A winge about Shore Excursions!

[LB_NJ]

23 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

I think in UK English, it is usually whinge, with an h.

 

The interesting question is why the US has this tedious policy. And why they think making people actually leave the ship, thereby setting foot on US terra firma, when they have no desire to,  is a good idea.

 

It is not specifically for cruise ships. I believe it is for all travel through the US.  I think it may have been initially for airlines.  I think it may have come about to stop wanted persons (terrorists, people wanted by Interpol, etc.) from using the US as a transit point.  The law just doesn't have a specific exception for 14-day B2B transatlantic travel between the US and England on the QM2.  

[ballroom-cruisers]

2 minutes ago, LB_NJ said:

 

It is not specifically for cruise ships. I believe it is for all travel through the US.  I think it may have been initially for airlines.  I think it may have come about to stop wanted persons (terrorists, people wanted by Interpol, etc.) from using the US as a transit point.  The law just doesn't have a specific exception for 14-day B2B transatlantic travel between the US and England on the QM2.  

 

All passengers have already gone through security checking during check-in in Southampton, and that would include security checks such as no fly lists and known wanted criminals. The US immigration system clearly does not trust that is thorough enough and needs to do it again in NYC. That is despite strong intel and security links between the UK and US.

[exlondoner]

46 minutes ago, ballroom-cruisers said:

 

All passengers have already gone through security checking during check-in in Southampton, and that would include security checks such as no fly lists and known wanted criminals. The US immigration system clearly does not trust that is thorough enough and needs to do it again in NYC. That is despite strong intel and security links between the UK and US.

And there are very very few countries that behave like this. Possibly Singapore? Is the US insistence driven by strong public service unions, simply to protect

jobs?

[Tonopah]

4 hours ago, exlondoner said:

And there are very very few countries that behave like this. Possibly Singapore? Is the US insistence driven by strong public service unions, simply to protect

jobs?

Trust me. The workers are not driving the decision.

[LB_NJ]

I believe that Canada has something similar although not exactly the same.  Again, the US is not going to modify their requirements just for the few back-to-back cruises on the QM2.  It is just too small to consider.

 

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRADE UNIONS.

[jimbo1683]

On 10/21/2022 at 4:19 PM, ballroom-cruisers said:

 

All passengers have already gone through security checking during check-in in Southampton, and that would include security checks such as no fly lists and known wanted criminals. The US immigration system clearly does not trust that is thorough enough and needs to do it again in NYC. That is despite strong intel and security links between the UK and US.

Is it not simply more likely that this scenario applies to such a tiny (fraction on a percentage) minority of visitors that it isn't catered for in the law?

[Underwatr]

On 10/21/2022 at 4:46 AM, ballroom-cruisers said:

So whichever way you choose to do a TA as an 'alien' means you get to enjoy being processed through the system,. whether or not you add in extra days holiday on land.

You don't have to wait to reboard, though. 😏

 

All the more reason not to just turn around and ride back, since you've already been subject to the immigration pleasantries.