Passport Clarification Needed..

[TPKeller]

I agree that that point was an exaggeration. Obviously nobody will be stranded abroad in perpetuity or become a permanent refugee because they didn't have their passport on them. :)

 

My central point remains however that, without your passport, you can't even prove you are a U.S. citizen to begin with, so you begin the process of trying to get home or catch the ship one HUGE step behind someone who has their passport. The resulting risks, hassles and delays are non-trivial.

Actually, this is where your point goes astray. As was discussed in the letter I received from the Director of the WHTI, passengers who cruise without a passport are still required to present proof of citizenship upon boarding, which will likely be a copy of their Birth Certificate. This proves that you are a US Citizen in the vast majority of cases, obviously, since that is what is used by most folks to obtain their passport in the first place.

 

That is the whole point of the WHTI Cruise Exception. Once your US Citizenship is established, the nature of the closed loop cruise, coupled with enhanced port security within the WHTI area (you now must show your ship card along with a photo ID to reboard the ship), reduces the risk of an unauthorized person entering the country via cruise ship to a level below the cost consequence of requiring passports for all passengers.

 

It is for these few emergency-return-home cases that we simply do not have any fresh, first-person factual evidence at this time. The government claims that folks in these emergent situations will be accommodated, but until the new rules go into effect June 1st, and we have some actual cases reported, nobody knows for sure.

 

Theron

[Terpnut]

Actually, this is where your point goes astray. As was discussed in the letter I received from the Director of the WHTI, passengers who cruise without a passport are still required to present proof of citizenship upon boarding, which will likely be a copy of their Birth Certificate. This proves that you are a US Citizen in the vast majority of cases, obviously, since that is what is used by most folks to obtain their passport in the first place.

 

That is the whole point of the WHTI Cruise Exception. Once your US Citizenship is established, the nature of the closed loop cruise, coupled with enhanced port security within the WHTI area (you now must show your ship card along with a photo ID to reboard the ship), reduces the risk of an unauthorized person entering the country via cruise ship to a level below the cost consequence of requiring passports for all passengers.

 

It is for these few emergency-return-home cases that we simply do not have any fresh, first-person factual evidence at this time. The government claims that folks in these emergent situations will be accommodated, but until the new rules go into effect June 1st, and we have some actual cases reported, nobody knows for sure.

 

Theron

Theron, it was not my intention to reopen the debate on the WHTI issue. I completely understand and respect your points. However, my position remains that, with as you said, the lack of "fresh, first-person factual evidence", I will play it conservative and will never assume there is or will be any accommodation for me as a US citizen if I should be stranded abroad without a passport--WHTI or not. IMHO, because a passport is my sole authoritative U.S.-government-approved means of identification and citizenship, I don't see how the logical dilemma of accepting a birth certificate or other supposed alternatives can ever be reasonably and securely done. Remember that a birth certificate is not being accepted as "proof" of US citizenship--it is only being allowed as alternative (and easily forged and thus not secure) documentation and thus the exception clearly weakens our nation's border security. Thus I believe CIS and other security agencies may push back on this issue! I know you don't believe this will happen but we shall see.

 

In the meantime, I will not travel without my passport and I will continue to recommend that others do the same--WHTI cruise exception notwithstanding. :)

Edited April 21, 2009 by Terpnut

[TPKeller]

Theron, it was not my intention to reopen the debate on the WHTI issue. I completely understand and respect your points. However, my position remains that, with as you said, the lack of "fresh, first-person factual evidence", I will play it conservative and will never assume there is or will be any accommodation for me as a US citizen if I should be stranded abroad without a passport--WHTI or not. IMHO, because a passport is my sole authoritative U.S.-government-approved means of identification and citizenship, I don't see how the logical dilemma of accepting a birth certificate or other supposed alternatives can ever be reasonably and securely done. Remember that a birth certificate is not being accepted as "proof" of US citizenship--it is only being allowed as alternative (and easily forged and thus not secure) documentation and thus the exception clearly weakens our nation's border security. Thus I believe CIS and other security agencies may push back on this issue! I know you don't believe this will happen but we shall see.

 

In the meantime, I will not travel without my passport and I will continue to recommend that others do the same--WHTI cruise exception notwithstanding. :)

Yep, we've beat that poor horse enough already. :) I agree passports are the best way to go, but I guess I just can't get why if a Birth Certificate is used to authorize the issue of a passport, why isn't it good enough to get on a ship? No need to answer, that's just the question I can't reconcile with your point of view. I suspect that for the vast majority of US Citizens, Birth Certificates are the only source document proof of citizenship that exists, everything else having been generated as a result of that original document. My view is that passports just provide a handy reference that there does actually exist a Birth Certificate on file for the holder, somewhere.

 

Hopefully we will learn more soon.

 

Theron

[Terpnut]

Yep, we've beat that poor horse enough already. :) I agree passports are the best way to go, but I guess I just can't get why if a Birth Certificate is used to authorize the issue of a passport, why isn't it good enough to get on a ship? No need to answer, that's just the question I can't reconcile with your point of view. I suspect that for the vast majority of US Citizens, Birth Certificates are the only source document proof of citizenship that exists, everything else having been generated as a result of that original document. My view is that passports just provide a handy reference that there does actually exist a Birth Certificate on file for the holder, somewhere.

 

Hopefully we will learn more soon.

 

Theron

Herein lies the heart of our disagreement. A birth certificate is generated by local authorities solely for the purpose of attesting to a birth. There is no photo reference or other intention to corroborate a person's identity. A passport is a federal government-issued document whose express purpose is to attest to one's identity and citizenship. While the passport process is certainly not perfect, it at least involves a nationally-controlled process that involves a human looking at a person, checking a photo ID (usually a driver's license) and the verification of another useful document for citizenship verification (i.e. birth certificate). But the birth certificate alone is WORTHLESS as something to check one's identity or citizenship. There is no central, and sometimes no, authority to verify the legitimacy of a birth certificate, so anybody can fake these.

 

While Congress made an exception in the WHTI for political reasons, there remains the huge hole that this creates for immigration and border control purposes. This can't EVER be truly reconciled. So I think one of the following will happen:

 

1. CIS and Dept of State issues regulations and procedures that expressly allows certain cruise passengers to waive their birth certificate to reenter the U.S. in expedited fashion.

 

OR

 

2. CIS and State will stick to their guns, maintain due diligence and make it exceedingly difficult for birth-certificate-toting U.S. citizens to reenter the country--so difficult in fact that they might as well have left their birth certificates at home!

 

I believe it will play out as the latter and you believe (or hope) it will be the former. We shall see! :)

Edited April 22, 2009 by Terpnut

[tnsail]

This is the first constructive discussion that I have witnessed on this issue in many a moon.... It is, without some discomfort, that we are not going to settle this issue on this forum...

 

I see and agree with both sides of this issue but it seems that the blame lies higher up the ladder in the halls of government that for one reason or another will not deal with this issue with common sense (common sense must not be required for decisions or laws passed down from the government)..... You need it or you don't.... Pretty simple concept to me...

 

Time will tell....

 

Joey

[Terpnut]

This is the first constructive discussion that I have witnessed on this issue in many a moon.... It is, without some discomfort, that we are not going to settle this issue on this forum...

Theron and I are both glad that someone else out there actually cares about this issue. :D

 

I see and agree with both sides of this issue but it seems that the blame lies higher up the ladder in the halls of government that for one reason or another will not deal with this issue with common sense (common sense must not be required for decisions or laws passed down from the government)..... You need it or you don't.... Pretty simple concept to me...

 

Time will tell....

 

Joey

As I've already said, the specific problem I see here is that our nation's legislature (aka Congress) created an exception that I believe is difficult to implement without compromising our nation's border integrity. It is relatively common for Congress to legislate things and then have the Executive agencies implement them via rules changes and new regulations that distort or sometimes even fail the original intent. So I'm sure it seemed like common sense to some Congressman to exempt cruise passengers sailing a roundtrip out of an American port from carrying their passport, but I'm certain many CIS and State staff didn't think this made any sense at all!

 

I like your point: you need it or you don't. Well said. If we decide that a passport is a way to identify our citizens and is required to permit their free transit back across our nation's borders, then the answer is "we need it".

 

Yes, time will tell... :)

Edited April 22, 2009 by Terpnut

[startraveler]

Part of the problem, too, is that people want security but don't want the price that comes with it (and we're talking the price of "inconvenience," not necessarily monetary.) New Jersey was set a few years ago to have smart driver's licenses, including (I believe) a chip that would also enable the card to double as debit cards, but no. Now other states are doing smart licenses.

 

IMHO, we should just make things simple and say, "Passports are needed for all border crossings," no exceptions. If you have a need for frequent border crossings, there would be a stamp inside similar to a multiple-entry visa saying why you're crossing so many times.

[cherylandtk]

Theron and I are both glad that someone else out there actually cares about this issue. :D

Aw, there are at least a good half-dozen or so of us. :p

 

IMHO, we should just make things simple and say, "Passports are needed for all border crossings," no exceptions.

Well....believe it or not, that IS how the original wording of the regulation started out back in April 2005. Then Congress got ahold of it and their constituents started having opinions about how the rules should have exceptions. And the rest is.......:eek:

[Terpnut]

Aw, there are at least a good half-dozen or so of us. :p

It's funny how just about any question regarding passports seems to fire up either the "carry your passport"/"leave it in the safe" or the WHTI exception discussion. :D Edited April 23, 2009 by Terpnut

[tnsail]

It's funny how just about any question regarding passports seems to fire up either the "carry your passport"/"leave it in the safe" or the WHTI exception discussion. :D

 

I don't know wheather it fires up any of the discussions.... I really think that folks are just plain confused by the rules.... As has been discussed, many cruisers were told all the way back in 2005 that Passports would be required by x date... As the date neared some of the issuing stations were swamped and the date was backed up (so it was told)... New x date was set.... As this date neared more discussion was needed and the date was backed up.... Here we are nearing June 1 and now more thought is needed as to wheather "closed loop cruises" really need Passports....:rolleyes:

 

I also believe that a bit of fustration emerges when it is brought up, especially by those of us who have puchased the Passports and then it is pasted all over sites like this one where one cruiser sailed and paid for excursions with the money they saved by not purchasing Passports....:(

 

We can only hope that soon the confusion will come to an end and Passports will be required for vacationers cruising or flying outside US controlled territory....

 

Joey

[smeyer418]

I don't know wheather it fires up any of the discussions.... I really think that folks are just plain confused by the rules.... As has been discussed, many cruisers were told all the way back in 2005 that Passports would be required by x date... As the date neared some of the issuing stations were swamped and the date was backed up (so it was told)... New x date was set.... As this date neared more discussion was needed and the date was backed up.... Here we are nearing June 1 and now more thought is needed as to wheather "closed loop cruises" really need Passports....:rolleyes:

 

I also believe that a bit of fustration emerges when it is brought up, especially by those of us who have puchased the Passports and then it is pasted all over sites like this one where one cruiser sailed and paid for excursions with the money they saved by not purchasing Passports....:(

 

We can only hope that soon the confusion will come to an end and Passports will be required for vacationers cruising or flying outside US controlled territory....

 

Joey

 

 

Passports are required to fly into or out of US territory. The only exception is the close loop cruises which really are the vast majority of cruises. Are passports needed for such cruises? The answer is no. The authorities after careful consideration have determined that passports are not required for this type of cruise because the risks to the US are very low. Think about it. The person is already in the US on this type of cruise and is merely coming back in. The manifest of all the names on the cruise is submitted to Homeland security. DHS decided that our safety is not compromised by such an exception and this was a Bush era exception I believe. I won't lose sleep over this exception and if it means some more people will cruise its ok with me personally but others can reasonably disagree.

[TPKeller]

Passports are required to fly into or out of US territory. The only exception is the close loop cruises which really are the vast majority of cruises. Are passports needed for such cruises? The answer is no. The authorities after careful consideration have determined that passports are not required for this type of cruise because the risks to the US are very low. Think about it. The person is already in the US on this type of cruise and is merely coming back in. The manifest of all the names on the cruise is submitted to Homeland security. DHS decided that our safety is not compromised by such an exception and this was a Bush era exception I believe. I won't lose sleep over this exception and if it means some more people will cruise its ok with me personally but others can reasonably disagree.

Thanks, that is a good explanation of why I also don't think it's a big deal. Just to add a little, many who are long time cruisers know that in recent years, they have increased security in the WHTI ports, now requiring you to present a photo ID along with your ship card to enter the port area. This is why: to ensure that the same people who got on the ship in the US are the ones who are getting back off the ship in the US when it returns. It's not perfect, but considering the sieve that is our southern border, this system is like Fort Knox.

 

Theron

[tnsail]

Passports are required to fly into or out of US territory.

 

Mis quote

Joey

Edited April 24, 2009 by tnsail

[bthorn1108]

Passports are required to fly into or out of US territory. The only exception is the close loop cruises which really are the vast majority of cruises. Are passports needed for such cruises? The answer is no. The authorities after careful consideration have determined that passports are not required for this type of cruise because the risks to the US are very low. Think about it. The person is already in the US on this type of cruise and is merely coming back in. The manifest of all the names on the cruise is submitted to Homeland security. DHS decided that our safety is not compromised by such an exception and this was a Bush era exception I believe. I won't lose sleep over this exception and if it means some more people will cruise its ok with me personally but others can reasonably disagree.

 

I don't disagree with the information you have provided, however, are you aware of the new definition of a closed loop cruise? Any port stops to a Central American country (Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, or Panama), disqualify the cruise from this exception, they are not considered closed loop cruises.

 

This amended definition of a closed loop cruise was made on 12/22/08, and has not been widely discussed. Even the cruiselines are not aware of it yet. However, many of their itineraries go to Belize and Honduras.

 

Will things change between now and June 1 as far as this definition goes, who knows. However, if you have a cruise planned that visits any of the ports I have mentioned, you may want to check with your local passport office, to verify if you will need one.

[TPKeller]

I don't disagree with the information you have provided, however, are you aware of the new definition of a closed loop cruise? Any port stops to a Central American country (Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, or Panama), disqualify the cruise from this exception, they are not considered closed loop cruises.

 

This amended definition of a closed loop cruise was made on 12/22/08, and has not been widely discussed. Even the cruiselines are not aware of it yet. However, many of their itineraries go to Belize and Honduras.

 

Will things change between now and June 1 as far as this definition goes, who knows. However, if you have a cruise planned that visits any of the ports I have mentioned, you may want to check with your local passport office, to verify if you will need one.

I don't want to be nit-picky just for so, but it is probably important to clarify that in this particular case, it isn't that these cruises are not considered "closed loop" cruises, (although there might have been a government web site that said that, I can't recall for sure) but rather, the ports in Central America are not within the defined "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative Area". So they are "not closed-loop within the WHTI travel area".

 

I strongly suspect that this is at least partly because these particular ports have not implemented all of the tighter security requirements that the closed loop exception relies on to provide the lower risk that allows cruising without passports in the first place.

 

Theron

[cherylandtk]

Theron, I would add that not all the government websites, even within one department, are consistent on their definition of the 'WHTI Travel area'. Some say western hemisphere, some say Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, Caribbean. edit to add; there is a third definition, originally used by Customs, for "Caribbean Basin and Andean countries" which is used to define the $800 customs exemption and which is often called the 'Caribbean' higher duty-free limit. Yep, you guessed it, that definition of Caribbean basin includes Belize and Honduras.

 

I would love to be able to get a definitive answer on this directly from Sec. Napolitano.

Edited April 24, 2009 by cherylandtk

[startraveler]

Well....believe it or not, that IS how the original wording of the regulation started out back in April 2005. Then Congress got ahold of it and their constituents started having opinions about how the rules should have exceptions. And the rest is.......:eek:

 

Which is why my now-wife and my now-brother in law have passports: We went on a cruise in January 2007. My now mother-in-law, who also went on the cruise, didn't get one, but not because she didn't want to. She didn't because she was born in Jersey City, and certified birth certificates from that municipality are issued only from Trenton, not Jersey City, because of problems....

 

IMHO, if Immigration officials were to say, "You'll get a stamp in your passport when you visit, regardless of whether it's by cruise ship, airplane, or walking across the border," maybe more people would get a passport....:D

[startraveler]

I also believe that a bit of fustration emerges when it is brought up, especially by those of us who have puchased the Passports and then it is pasted all over sites like this one where one cruiser sailed and paid for excursions with the money they saved by not purchasing Passports....:(

 

We can only hope that soon the confusion will come to an end and Passports will be required for vacationers cruising or flying outside US controlled territory....

 

Joey

 

But how expensive are passports compared to the cost of a cruise, taken into account not only cost of excursions, but souvenirs, photos, drinks, and the like?

 

Our local county clerk's office, which takes applications, reminded students that the cost for an adult passport is $11 a year for then 10-year lifespan. As I'm fond of saying, don't buy a pizza pie for the next 10 years and you'll have your passport cost.

[smeyer418]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242009/news/regionalnews/certified_disaster_166029.htm

[Terpnut]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242009/news/regionalnews/certified_disaster_166029.htm

This just reinforces my earlier point about birth certificates and passports are NOT the same thing! Not even close...

Passports are required to fly into or out of US territory. The only exception is the close loop cruises which really are the vast majority of cruises. Are passports needed for such cruises? The answer is no. The authorities after careful consideration have determined that passports are not required for this type of cruise because the risks to the US are very low. Think about it. The person is already in the US on this type of cruise and is merely coming back in. The manifest of all the names on the cruise is submitted to Homeland security. DHS decided that our safety is not compromised by such an exception and this was a Bush era exception I believe. I won't lose sleep over this exception and if it means some more people will cruise its ok with me personally but others can reasonably disagree.

The problem is that Congress (purely for political purposes), and not CIS or State Dept officials (who understand border control problems and issues), "determined that passports are not required...". So the "authorities" are not really the authorities here. :)

 

Thanks, that is a good explanation of why I also don't think it's a big deal. Just to add a little, many who are long time cruisers know that in recent years, they have increased security in the WHTI ports, now requiring you to present a photo ID along with your ship card to enter the port area. This is why: to ensure that the same people who got on the ship in the US are the ones who are getting back off the ship in the US when it returns. It's not perfect, but considering the sieve that is our southern border, this system is like Fort Knox.

 

Theron

When it comes to border control, you need a process that is consistent and enforceable. With the WHTI exception, we have effectively "delegated" our border control to certain cruise ship security staff to enforce the border on "select sailings" by making them responsible for securing the ship each day, and thereby securing our nation's border. We can talk all day about the improved security in certain ports or how good a job the cruise security staff do. But the basic problem is we would be subcontracting out our country's border control to non-Americans in these cases. Can't see CIS or State going along with this quietly.

 

I completely agree that the security risk is probably small, but I hope everyone can see that the WHTI exception, while innocent on its surface is a violation of any reasonable process discipline that might be applied to nation's border control.

 

It's akin to having a secure office facility with two doors: a main front entrance with professional, trained guards checking all IDs, and a locked back door. Then Congress says "hey, let's use the back door to let a few of our most trusted friends in so they don't have to be inconvenienced with the guards by the front door". Does this make any sense from a process rigor perspective? Congress has stuck Uncle Bob at the back door, who promises to admit only certain trusted people based on a birth certificate. If it's my office and I want it truly secure, there is NO WAY I let an Uncle Bob (no matter how trustworthy he is) create an exception to my security plan. It just creates more opportunity for mistakes and problems. I'd lock that back door and don't let Uncle Bob ever let anyone in. If you're that important and trusted, come in the front door! :D

Edited April 25, 2009 by Terpnut

[TPKeller]

Terp, please don't take this in any other way than the compliment it is intended to be... I sure would feel a lot safer in my country if you (and others who are in a position to affect the situation) would apply as much passion toward the "southern border" issue as you do the "passport for all cruises" issue! :)

 

Theron

[smeyer418]

This just reinforces my earlier point about birth certificates and passports are NOT the same thing! Not even close...

 

The problem is that Congress (purely for political purposes), and not CIS or State Dept officials (who understand border control problems and issues), "determined that passports are not required...". So the "authorities" are not really the authorities here. :)

 

When it comes to border control, you need a process that is consistent and enforceable. With the WHTI exception, we have effectively "delegated" our border control to certain cruise ship security staff to enforce the border on "select sailings" by making them responsible for securing the ship each day, and thereby securing our nation's border. We can talk all day about the improved security in certain ports or how good a job the cruise security staff do. But the basic problem is we would be subcontracting out our country's border control to non-Americans in these cases. Can't see CIS or State going along with this quietly.

 

I completely agree that the security risk is probably small, but I hope everyone can see that the WHTI exception, while innocent on its surface is a violation of any reasonable process discipline that might be applied to nation's border control.

 

It's akin to having a secure office facility with two doors: a main front entrance with professional, trained guards checking all IDs, and a locked back door. Then Congress says "hey, let's use the back door to let a few of our most trusted friends in so they don't have to be inconvenienced with the guards by the front door". Does this make any sense from a process rigor perspective? Congress has stuck Uncle Bob at the back door, who promises to admit only certain trusted people based on a birth certificate. If it's my office and I want it truly secure, there is NO WAY I let an Uncle Bob (no matter how trustworthy he is) create an exception to my security plan. It just creates more opportunity for mistakes and problems. I'd lock that back door and don't let Uncle Bob ever let anyone in. If you're that important and trusted, come in the front door! :D

 

It was purely in the administrative interpretation and regs in the Department of Homeland Security....not from Congress at all. Congress gave them the option to require it. They chose otherwise....somewhere around the regs and basis for the determination were posted

 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/whti_landseafinalrule.pdf

 

They could have required a passport for sea travel but chose not to.

Edited April 25, 2009 by smeyer418

[RickEk]

This just reinforces my earlier point about birth certificates and passports are NOT the same thing! Not even close...

 

The problem is that Congress (purely for political purposes), and not CIS or State Dept officials (who understand border control problems and issues), "determined that passports are not required...". So the "authorities" are not really the authorities here. :)

 

When it comes to border control, you need a process that is consistent and enforceable. With the WHTI exception, we have effectively "delegated" our border control to certain cruise ship security staff to enforce the border on "select sailings" by making them responsible for securing the ship each day, and thereby securing our nation's border. We can talk all day about the improved security in certain ports or how good a job the cruise security staff do. But the basic problem is we would be subcontracting out our country's border control to non-Americans in these cases. Can't see CIS or State going along with this quietly.

 

I completely agree that the security risk is probably small, but I hope everyone can see that the WHTI exception, while innocent on its surface is a violation of any reasonable process discipline that might be applied to nation's border control.

 

It's akin to having a secure office facility with two doors: a main front entrance with professional, trained guards checking all IDs, and a locked back door. Then Congress says "hey, let's use the back door to let a few of our most trusted friends in so they don't have to be inconvenienced with the guards by the front door". Does this make any sense from a process rigor perspective? Congress has stuck Uncle Bob at the back door, who promises to admit only certain trusted people based on a birth certificate. If it's my office and I want it truly secure, there is NO WAY I let an Uncle Bob (no matter how trustworthy he is) create an exception to my security plan. It just creates more opportunity for mistakes and problems. I'd lock that back door and don't let Uncle Bob ever let anyone in. If you're that important and trusted, come in the front door! :D

 

Thanks for the very learned discussion of the issue at hand.

 

I do see your point Terp, but IMHO, I do think that it would be easier for a terrorist to enter the country by just walking across the southern or northern border outside of a major city, than by attempting to falsify an identity so that they can enter the country on a "closed-loop" cruise. All major cruise lines take pictures of the passengers as they board, so the threat of a terrorist attempting to board a ship on a "closed-loop" cruise is virtually nil. Unless a terrorist was taking the place of his twin brother, I don't see much risk in allowing the "closed-loop" exemption. :)

[jadelee]

I also wanna thank Terpnut! Really helpful information for me! Well done! :)

[cherylandtk]

DHS has today updated some of their travel pages and lists of WHTI compliant documents. Nothing huge in most of it, but I do note the following clarifications. Or at least this is what strikes me as new.

1. Children sixteen and under may use BC to cross at contiguous land or sea borders. (They added the contiguous part, which means Canada and Mexico.)

 

2. They reworded the cruise exception to say this:

"Closed Loop" Cruises: U.S. citizens who board a cruise ship at a port within the United States, travel only within the Western Hemisphere, and return to the same U.S. port on the same ship may present a government issued photo identification, along with proof of citizenship (an original or copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular report of Birth Abroad, or a Certificate of Naturalization). Please be aware that you may still be required to present a passport to enter the foreign countries your cruise ship is visiting. Check with your cruise line to ensure you have the appropriate documents

 

I think, but am not positive, that the 'travel only within the Western Hemisphere' wording is new. I am still leaning towards the inclusion of Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica, etc. in the Western Hemisphere. The CBP page still (to me at least) seems to apply only to US-VISIT and VWP modified processing.

Edited May 27, 2009 by cherylandtk