Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Canada EU Government Privacy Transportation United Kingdom United States Your Rights Online

DHS Will Now Vet UK Air Passengers To Mexico, Canada, Cuba 417

First time accepted submitter illtud writes "From April, UK passengers flying to Mexico, Eastern Canada or Cuba will have to submit their details at least 72 hours before boarding to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for pre-flight vetting (as all passengers to the U.S. itself have had to do for a while). If they find against you, you're not getting on the plane, even though you're not going to the U.S. The Independent (UK quality newspaper) has the story."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS Will Now Vet UK Air Passengers To Mexico, Canada, Cuba

Comments Filter:
  • by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @08:31PM (#39537727) Homepage

    ... and here's how. "Oh, you won't comply? Guess you don't want your airline to have landing rights in the US, then."

    The US, unfortunately, can get away with extortion. I live in Canada and have family in the United States, but this is seriously offputting. I think it's time to boycott travel to the US until they back away from this kind of insanity.

  • Better be a gag... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jcr ( 53032 ) < .ta. .rcj.> on Saturday March 31, 2012 @08:31PM (#39537729) Journal

    This is either an April fool's joke or an act of war against Cuba, Canada, Mexico and the UK.


  • Already happening (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RabidMonkey ( 30447 ) < minus pi> on Saturday March 31, 2012 @08:38PM (#39537773) Homepage

    This has been going on in Canada for years now. Even if you aren't landing IN the States, so long as you fly OVER you are subject to screening. My father spoke to someone at the airport one day who was not cleared by DBS, but still managed to get on his flight to the Carribean. His plane had mechanical problems and was forced to land in Florida. When he got off the plane he was met by law enforcement, who read him the riot act and took him directly to jail. He waited there overnight, then was put ona plane home.

    Living in southern Ontario, it is pretty much impossible not to fly over the states, even for domestic flights. That means we are all screwed by US rules, living in another country. Our freedom is limited by their assinine rules.

  • Re:April fools? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @08:52PM (#39537831) Journal
    Canada is now working very well with the USA thanks to the "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness" declaration. []
  • by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @08:55PM (#39537843)

    Or maybe that's just New York charging you to enter...

  • by voss ( 52565 ) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @09:18PM (#39537959)

    They just say the flight that are not vetted cannot enter us airspace. London to havana doesn't really have to enter US airspace.
    Neither does London to Mexico. Its just quicker and more fuel efficient that way. The US wont get that info
    from Cubana airlines so its kinda pointless to ask from the other airlines.

    Any flight to London to Toronto flies over New York and Boston so yeah anyone on a flight that
    flies over the US northeast SHOULD be vetted.

  • by __aavevi421 ( 887519 ) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @09:19PM (#39537963)

    When the Brits start turning against the Yanks you know America is in trouble long term.

    Lots of us already have. I've turned down two contracts there and none of my colleagues consider having a holiday there.

  • Sealand anybody?... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bdabautcb ( 1040566 ) <bodaciouswaggler ... com minus distro> on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:09PM (#39538215)
    As an American from the midwest who travels a lot, this is an even bigger encitement for me to travel less by plane. The biggest issue for me is convincing my employer to give me four days to drive to Utah and back instead of flying out on a Friday night and flying back on Sunday. If I can leave on Thrursday afternoon, conslidate meetings, leave Sunday morning, and return Monday afternoon, I might be able to convince them. The biggest issue from my perspective is that I drive my own car, I will not be responsible for any delays, and I now believe that I am in more control than the TSA over any hard information that I am bringing to my clients. I can't wait for the mandatory traffic stops while crossing state lines. I witnessed a smaller version of the same the other day, while driving north from Central Ave. in MPLS. When I got to Columbia Heights, there was a small cadre of police who appeared to be doing random stops and car checks on Central. I served my guy about ten blocks north, and then had to go back. I was prepared to call my lawyer, even though I had nothing close to illegal in my car. I drove past the checkpoint and was not pulled over. I'm suprised that the local cops didn't have my license plate because I have recently posted on slashdot and pull me over. F ying sucks, now taking a train or driving a car might suck just as much. Vote for the least worst option no longer works. Put your shit together and vote for some real people in the next election.
  • by MachDelta ( 704883 ) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:20PM (#39538241)

    Odd thought - wouldn't this mean that a Canadian citizen (for example) could, technically, become trapped in the UK at the behest of the US?

  • by icebike ( 68054 ) * on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:40PM (#39538325)

    This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it. There are some circumstances where you'd want to control exit (if someone is fleeing law enforcement for some reason, avoiding child custody or the like), but I wonder if that's the intent of this policy shift or if it's something else.

    These passengers are flying to the US, regardless of their final destination. As such they will likely be in a plane full of US citizens, over US cities. I suspect that in all these cases the plane will land in the US before continuing to their destination.

    Direct flights that do not enter US Airspace would not be affected.

    The intent of the policy is to prevent another World Trade Center. It may be a bit overwrought, especially in a plane full of jumpy American passengers who will even take down a aircraft crew member [] that acts up.

    In most cases this happens automatically via your airline reservation, but late booking passengers always presented a challenge, and many times planes were wheels up before late arrivals proved to be on the no fly list, and in some cases planes had to be turned around.

    (Note: Don't get me started on the No Fly List. If you've passed security, been searched, baggage searched, underwear and shoes searched, it seems that a permanent ban on flying is overkill. But that's for a different post).

  • Re:Haha, good one. (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01, 2012 @01:31AM (#39538855)
    Obama is just another politician- no more, no less. Where were you when Bush started wiping his ass with the constitution? Go back to spouting your half-witted Tea Bagger bullshit to the indignant 60 year-old white retirees that don't have the brains to realize the Koch brothers are driving their train. Go back to the CNN forums.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.