Sep 11, 2008
A lot of travelers are buying those new "passport cards" for convenience, and not for economy
Earlier this year, I wrote of the decision by the State Department to issue new "passport cards" for about $45 (less for kids) per, instead of the booklet-like standard passports costing $97 apiece. The point, as I understood it then, was to save money for large families needing passports. Passport cards perform all the functions of a standard passport -- they are official acknowledgments of your identity and citizenship -- but are good only for land and sea crossings of U.S. borders, and not for flights coming into our country.
Turns out that a great many people are now purchasing these cards -- about the size of a standard drivers' license -- because of the ease with which they can be carried about. They fit easily into a wallet, and don't take up the space needed for a standard, booklet-like passport. You tend to lose them less.
Travel writer Jason Cochran (who has authored or co-authored three Pauline Frommer's guidebooks) has described all the pros and cons of the new passport cards in a blog post at www.walletpop.com.
Simply remember that you cannot use a passport card for entering the U.S. by air. It's a smart purchase only for persons making a great many border crossings by car or cruise ship.
Write and read comments about this post.
Turns out that a great many people are now purchasing these cards -- about the size of a standard drivers' license -- because of the ease with which they can be carried about. They fit easily into a wallet, and don't take up the space needed for a standard, booklet-like passport. You tend to lose them less.
Travel writer Jason Cochran (who has authored or co-authored three Pauline Frommer's guidebooks) has described all the pros and cons of the new passport cards in a blog post at www.walletpop.com.
Simply remember that you cannot use a passport card for entering the U.S. by air. It's a smart purchase only for persons making a great many border crossings by car or cruise ship.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jun 3, 2008
It's official: June 1, 2009 is now the final date for having a passport or passport card to enter the U.S. by land or sea
After much hemming and hawing, after announcements of the dreaded deadline followed by frantic withdrawal of such announcements, after contradictions between two agencies -- the State Department and Department of Homeland Security -- after all that, the two government departments have finally collaborated on a joint announcement of the absolutely final, cross-my-heart, definitive date for needing a passport or passport card to enter the U.S. by any means -- cruiseship, car, or train, let alone airplane -- from abroad, is June 1, 2009.
Let me set forth the verbatim report of the Cruise Line Industry Association (which obviously has been fighting to put off the requirement for cruise passengers). Their release reads as follows:
If you are to have any sort of future travel life, you must now proceed to obtain a passport (or a less expensive passport card).
Write and read comments about this post.
Let me set forth the verbatim report of the Cruise Line Industry Association (which obviously has been fighting to put off the requirement for cruise passengers). Their release reads as follows:
Final U.S. Passport Requirements
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of State have announced that, as of June 1, 2009, travelers will be required to present a passport, passport card or other approved secure document denoting citizenship and identity for all land and sea travel into the United States. This includes U.S., Canadian and Bermuda citizens. Special provisions will be made for organized groups of children under 18 to enter with only proof of citizenship.
CLIA urges all consumers to obtain a passport. The expense and minimal effort required (applications can be submitted at post offices throughout the country as well as at passport offices) are well worth the result: an official document proving identity and citizenship that will facilitate easy travel throughout the world.
If you are to have any sort of future travel life, you must now proceed to obtain a passport (or a less expensive passport card).
Write and read comments about this post.
Jan 24, 2008
For large families planning to cross the U.S. border by land, or arriving in a cruiseship, a $45 "passport card"
Heeding widespread complaints about the $97 cost of a passport incurred by every member of a large family (see our recent blog post on the subject), the U.S. State Department has provided partial relief. Let us be grateful for small favors. Starting immediately, when you apply for a U.S. passport, you can specify that you are willing to accept a cheaper ($45) "passport card" which will be valid for crossing U.S. borders by land (car, bus or train) or sea (on a cruise) -- but not on a flight (for which the costlier, multi-page $97 passport will still be necessary).
Mind you, the State Department hasn't yet produced those cards (it has said it is rushing to do so, and they will be ready in a few weeks). But they will immediately accept applications for the money-saving card, and have sought bids from printing companies for the actual manufacture of the card. Such breathtaking efficiency blows your mind.
Write and read comments about this post.
Mind you, the State Department hasn't yet produced those cards (it has said it is rushing to do so, and they will be ready in a few weeks). But they will immediately accept applications for the money-saving card, and have sought bids from printing companies for the actual manufacture of the card. Such breathtaking efficiency blows your mind.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jan 22, 2008
Starting January 31, "cross my heart and hope to die" just won't do it any longer at border crossings
In slightly more than a week, oral declarations of citizenship will no longer be accepted at land and cruise ports of the United States. That's a firm promise from Mr. Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. You will now be made to show a) proof of citizenship (usually a birth certificate) and b) government-issued photo ID (usually a driver's license) when you attempt to enter the country either overland (by car, bus or train) or by sea (cruise). Those earlier declarations you used to make, summoning up all your native honesty and candor, won't be accepted any more by nervous border officials. And, of course, you'll need even more than a birth certificate and driver's license if you're coming back by plane; you'll need a passport (which now require four to six weeks to obtain -- unless you spring big bucks for an "expediter").
The single exception to the new requirement is for persons under the age of 19. They'll be let back in with simply a birth certificate.
These are all steps toward the eventual requirement, expected to go into effect in 2009, that even land and cruise travelers have passports (or a new "passport card" -- we'll report on that tomorrow).
Finally, although several travel industry groups have argued that "birth certificates" are not reliable documents, and shouldn't be required, it doesn't seem likely that their protests will prevail. So stop for a moment and ask: Do I have a birth certificate somewhere? Do I have government-issued photo ID? And is it even remotely possible that I'll need to fly at some point into the U.S.? If that latter prospect is possible, then you must immediately proceed to apply for a passport.
Write and read comments about this post.
The single exception to the new requirement is for persons under the age of 19. They'll be let back in with simply a birth certificate.
These are all steps toward the eventual requirement, expected to go into effect in 2009, that even land and cruise travelers have passports (or a new "passport card" -- we'll report on that tomorrow).
Finally, although several travel industry groups have argued that "birth certificates" are not reliable documents, and shouldn't be required, it doesn't seem likely that their protests will prevail. So stop for a moment and ask: Do I have a birth certificate somewhere? Do I have government-issued photo ID? And is it even remotely possible that I'll need to fly at some point into the U.S.? If that latter prospect is possible, then you must immediately proceed to apply for a passport.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Jan 14, 2008
Believe it or not, there's also a company that assists you in obtaining certified copies of your birth certificate for passport purposes
Last week, I wrote about a feisty firm called It's Easy (www.itseasy.com), which claims it can obtain a passport for you in 24 hours (they charge, as I learned today, between $95 and $200, depending on the difficulties involved). But if the passport is the first one you've ever had, you will also have to obtain a certified copy of your birth certificate to accompany your application. Although ItsEasy does that for persons who were born in New York State, another company called VitalChek (www.vitalchek.com) can assist Americans who were born in any other State.
The birth certificate offices in the various States are usually quite forthcoming in obtaining and mailing to you a copy of your birth certificate. I once had to phone the state of Virginia to obtain mine (and it arrived in a reasonable time). But VitalChek is obviously familiar with all the personalities involved at those agencies, and can perhaps do the job a bit better than you could yourself.
Just thought you'd like to know about it. Though you should obviously save the money and do the job yourself if you have the time, you might consider contacting VitalChek if an emergency requires faster action.
Write and read comments about this post.
The birth certificate offices in the various States are usually quite forthcoming in obtaining and mailing to you a copy of your birth certificate. I once had to phone the state of Virginia to obtain mine (and it arrived in a reasonable time). But VitalChek is obviously familiar with all the personalities involved at those agencies, and can perhaps do the job a bit better than you could yourself.
Just thought you'd like to know about it. Though you should obviously save the money and do the job yourself if you have the time, you might consider contacting VitalChek if an emergency requires faster action.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Jan 10, 2008
When you need to have a passport issued in a day, all is not lost; meet the "Expediter"
What do you do if you suddenly must make an overseas trip and discover that your passport has expired? Or if you've lost your passport and need a replacement right away? Or if you need to show picture I.D. and a certified birth certificate, and you don't have such a birth certificate and need to get one in a day?
Expediters. Though their services don't come cheap, they are apparently highly effective. In some mysterious fashion, they have an allotment of daily passports on which they can call, and are often able to get you a passport or birth certificate within a day. One of them boasts that if you'll give him notice late at night, he'll have a representative at the passport office at 7am the next morning -- and you'll have your passport in time for an evening flight that day. (Heaven knows how much they charge for such feats).
There are several such services, and I'm not recommending any particular one. But the company called It's Easy (tel. 866/ITS-EASY; www.itseasy.com) recently set up a 24 hour/7 day desk at Terminal 4 of JFK Airport in New York, and I find that impressive. It's headed by David J. Alwadish, who claims that if someone needs a new passport and discovers it at the airport, he can arrange for a photo to be taken and an application downloaded at the airport. Depending on the timing, he will then get the new passport back to the airport, often on the same day.
It's Easy also claims that it's been expediting passports and visas for movie stars and such for 30 years, and has now decided to make its miracles available to us hoi polloi.
Write and read comments about this post.
Expediters. Though their services don't come cheap, they are apparently highly effective. In some mysterious fashion, they have an allotment of daily passports on which they can call, and are often able to get you a passport or birth certificate within a day. One of them boasts that if you'll give him notice late at night, he'll have a representative at the passport office at 7am the next morning -- and you'll have your passport in time for an evening flight that day. (Heaven knows how much they charge for such feats).
There are several such services, and I'm not recommending any particular one. But the company called It's Easy (tel. 866/ITS-EASY; www.itseasy.com) recently set up a 24 hour/7 day desk at Terminal 4 of JFK Airport in New York, and I find that impressive. It's headed by David J. Alwadish, who claims that if someone needs a new passport and discovers it at the airport, he can arrange for a photo to be taken and an application downloaded at the airport. Depending on the timing, he will then get the new passport back to the airport, often on the same day.
It's Easy also claims that it's been expediting passports and visas for movie stars and such for 30 years, and has now decided to make its miracles available to us hoi polloi.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Dec 21, 2007
Saved by the bell! Congress postpones a passport requirement for cruise passengers and motorists until June, 2009
Just when everything appeared lost, and a passport requirement was about to become universal early next year, Congresswoman Louis Slaughter, of upstate New York (Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Rochester) slipped a passport-delay measure into one of those massive spending bills that no one in the House or Senate ever takes time to read. It puts off the effective date of the Department of Homeland Security’s new passport requirement for people traveling by land or cruiseship into the United States, until June, 2009. Let me repeat that: 2009.
In a phone call I made this morning to Congresswoman Slaughter's Washington, D.C. office, I was told that the legislation has also passed the Senate and will now go to the President for signature. No veto is threatened. So it looks like all those border-crossers have been reprieved. They will continue to need two items of paper identification: a government-issued I.D., like a driver's license; and a certified copy of their birth certificate. But they will not need one of those $100-per-person passports.
Persons flying into the United States from anywhere will continue to need passports. But the legislation puts off the date for persons driving back and forth between the U.S. and Canada/Mexico or returning here by cruiseship. As you can imagine, border merchants (souvenir shops, clothing stores, what have you) in Representative Slaughter's district were absolutely aghast at the need to require passports for many of their customers and people passing through.
This is all good news. The passport requirement really did nothing to protect us from terrorists. Terrorists will always know how to obtain or steal a passport; or else they are already within our borders. This was simply one of those cosmetic measures that created untold hardships for multitudes of people and injured the economy. If the word from Congresswoman Slaughter’s office is correct, that danger has now been averted for around 18 months.
Write and read comments about this post.
In a phone call I made this morning to Congresswoman Slaughter's Washington, D.C. office, I was told that the legislation has also passed the Senate and will now go to the President for signature. No veto is threatened. So it looks like all those border-crossers have been reprieved. They will continue to need two items of paper identification: a government-issued I.D., like a driver's license; and a certified copy of their birth certificate. But they will not need one of those $100-per-person passports.
Persons flying into the United States from anywhere will continue to need passports. But the legislation puts off the date for persons driving back and forth between the U.S. and Canada/Mexico or returning here by cruiseship. As you can imagine, border merchants (souvenir shops, clothing stores, what have you) in Representative Slaughter's district were absolutely aghast at the need to require passports for many of their customers and people passing through.
This is all good news. The passport requirement really did nothing to protect us from terrorists. Terrorists will always know how to obtain or steal a passport; or else they are already within our borders. This was simply one of those cosmetic measures that created untold hardships for multitudes of people and injured the economy. If the word from Congresswoman Slaughter’s office is correct, that danger has now been averted for around 18 months.
Write and read comments about this post.
Dec 17, 2007
At a time when foreign tourism to the U.S. is heavily down, the State Department has just raised the incoming visa fee to $131
From those super-capable folks who gave us back-logged passports, here's an incomprehensible increase in the fee for incoming visas. While other branches of the U.S. government are frantically attempting to attract more foreign tourists to the United States, the Department of State has just raised the fee for a U.S. visa to $131 from its former level of $100. A couple traveling to New York from, let's say, India or Panama, will now have to pay $262 just for visas enabling them to come here. And multitudes of foreign tourists may just decide to go to Australia or Argentina rather than the U.S.
As you may recall from my earlier posts, tourism to the United States is down by about 20% from the levels it enjoyed prior to September 11. (By contrast, most other western nations are reporting greatly increased tourism.) The loss to our economy from such lesser tourist numbers amounts to tens of billions of dollars each year, with billions of dollars in lost taxes, and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.
Yet on December 13, the State Department announced that it will increase the application fee for non-immigrant visas by more than 30%, from $100 to $131, to "pay for increased processing costs." Because of State's desire for, say, ten million dollars more in visa fees, the United States economy may lose tens of billions of dollars. Obviously, no one is coordinating these decisions with those of other branches of government or pursuing a consistent policy to encourage incoming tourism.
Note that the State Department's action has nothing to do with security issues. Terrorists will have no problem paying another $31 dollars for their visas. But hundreds of thousands of potential visitors facing a burdensome charge, may decide not to come here.
And since many other foreign nations charge an exactly equal, tit-for-tat fee to our citizens wanting visas to visit their countries, our travelers will now need to pay an additional $31 to visit such countries as Brazil, Turkey, or Russia. Countries that formerly extracted a fee of $100 from an American tourist, will now charge $131.
It's another example of an unfocused Executive Branch, with no one tending the store.
Write and read comments about this post.
As you may recall from my earlier posts, tourism to the United States is down by about 20% from the levels it enjoyed prior to September 11. (By contrast, most other western nations are reporting greatly increased tourism.) The loss to our economy from such lesser tourist numbers amounts to tens of billions of dollars each year, with billions of dollars in lost taxes, and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.
Yet on December 13, the State Department announced that it will increase the application fee for non-immigrant visas by more than 30%, from $100 to $131, to "pay for increased processing costs." Because of State's desire for, say, ten million dollars more in visa fees, the United States economy may lose tens of billions of dollars. Obviously, no one is coordinating these decisions with those of other branches of government or pursuing a consistent policy to encourage incoming tourism.
Note that the State Department's action has nothing to do with security issues. Terrorists will have no problem paying another $31 dollars for their visas. But hundreds of thousands of potential visitors facing a burdensome charge, may decide not to come here.
And since many other foreign nations charge an exactly equal, tit-for-tat fee to our citizens wanting visas to visit their countries, our travelers will now need to pay an additional $31 to visit such countries as Brazil, Turkey, or Russia. Countries that formerly extracted a fee of $100 from an American tourist, will now charge $131.
It's another example of an unfocused Executive Branch, with no one tending the store.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports, red tape, visas
Dec 11, 2007
It's official. Starting January 31, you'll need "proof of citizenship" to cross the border by land or ship, and then an actual passport by summer 2008
The cruiselines and the U.S. border merchants fought ceaselessly to put off the requirement, and for a while they succeeded. But time has run out, and the advocates of sensible travel movements stand defeated. In an official announcement, the Department of Homeland Security has announced that as of January 31, 2008, persons 19 and older entering the U.S. by land or cruiseship will have to present "proof of citizenship" at the border, consisting of a government-issued I.D., such as a driver's license, and evidence of U.S. birth or naturalization (usually, an embossed birth certificate). Persons under 19 can simply present the birth certificate.
Or, in place of the above items, you can show a passport. (You already must show a passport if you are arriving internationally by air -- from anywhere.)
And then in "summer" (at a date not yet announced), an actual passport will be required for land and sea crossings. The battle has ended, the fight is over, and the lines at the passport offices will be humongous. Your best course is to start the application process this December, for after January 1, a deluge (of passport applications) will make the process long and hard.
Write and read comments about this post.
Or, in place of the above items, you can show a passport. (You already must show a passport if you are arriving internationally by air -- from anywhere.)
And then in "summer" (at a date not yet announced), an actual passport will be required for land and sea crossings. The battle has ended, the fight is over, and the lines at the passport offices will be humongous. Your best course is to start the application process this December, for after January 1, a deluge (of passport applications) will make the process long and hard.
Write and read comments about this post.
Dec 6, 2007
From the responses to my recent post about the high cost of passports, one thing is clear: the expense prevents some families from traveling
The responses to my recent post about the $97 cost of a U.S. passport (see "Two U.S. Senators have recently questioned the high cost of a U.S. passport, seeking answers as to why such a weighty charge is assessed") have created something of a record for me: 28 often-lengthy comments to date, with more still coming in.
And the comments make many intelligent points, both pro and con. One reader likes the heavy general burdens placed on passport applicants because they discourage child molesters from leaving the U.S. with an abducted child. If those burdens really did have that result, we'd all be happy.
But one unavoidable conclusion stands out: a charge of nearly $100 per person works an unacceptable hardship on families with four and more children. The need to pay out several hundreds of dollars for children's passports is simply an unsupportable burden that prevents many families from even contemplating a road trip to Canada, let alone a lengthier trip. There is no reason why the price couldn't be reduced for large families, and doing so would have no impact on security issues.
Members of Congress should be enlisted to persuade the passport authorities to create a family document issued at a reasonable charge. There simply is no basis for creating a class of people who can't travel because of the high expense of passports.
Write and read comments about this post.
And the comments make many intelligent points, both pro and con. One reader likes the heavy general burdens placed on passport applicants because they discourage child molesters from leaving the U.S. with an abducted child. If those burdens really did have that result, we'd all be happy.
But one unavoidable conclusion stands out: a charge of nearly $100 per person works an unacceptable hardship on families with four and more children. The need to pay out several hundreds of dollars for children's passports is simply an unsupportable burden that prevents many families from even contemplating a road trip to Canada, let alone a lengthier trip. There is no reason why the price couldn't be reduced for large families, and doing so would have no impact on security issues.
Members of Congress should be enlisted to persuade the passport authorities to create a family document issued at a reasonable charge. There simply is no basis for creating a class of people who can't travel because of the high expense of passports.
Write and read comments about this post.
Nov 5, 2007
Two U.S. Senators have recently questioned the high cost of a U.S. passport, seeking answers as to why such a weighty charge is assessed
Why does a U.S. adult passport cost $97? Why does a child's passport cost almost as much? Why isn't there a discounted charge for a family of four purchasing four passports? And doesn't the high charge -- especially, the near-$400 that said family must pay -- prevent or discourage a great many Americans from traveling?
The first of those questions was asked last week by U.S. Senators Dorgan (N.D.) and Schumer (N.Y.), who pointed out that by the State Department's own admission, it does not cost anywhere near $97 to issue a passport. Indeed, it's argued by some that the State Department makes a considerable profit from the issuance of passports.
And since additional passport requirements -- for cruise passengers and "land crossings" (to Canada and Mexico) -- will go into effect prior to June, 2008, these questions have taken on greater meaning. They are one element in a group of questions relating to the age-old practice of requiring multi-page booklets (the current form of passports) that need to be addressed. It would be helpful, for starters, if a highly-qualified administrator were put in charge of passport issuance at the State Department to eliminate the remarkable lag between application and issuance of a U.S. passport.
Recently, the State Department announced with considerable pride that the backlog in passport issuance had been reduced to three-to-six weeks. Why in the world should the process require so much time? Why isn't it possible to issue passports in a week or two? If sufficient resources were applied to the task, couldn't passports be processed on a daily basis, reviewing each application on the day it was received and delaying approval only with respect to those few applications that presented problems?
And why must a passport cost $97?
Write and read comments about this post.
The first of those questions was asked last week by U.S. Senators Dorgan (N.D.) and Schumer (N.Y.), who pointed out that by the State Department's own admission, it does not cost anywhere near $97 to issue a passport. Indeed, it's argued by some that the State Department makes a considerable profit from the issuance of passports.
And since additional passport requirements -- for cruise passengers and "land crossings" (to Canada and Mexico) -- will go into effect prior to June, 2008, these questions have taken on greater meaning. They are one element in a group of questions relating to the age-old practice of requiring multi-page booklets (the current form of passports) that need to be addressed. It would be helpful, for starters, if a highly-qualified administrator were put in charge of passport issuance at the State Department to eliminate the remarkable lag between application and issuance of a U.S. passport.
Recently, the State Department announced with considerable pride that the backlog in passport issuance had been reduced to three-to-six weeks. Why in the world should the process require so much time? Why isn't it possible to issue passports in a week or two? If sufficient resources were applied to the task, couldn't passports be processed on a daily basis, reviewing each application on the day it was received and delaying approval only with respect to those few applications that presented problems?
And why must a passport cost $97?
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Nov 2, 2007
Please forgive if I again bring up the necessity of applying for a passport
I apologize for constantly returning to the need for obtaining a U.S. passport, but it appears that the faster issuance of passports that everyone expects in the month of November, may simply be the calm before the storm. Recently, a key immigration official announced that he expected an avalanche of passport applications to recur in early December and then throughout the month of December, as people planning to travel overseas for the holidays suddenly awake to the need for a passport. And everyone had already expected a torrent of passport applications in January, as stricter requirements go into effect then for persons traveling by car or train into Canada or Mexico. The point is, once again, that passports have become a fact of travel life, and if you don't have one, you really should proceed to get one. To repeat: November will probably be the last calm before the storm.
Write and read comments about this post.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Oct 19, 2007
Guess what's the busiest season for issuing passports? Guess what's the slowest season?
A little-noticed press release of the State Department provides valuable advice for would-be travelers, of which they might otherwise be unaware. The "slow" season for issuing passports, it turns out -- that is, the time when backlogs will be down and passports issued fairly quickly -- is NOW, the autumn, a time when fewer people plan their trips. And when do things pick up? According to the State Department, it's the month of January, of all things, when people once again return in large numbers to the regional centers and frantically file their applications. January, February and March are when pressures begin building and the wait lengthens for the passport to actually be issued.
To those of us who have always regarded the deep winter months as a slow time in travel, this correction comes as a surprise. And it has more relevance than ever. Starting sometime in early 2008, Americans will need passports not simply for travel by air, but for land crossings of the borders with Canada and Mexico. They may also need passports (it's not entirely sure) to take a cruise. All the more reason to start the application process now, in autumn.
Write and read comments about this post.
To those of us who have always regarded the deep winter months as a slow time in travel, this correction comes as a surprise. And it has more relevance than ever. Starting sometime in early 2008, Americans will need passports not simply for travel by air, but for land crossings of the borders with Canada and Mexico. They may also need passports (it's not entirely sure) to take a cruise. All the more reason to start the application process now, in autumn.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Oct 17, 2007
The breathless recent adventure of an American tourist who lost her passport
On the tour of Spain which I described in earlier posts, we arrived in Seville at 7pm, when one of our group discovered that she had lost her passport. We were scheduled to move on to the Mediterranean coast in two days' time (and leave for home two days later). What to do?
Though it was evening, we reasoned that there had to be a duty officer at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid who would answer the phone. And sure enough, after an initial recorded message, a person came onto the line to point out that only two U.S. consulates in Spain -- Madrid and Barcelona -- were able to replace passports. The consulate that used to operate in Seville had closed. But the Madrid service for replacing passports was open only until 1pm each day.
And here the high-speed train system of Spain -- the AVE -- furnished the solution. Though Spain will not permit a passport-lacking person to board a flight, even within Spain, there was a 9am train from Seville that would arrive in Madrid -- a distance of more than 300 miles -- in two-and-a-half hours, going at a speed of more than 140 miles an hour (and making several stops along the way).
After phoning to make a reservation, our tour companion, along with an accompanying friend, caught the 9am AVE the next morning, and arrived punctually in Madrid at 11:30am She was at the door of the U.S. Embassy (which contains the consulate) by12:30pm And after begging the staff to expedite her replacement passport (a strange-looking document valid for only three months), they delivered it to her at 2:15pm She caught the 3pm train (again the high-speed AVE) and greeted the rest of us in our hotel lobby in Seville at around 6pm
Now let me make a couple of points. She was able to obtain a replacement passport that quickly because, before leaving home, she had written the number of her passport on several separate pieces of paper. Advising the Madrid consulate of that number did wonders in speeding up the issuance of the replacement. None of us should ever travel abroad without safeguarding the number of our passport.
Second point. We should again stand in awe of the European development of high-speed rail. In the United States, a train trip to a destination as far from Madrid as Seville would take five hours (assuming it left on time). It would never be possible to transact a round-trip in the record time that she managed. Think of all the sensible, efficient, civilized, activities of life that high-speed rail in the United States would make possible. Why must we discover that Europe has achieved a quality of life that in numerous areas is higher than ours?
Write and read comments about this post.
Though it was evening, we reasoned that there had to be a duty officer at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid who would answer the phone. And sure enough, after an initial recorded message, a person came onto the line to point out that only two U.S. consulates in Spain -- Madrid and Barcelona -- were able to replace passports. The consulate that used to operate in Seville had closed. But the Madrid service for replacing passports was open only until 1pm each day.
And here the high-speed train system of Spain -- the AVE -- furnished the solution. Though Spain will not permit a passport-lacking person to board a flight, even within Spain, there was a 9am train from Seville that would arrive in Madrid -- a distance of more than 300 miles -- in two-and-a-half hours, going at a speed of more than 140 miles an hour (and making several stops along the way).
After phoning to make a reservation, our tour companion, along with an accompanying friend, caught the 9am AVE the next morning, and arrived punctually in Madrid at 11:30am She was at the door of the U.S. Embassy (which contains the consulate) by12:30pm And after begging the staff to expedite her replacement passport (a strange-looking document valid for only three months), they delivered it to her at 2:15pm She caught the 3pm train (again the high-speed AVE) and greeted the rest of us in our hotel lobby in Seville at around 6pm
Now let me make a couple of points. She was able to obtain a replacement passport that quickly because, before leaving home, she had written the number of her passport on several separate pieces of paper. Advising the Madrid consulate of that number did wonders in speeding up the issuance of the replacement. None of us should ever travel abroad without safeguarding the number of our passport.
Second point. We should again stand in awe of the European development of high-speed rail. In the United States, a train trip to a destination as far from Madrid as Seville would take five hours (assuming it left on time). It would never be possible to transact a round-trip in the record time that she managed. Think of all the sensible, efficient, civilized, activities of life that high-speed rail in the United States would make possible. Why must we discover that Europe has achieved a quality of life that in numerous areas is higher than ours?
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Sep 28, 2007
Uh-oh! That temporary reprieve for passport-lacking air travelers flying within the Western Hemisphere, comes to an end on October 1
In case you haven't heard, Americans flying back and forth to Bermuda, Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean will need to possess valid U.S. passports starting October 1. Several months ago, the rule was modified to allow such travelers to show that they had applied for a passport though they had not yet received one. That merciful exemption was created because of the notorious failure by the State Department to respond in a timely fashion to hundreds of thousands of passport applications.
So if you're planning to fly anywhere in the tropics (or to Canada) in a few weeks from now, you've been duly warned. Get that passport!
Write and read comments about this post.
So if you're planning to fly anywhere in the tropics (or to Canada) in a few weeks from now, you've been duly warned. Get that passport!
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Sep 25, 2007
How will our security be enhanced by forcing foreign tourists to register their travel plans 48 hours in advance of arrival?
A requirement that foreign tourists e-mail our government to reveal their travel plans ("We're hoping to visit Aunt Sadie") is the latest brainchild of the Department of Homeland Security. Curiously enough, the proposal (which Congress has adopted) was not accompanied by a request for the many millions of dollars needed to hire the analysts that will now need to read those e-mails. And if a tourist writes "We're hoping to visit Aunt Sadie," what in the world will those analysts recommend? That FBI agents shadow the foreign tourists starting with their arrival?
This is the latest in a number of steps that have reduced foreign tourism to the United States by nearly 20 per cent since the year 2000. The result is a loss of tens of billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs. A recent letter to me from two New Zealanders sums up the feelings of many foreign citizens about trips to the U.S.A.:
Write and read comments about this post.
This is the latest in a number of steps that have reduced foreign tourism to the United States by nearly 20 per cent since the year 2000. The result is a loss of tens of billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs. A recent letter to me from two New Zealanders sums up the feelings of many foreign citizens about trips to the U.S.A.:
There is no doubt in my mind that your country is less of an attraction to me, my family and my fellow New Zealanders since 9/11. Not just because of the understandable extra security measures, but because of the over zealous attitude towards genuine travellers.--John & Anne, Auckland, NZ
Los Angeles airport is known by our friends as "Hell A." Even for transit passengers, procedures here make travel to and thru the USA very much less appealing than pre 9/11.
Our last vacations we have travelled to Europe via Hong Kong to avoid the nonsense that is taking place at your borders.
Air New Zealand's service to Europe via Hong Kong is so popular that they are scheduling extra flights. The general feeling here is that it is not worth the humiliation and hassle of travelling to the USA
We used to travel frequently to the USA for business and vacations and we love your country and the people but until we are made to feel "welcome" again by your government and its agencies we won't be returning.
Write and read comments about this post.
Sep 11, 2007
Massive re-organization and expansion of staff have reduced the passport waiting time to six to eight weeks
In a triumphant press release issued on Friday, the State Department has announced that things are back to normal in the issuance of U.S. passports. Are you ready for this? As a result of arduous efforts, the waiting period for a standard application has been reduced to six to eight weeks. And if you seek expedited treatment (paying a hefty additional sum for that preference), you can obtain your passport in three weeks.
"Throughout the summer, dedicated Department staff in Washington and at the nation's 18 passport agencies have worked tirelessly to eliminate the delays in processing that had developed earlier in the year," states the State Department's website (www.travel.state.gov).
Six to eight weeks. Three weeks if expedited.
I will desist from offering congratulations. Or from making further comment. But whether or not you currently have the slightest intention of traveling beyond our borders, you should start the application process now. Can you imagine discovering an irresistible foreign trip, and then realizing that you haven't the time to obtain a passport?
Write and read comments about this post.
"Throughout the summer, dedicated Department staff in Washington and at the nation's 18 passport agencies have worked tirelessly to eliminate the delays in processing that had developed earlier in the year," states the State Department's website (www.travel.state.gov).
Six to eight weeks. Three weeks if expedited.
I will desist from offering congratulations. Or from making further comment. But whether or not you currently have the slightest intention of traveling beyond our borders, you should start the application process now. Can you imagine discovering an irresistible foreign trip, and then realizing that you haven't the time to obtain a passport?
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Aug 30, 2007
From the Department of Homeland Security, another procedure that will discourage tourism to the U.S. without making us safer
Because travel to the United States has declined by up to 20% since 9/11, causing a loss to our economy of tens of billions of dollars, there was rejoicing in the travel industry several weeks ago over the passage of a bill to ease visa requirements for citizens of an additional 12 countries. Less noticed was a provision inserted by the Department of Homeland Security requiring foreign visitors to register their travel plans with that department at least 48 hours in advance of arrival. That provision, which has caused shock waves in Europe, will again diminish the number of foreigners traveling to the United States, without any benefit at all to our security. If you were a foreigner considering a trip, and you heard of such burdensome rigamarole, would you visit the U.S.A. -- or go somewhere else? And couldn't the terrorists, like Mohammed Atta (one of the 9/11 hijackers), simply inform us they were planning to visit friends and relatives? One shudders to think of the task of reviewing all those hundreds of thousands of "travel plans", diverting employees of the Department of Homeland Security from more productive areas.
The new requirement is from the same people who, several months ago, divvied up funds for anti-terrorism equally among the cities -- the same amount to Enid, Oklahoma, as to New York. How long will Michael Chertoff remain in charge of Homeland Security?
Write and read comments about this post.
The new requirement is from the same people who, several months ago, divvied up funds for anti-terrorism equally among the cities -- the same amount to Enid, Oklahoma, as to New York. How long will Michael Chertoff remain in charge of Homeland Security?
Write and read comments about this post.
Need a passport? Fast? Go to a city with a smaller backlog
We learned something this week about the backlog in processing applications for U.S. passports: it differs from city to city. In New York and Boston, for instance, the lag may be as long as a month; yet in Philadelphia, the lag is less than a week to people who pay an expediting fee. By being willing to travel to a city whose regional passport office has a shorter backlog, you can often obtain your passport in just a few days.
That was the recent experience of a relative of ours. Her company needed her to fly to Toronto -- two weeks from now. Yet her U.S. passport had expired (and passports are now required of people flying to and from Canada). She called the passport offices in New York and Boston, but with no luck -- they would need three weeks. She then called the passport office in Philadelphia and was told that if she went there on a Tuesday morning, they would have her passport later that afternoon. Though it was a hardship to make that trip, she had no choice.
So if you can't obtain a timely passport, phone around. In fact, the central passport information office (known as the National Passport Information Center), reached at 1-877-4USA-PPT (1-877-487-2778) may know of a nearby passport office able to quickly issue your passport. And if you're willing to go to that other city, you can often shorten the necessary time -- and shorten it dramatically.
(A final hint: people without a touch tone phone are eventually able to speak with a human being at the National Passport Information Center. And these humans often have good information to impart).
Write and read comments about this post.
That was the recent experience of a relative of ours. Her company needed her to fly to Toronto -- two weeks from now. Yet her U.S. passport had expired (and passports are now required of people flying to and from Canada). She called the passport offices in New York and Boston, but with no luck -- they would need three weeks. She then called the passport office in Philadelphia and was told that if she went there on a Tuesday morning, they would have her passport later that afternoon. Though it was a hardship to make that trip, she had no choice.
So if you can't obtain a timely passport, phone around. In fact, the central passport information office (known as the National Passport Information Center), reached at 1-877-4USA-PPT (1-877-487-2778) may know of a nearby passport office able to quickly issue your passport. And if you're willing to go to that other city, you can often shorten the necessary time -- and shorten it dramatically.
(A final hint: people without a touch tone phone are eventually able to speak with a human being at the National Passport Information Center. And these humans often have good information to impart).
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Jul 30, 2007
Several odds-and-ends of travel may be of importance to your next trip
An airline check-in attendant recently warned a passenger that she might be denied entrance to Ireland because her passport had only two months left of validity. And the advice was correct: several countries, including Ireland, insist that travelers hold passports valid for at least six months from the day of arrival. The idea is that if you are delayed in returning home -- perhaps by illness or accident -- an expiring passport might complicate matters. Though you may be one of the lucky 24% of all Americans to possess a passport, take a look at its expiration date -- and get it reissued if less than six months are left.
Where can a penniless student find affordable lodgings in Washington, D.C.? That was a recent question posed to me. The answer: at the facility in every major city that should always spring to mind, namely (and in this case), the 270-bed hostel of Hosteling International (tel. 202/737-2333; www.hiwashingtondc.org), at 1009 11th Street in the heart of the capital. A bunk is $35 a night, and you can prepare pasta meals in the communal kitchen.
Elderly Americans have recently been told that a bite-a-day of dark chocolate will lower their blood pressure. Younger Americans who travel should always take some protein bars or Power Bars with them. They provide a cheap (about $1.50 each) snack full of nutrients, and fit easily into luggage or a backpack.
Write and read comments about this post.
Where can a penniless student find affordable lodgings in Washington, D.C.? That was a recent question posed to me. The answer: at the facility in every major city that should always spring to mind, namely (and in this case), the 270-bed hostel of Hosteling International (tel. 202/737-2333; www.hiwashingtondc.org), at 1009 11th Street in the heart of the capital. A bunk is $35 a night, and you can prepare pasta meals in the communal kitchen.
Elderly Americans have recently been told that a bite-a-day of dark chocolate will lower their blood pressure. Younger Americans who travel should always take some protein bars or Power Bars with them. They provide a cheap (about $1.50 each) snack full of nutrients, and fit easily into luggage or a backpack.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: accommodations, diet, passports, tips, washington dc
Jul 29, 2007
Those border-crossing requirements continue to present problems
Do you have a certified copy of your birth certificate (i.e., a copy with a raised seal?) If you can't answer that question, you'll want to rush to your safety deposit box or to that cardboard container (in attics, basements and hall closets) where family documents are kept. Every proposal for extending the date when Americans will need to show passports to cross by land or sea to or from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda or the Caribbean, substitutes a temporary alternative of showing a government-issued photo ID (like a driver's license) plus a "certified copy" of one's birth certificate. But how many of us have such certified copies? Do you? Does your spouse have one? Your children? It begins to seem that obtaining a passport, with all its difficulties, may be the easier course.
Write and read comments about this post.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Jul 17, 2007
Hot news from the world of passports
. . . And the news is: that confusion continues to reign triumphant. You'll recall that as of January 1, 2008, we are all supposed to show passports when crossing by land to Canada or Mexico or returning to the U.S. on a cruise. (Air passengers already have to possess passports). We would need such passports to drive over the bridge from Detroit to Windsor, or through the toll-gates between San Diego and Tijuana. When outraged cries greeted the announcement (protests mainly from business people along the Canadian border), and bills were introduced into Congress to put off the date, the Department of Homeland Security leaked various contradictory plans to the press. They have subsequently announced, and clearly, that the requirement for land crossings and cruises will be postponed until June of 2008.
But instead of a passport, you'll need: a) a government-issued photo ID, like a driver's license; and b) a certified copy of your birth certificate. These will suffice for the six months until June of 2008, and then you will -- positively, definitely -- need an actual passport.
There's too much ongoing activity in Congress (speeches declaring outrage over Homeland Security's dithering) to permit a definite statement of what you will need in the months ahead. But two things are clear:
1) If you don't have a certified copy of your birth certificate, get one. It's probable that a birth certificate requirement will be imposed at least on an interim basis.
2) And second, get a passport. Ultimately, we're all going to need one (and self-respecting terrorists will get them, too).
Write and read comments about this post.
But instead of a passport, you'll need: a) a government-issued photo ID, like a driver's license; and b) a certified copy of your birth certificate. These will suffice for the six months until June of 2008, and then you will -- positively, definitely -- need an actual passport.
There's too much ongoing activity in Congress (speeches declaring outrage over Homeland Security's dithering) to permit a definite statement of what you will need in the months ahead. But two things are clear:
1) If you don't have a certified copy of your birth certificate, get one. It's probable that a birth certificate requirement will be imposed at least on an interim basis.
2) And second, get a passport. Ultimately, we're all going to need one (and self-respecting terrorists will get them, too).
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Jul 13, 2007
The mishandling of foreign tourism to the U.S. gets worse
Several weeks ago, I drew a storm of criticism onto my head by suggesting, in a blog, that current State Department and Department of Homeland Security officials were responsible for a recent sharp drop in incoming tourism to the United States (see "Why hasn't tourism to the U.S. soared?"). Several readers wrote that my criticism of these eminent people was based simply on my political beliefs. I had pointed out that in numerous countries, it required several months simply to obtain an appointment with U.S. consular officials to discuss an application for a visa. And that such torpor could not help but discourage travel to the U.S.
There's now been another development. As if the failure to issue visas expeditiously weren't bad enough, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed (as reported in the trade press on June 25) to create additional obstacles to those foreign citizens who don't need visas to travel here. Under the Visa Waiver Program, citizens of 27 countries (like Great Britain and Ireland) don't require visas; the Department is proposing that these exempt individuals, in advance of departure, provide the U.S. with biographical data and their proposed travel plans within the U.S. They would then receive electronic authorization to proceed with those plans. A nation that cannot issue visas on time is expected to quickly and correctly review the travel plans of millions of other would-be tourists to the U.S.
In what way do these new obstacles protect us? How would such a requirement prevent a terrorist from simply e-mailing that he is planning to visit friends and relatives? Or to sightsee and attend the theater in New York? And don't such silly added steps simply discourage tourists from coming here?
So it's necessary to repeat my earlier contention. With so much at stake, with so much income, including tax income, to be enjoyed through added tourism, with so favorable a time for incoming tourism because of the weak U.S. dollar, the failure to create smooth and reasonably quick procedures for the issuance of visas is a catastrophic oversight. The further proposal to require that foreigners advise us in writing of their plans is loonier still. The entire situation calls for intervention by grown-ups.
Write and read comments about this post.
There's now been another development. As if the failure to issue visas expeditiously weren't bad enough, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed (as reported in the trade press on June 25) to create additional obstacles to those foreign citizens who don't need visas to travel here. Under the Visa Waiver Program, citizens of 27 countries (like Great Britain and Ireland) don't require visas; the Department is proposing that these exempt individuals, in advance of departure, provide the U.S. with biographical data and their proposed travel plans within the U.S. They would then receive electronic authorization to proceed with those plans. A nation that cannot issue visas on time is expected to quickly and correctly review the travel plans of millions of other would-be tourists to the U.S.
In what way do these new obstacles protect us? How would such a requirement prevent a terrorist from simply e-mailing that he is planning to visit friends and relatives? Or to sightsee and attend the theater in New York? And don't such silly added steps simply discourage tourists from coming here?
So it's necessary to repeat my earlier contention. With so much at stake, with so much income, including tax income, to be enjoyed through added tourism, with so favorable a time for incoming tourism because of the weak U.S. dollar, the failure to create smooth and reasonably quick procedures for the issuance of visas is a catastrophic oversight. The further proposal to require that foreigners advise us in writing of their plans is loonier still. The entire situation calls for intervention by grown-ups.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jul 8, 2007
Some attempted explanations of the massive passport fiasco
My recent comments about the twelve-week backlog in processing passport applications, which has wrought havoc with the vacation plans of so many, provoked more reader comments -- pro and con -- than anything I've said on this blog to date. Some die-hard defenders of the State Department and Department of Homeland Security wrote that the fault lay with the public (the same people claimed that my criticism was due to radical political attitudes).
An investigative arm of MSNBC.com has now published a report on what they think happened, and I think you'll be amused by their discoveries (the report can be found at MSNBC's website). Note how the initial processing of applications was out-sourced to private enterprise, namely the Citigroup organization of Wall Street fame, and that State Department officials claim that Citigroup made a mess of it all. Note, second, how the appropriate officials were warned that an additional 468 staff members were needed for reviewing passport applications -- and yet failed to hire anywhere near that number.
But note especially (and disturbingly) that a union representing State Department staffers has argued that the time allotted for processing each application -- a big two and a half minutes -- is too short a time to weed out fraudsters or terrorists. Despite this, each “adjudicator” is required to process 24 applications an hour, which gives them 2 and a half-minutes per passport request, even assuming that they work without let-up or a five-minute break, throughout that hour.
What kind of protection is this against terrorists obtaining a passport?
Write and read comments about this post.
An investigative arm of MSNBC.com has now published a report on what they think happened, and I think you'll be amused by their discoveries (the report can be found at MSNBC's website). Note how the initial processing of applications was out-sourced to private enterprise, namely the Citigroup organization of Wall Street fame, and that State Department officials claim that Citigroup made a mess of it all. Note, second, how the appropriate officials were warned that an additional 468 staff members were needed for reviewing passport applications -- and yet failed to hire anywhere near that number.
But note especially (and disturbingly) that a union representing State Department staffers has argued that the time allotted for processing each application -- a big two and a half minutes -- is too short a time to weed out fraudsters or terrorists. Despite this, each “adjudicator” is required to process 24 applications an hour, which gives them 2 and a half-minutes per passport request, even assuming that they work without let-up or a five-minute break, throughout that hour.
What kind of protection is this against terrorists obtaining a passport?
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Jun 14, 2007
Travel humor from the nation's capitol
A Keystone Cops Comedy, or maybe a Marx Brothers Movie, are about the only images that can do justice to the Bush administration’s recent handling of the passport rules. You’ll recall the proud announcement of several months ago, that Americans flying back and forth to Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean would henceforth have to possess U.S. passports. Terrorists would be thwarted, security insured.
But no one thought of hiring additional people to process the many millions of passport applications that travelers would be forced to make. The result: chaos at the Passport Offices and a twelve-week backlog -- that’s twelve full weeks -- in the issuance of passports. Last week, the Department of State was forced to announce a reprieve (see official announcement on its website): from now until September 30, people will be permitted to board flights to Canada, etc., without a passport but with a receipt showing that they have applied for a passport, whether or not it’s been issued. And the receipts are obtainable via printouts from the Internet.
It gets worse. At the same time that they are literally drowning in passport applications (see the claim in red on State's passport application page), the Department of Homeland Security has even more recently announced that as of January 1, 2008, persons walking or driving back and forth by car to Canada or Mexico will also need passports. (Those multitudes in Detroit who each day drive into Windsor, Canada, those hundreds of thousands who each month walk over into Niagara Falls, Canada, will need passports). Meantime, no one knows how to quickly issue tens of millions of additional passports to loyal patriots only.
Stay tuned.
Write and read comments about this post.
But no one thought of hiring additional people to process the many millions of passport applications that travelers would be forced to make. The result: chaos at the Passport Offices and a twelve-week backlog -- that’s twelve full weeks -- in the issuance of passports. Last week, the Department of State was forced to announce a reprieve (see official announcement on its website): from now until September 30, people will be permitted to board flights to Canada, etc., without a passport but with a receipt showing that they have applied for a passport, whether or not it’s been issued. And the receipts are obtainable via printouts from the Internet.
It gets worse. At the same time that they are literally drowning in passport applications (see the claim in red on State's passport application page), the Department of Homeland Security has even more recently announced that as of January 1, 2008, persons walking or driving back and forth by car to Canada or Mexico will also need passports. (Those multitudes in Detroit who each day drive into Windsor, Canada, those hundreds of thousands who each month walk over into Niagara Falls, Canada, will need passports). Meantime, no one knows how to quickly issue tens of millions of additional passports to loyal patriots only.
Stay tuned.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports
Jun 7, 2007
Believe it: you must get a passport
A survey this May by the Travel Industry Association discovered that more than half of all Americans are still unaware that a U.S. passport is now required of all citizens flying back to the U.S. from any foreign country. And it gets worse. A full 7% of all Americans actually denied to the polltaker, categorically, that any such passport is needed. Since people embarking on an international flight will be denied boarding if they have no passport, it's quite serious that so many of our well-informed neighbors are unaware of this new security requirement. You will be performing a great service if you take pains to advise a friend that whenever an American flies outside the U.S. to any place other than Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa, they must have a passport.
Add a comment about this post.
Add a comment about this post.
Labels: passports
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the