaction, then continue behaving like this, but in the end, it's going to hurt yourself because you are blind to facts. Nochyyy (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Twofortnights is editing correctly. You are the one being disruptive on the page. Iranians have banned new visas being issued, the Americans cancelled all visas. But the situation has now changed anyway. st170e 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Page doesn't demonstrate current situation. This is very simple to understand, but it's impossible to reason with Vandal hordes. Nochyyy (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You should comment on user's edits, not on users. US citizens are not banned from Iran. Iran has banned new visas from being issued to US citizens and have not cancelled valid visas, like the US government has done. Admission is therefore not refused to US citizens who hold a valid visa. The situation was quite different vice-versa, as the US banned ALL Iranian citizens (excluding permanent residents, who require a US green card in addition to their passport to return to the US). st170e 13:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I edited the map and page to show that Iran "no longer issue visas" for American citizens, but still Twofortnights revert it. Nochyyy (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We don't show that kind of information on the map. The black colour is reserved for 'admission refused' - which doesn't apply in this case. st170e 14:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So use another color, people come here to see information, from map it seems you only need apply for visa for coming to Iran, that is not correct. Nochyyy (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The map says a visa is required, which is true. There is no consensus for using a different colour. That information can be found in the table below. st170e 14:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Your accusation of vandalism has no basis. This is nonsense. I know Twofortnights few years. Our opinions do not always coincide, sometimes they are opposite, but it is not the reason to accuse of vandalism. Generic designation for all visa maps: black color is the prohibition of entry for all. Iran allows entry to visa holders. The total ban isn't applied. Iran is not black. Iran temporarily do not issue visas - this information is available in the table. All information is correct. Be open to compromise. Thank you. --Norvikk (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Somebody please fix Uganda's colors -- this is now an eVisa / prior online application required country[edit]

My wife and I recently tried to fly to Uganda from Ethiopia. The information about visa-on-arrival was out-of-date. Visa on arrival without previous application and acceptance is no longer possible for travel to Uganda.

As of late last year (2016), Uganda has implemented an eVisa system similar to Kenya, or other countries that require a prior online application like India or Myanmar. Additionally, the immigration authorities may arbitrarily require numerous additional documents - I am currently struggling trying to get approval for a simple tourist visa despite providing proof of a return ticket, proof of yellow fever vaccine, a bank statement, and a detailed itinerary of our plans in the country. I still do not know if my visa will be issued, although I am supposed to fly the day after tomorrow.

I edited the Uganda section in the table to reflect the new eVisa system, but somebody who knows how to should change Uganda's colors both in the table and on the map of countries (Uganda should be the same color as neighboring Kenya, which has a similar eVisa system). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.105.252 (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Allowed stay column[edit]

I'm minded to reducing the size of the 'allowed stay' column on the main article and removing clutter from 'notes'. What I'm proposing is:

  • removing '..., extendable up to XXX' from the 'allowed stay column' and inserting it into notes
  • removing '...within any 180 day period' and inserting it into the notes
  • removing departure tax from notes
  • removing the cost of visas on arrival
  • maybe removing information about biometrics in the notes
  • removing information such as 'strict application on rules...'

Let me know what you think. st170e 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with some but "within any 180 day period" is very much related to the allowed stay. Also the "Strict application of immigration rules" for Ireland is already in the notes not in the allowed stay column.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that the 'within any 180 day period' could be better elaborated on in the notes section. With regards to 'strict application of immigration rules', I meant removing that entirely from the article. It's too general, not specific and more or less applies to each country, visa-free or not. st170e 21:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Visa requirements for United States citizens. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)