Schengen Visa Question

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, txjim09 said:

If you did not read the info, why do you feel compelled to strongly imply that I posted false information?

I didn't say or imply that you posted false information. I said you shouldn't assume it's a valid source of information.

Why should I or anyone spend a minute of their time trying to determine if this website is accurate or not when official information is published by the EU?

I said it to warn anyone reading your post that they should not depend on unofficial information when there are official government websites that provide the necessary information.

 

 

[pdmlynek]

18 hours ago, pobox1067 said:

USA

So what is the issue, then?

 

None of what you've quoted applies to you.  What you've quoted has to do with rules for "US residents" meaning, those of other nationalities that have the legal right to reside in the US.  

 

Don't sweat it.

[pdmlynek]

15 hours ago, njhorseman said:

I said it to warn anyone reading your post that they should not depend on unofficial information when there are official government websites that provide the necessary information.

 

 

It is actually much worse than that.

 

Expecting that official government websites provide the necessary information is naive.  There have been times when I was following some rules on an official government website of a particular ministry, and was told by an official by another ministry that the rules are wrong, that the first ministry has no jurisdiction over that issue, or has no idea what they are talking about. 

 

Or, better yet, I've heard "yes, the government website says that, but that information is outdated; we've been trying to get the IT people to change it for the past 2 months."

 

The only real authoritative source is the law and the regulations.  For the US, that would mean the USC, CFR, updated by Federal Register, and internal guidance documents like, the Foreign Affairs Manual. 

 

During Covid-19 restrictions, I've traveled with copies of their country's legislation and have several times successfully convinced the authorities that they are obligated to admit me, and that their bosses' orders are wrong because their own rules have not yet been updated.  

 

Hence: what makes you think that the official government website is an authoritative source?

[hallasm]

33 minutes ago, pdmlynek said:

Hence: what makes you think that the official government website is an authoritative source?

My general advice when it comes to VISA, ESTA or ETIAS always use the official websites - In these cases, the information on these websites is up to date.  
There is also a risk of paying a significantly higher price for your ESTA/ETIAS on external websites or, in the worst case scenario, being exposed to fraud.

[mom says]

20 hours ago, pobox1067 said:

USA

I realize you've had to wade through many extraneous posts that have nothing to do with your situation, but the correct answer has been given to you more than once. Since you are a US citizen with a US passport, and NOT a US resident with a nonUS passport,  you do NOT need a Schengen visa as long as you are a tourist staying for less fhan 90 days.

 

If and when the ETIAS becomes effective,  THEN you would have to apply for one (an ETIAS, not a visa) before entering your first Schengen country.

 

 

[njhorseman]

3 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

It is actually much worse than that.

 

Expecting that official government websites provide the necessary information is naive.  There have been times when I was following some rules on an official government website of a particular ministry, and was told by an official by another ministry that the rules are wrong, that the first ministry has no jurisdiction over that issue, or has no idea what they are talking about. 

 

Or, better yet, I've heard "yes, the government website says that, but that information is outdated; we've been trying to get the IT people to change it for the past 2 months."

 

The only real authoritative source is the law and the regulations.  For the US, that would mean the USC, CFR, updated by Federal Register, and internal guidance documents like, the Foreign Affairs Manual. 

 

During Covid-19 restrictions, I've traveled with copies of their country's legislation and have several times successfully convinced the authorities that they are obligated to admit me, and that their bosses' orders are wrong because their own rules have not yet been updated.  

 

Hence: what makes you think that the official government website is an authoritative source?

I know quite well that government websites aren't always 100% accurate. For example I've posted a number of times about the US Department of State website not mentioning the closed loop cruise exception to the passport requirements for a number of countries where it's applicable. 

I'm rather confident that the average traveler has never even heard of  the CFR, the Federal Register and the like, much less have the knowledge to search for answers to their questions in them. 

In any event, the last website anyone should be consulting is some .com that may be there to lure travelers away from applying for the US's ESTA, Canada's eTA, or the Schengen Area/EU's ETIAS via the official dedicated government websites for those travel authorizations.

 

[pdmlynek]

5 hours ago, hallasm said:

My general advice when it comes to VISA, ESTA or ETIAS always use the official websites - In these cases, the information on these websites is up to date.  
There is also a risk of paying a significantly higher price for your ESTA/ETIAS on external websites or, in the worst case scenario, being exposed to fraud.

Yes, I agree that external websites may not have the right information, or may be fraudulent.  My point is that official websites may also not have the right information.  They may also be out of date.You need to check more than just official websites.