Talk:United States of America Voyage Tips and guide

I'm challenging this edit by User:The dog2 which pulled out the introductory passage explaining what is CBP and how arriving passengers are funneled to see them.

The edit summary for that revert was as follows: "Please take it to the talk page. 'Immigration' is standard across the world. And being funneled into an inspection area is standard across the world when you are arriving on an international flight."

Well, the part introducing CBP is necessary to explain which agency one is dealing with at that stage because the United States has two separate agencies that deal with visitors: the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the U.S. Department of State and Customs and Border Protection of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. "Immigration" is too vague because it can refer to three different things depending upon context: the two definitions explained at length in Wiktionary plus the agency responsible for that process.

CBP is a clear and unambiguous reference to the agency that handles arriving visitors. In formal written English, it is customary to introduce acronyms at the first reference. The deletion has resulted in a poorly written article that is difficult to follow because it suddenly refers to CBP without explaining what that is.

Anyone who is an experienced international traveler would not write: "And being funneled into an inspection area is standard across the world when you are arriving on an international flight". Actually, most international hub airports outside of the United States and Canada do not force arriving international passengers to go through immigration and customs inspection. The United States and Canada are the outliers on this issue. I recommend getting out of the house and flying across some continents. I've vacationed on six. Twice.

Any objections before I revert that improper revert? Coolcaesar (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I object. All the information a traveler needs is in the reverted version. The one thing I agree with you on is that if we decide to use the abbreviation CBP, we should spell it out in parentheses the first time.

It's also a bit funny that you are trying to tell The dog2, a Singaporean, to "get out of the house and fly across some continents." He could have hardly traveled further to get to this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I object for the same reasons as Ikan Kekek. And lol about "I recommend getting out of the house and flying across some continents. I've vacationed on six. Twice." – someone clearly didn't read The dog2's userpage. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't object to spelling out what CBP stands for in full. But there is no country I have been to where you can arrive on an international flight without going through immigration and customs. Most countries in fact also make you go through immigration when you leave; the U.S., UK and Canada are the outliers with regard to this. The dog2 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are many countries where you don't go through customs if you are transferring between international flights. This mainly should go in the airport articles, but is worth briefly mentioning here, as readers may assume that they don't pass through customs if they are getting straight on to a flight to Mexico etc. AlasdairW (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We should always spell out non-obvious acronyms. I wouldn't know what CBP is, although I don't go to the US very often. CoolCaesar, please live up to your name. Insulting other editors is not cool, and it is not welcome in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with User:AlasdairW in regard to what transit passengers have to be subjected to. That should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We already do cover the fact that passengers transiting between international flights in the U.S. have to pass through immigration in the "By plane" section, but perhaps it could be better highlighted to make it more obvious. But being funneled into a sterile corridor towards immigration when you get off an international flight is hardly unique to the U.S. That's standard practice for international arrivals in most countries of the world. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think another point which favors the original, shorter draft is the length of this article. It's already long and we shouldn't add further information unless it's necessary.

If this information applies all over the world, perhaps it could be part of a travel topic? Although I've traveled internationally, I've never traveled to a country where I'm not a citizen, so I think there is an audience for which a description of immigration at airports is valuable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, I would say "most countries" only if you mean "very small countries". It is not standard practice in most large ones. Apart from the United States and Canada, that's standard practice only at airports that operate as spokes, not hubs, meaning that arriving passengers are terminating their journeys there. So yes, I've seen that in Aruba, Curacao, and the Bahamas, where all arriving passengers go straight to immigration.

Statistically speaking, most people don't live in small countries. They live in big ones (or in the case of the Schengen Area, a lot of small and midsize countries trying to act like a big country).

Most countries hosting hub airports in Europe, Asia, Central America, South America and Oceania allow arriving international passengers to exit from aircraft directly into the sterile area of the terminal.

In the United States and Canada, there is no choice. Everyone is funneled straight to immigration, even if it's only for a layover before their next flight out of the country.

DHS used to have a Transit Without Visa program which still required a full immigration inspection, and an International-to-International Transit program in which passengers were held in transit lounges. Both programs were suspended in 2003. American Airlines now supports direct ITI transit for baggage but transit passengers still must go through U.S. immigration.

A writer always keeps the needs of their audience in mind. If you regularly followed traveler forums on Tripadvisor, Reddit, or other travel sites, you would notice that for over twenty years, this issue has been driving people crazy who are trying to fly between Europe and Central America. Many of the cheapest routes often involve at least one stop in the United States or Canada. They take sterile transit for granted everywhere else. They are very frustrated with the United States and Canada for not allowing sterile transit and for forcing all arriving passengers directly into immigration inspection.

If they can't qualify to enter, or they feel that qualifying would be too difficult or too expensive, then they have to pay more money to fly through Copa Airlines's Hub of the Americas at Tocumen International Airport in Panama City, which does allow for sterile transit.

People read Wikivoyage articles specifically to learn about these kinds of things that can massively disrupt their travel plans. It means the difference between booking cheaper nonrefundable flights and then simply walking to the next flight, versus having to book more expensive refundable flights (in case a visa doesn't come through in time) and spending months trying to get a transit visa as a prerequisite to commencing the journey. We have an article on Avoiding travel through the United States for this very reason. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, I just realized. I did challenge this edit above and I had completely forgotten that I had initiated that earlier conversation. I was too busy earlier today to first refresh my memory on the entire talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Did you read my comment? I said that part about having to pass through immigration for international transit is always written under "By plane". And I've changed flights in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, the UK and other countries. You still have to disembark the plane into the sterile corridor to immigration. Somewhere along the way, there will a security checkpoint for transit passengers to head to departure hall so they don't need to pass through immigration, but you still have to disembark into the sterile arrivals corridor. The dog2 (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The USA article of our travel guide, which is already very long, is not the place to teach people how to behave in every possible circumstance. Miss Manners (w:Judith Martin) has been writing newspaper columns on this subject since 1978 and has published 17 books on correct etiquette in the USA. Wikivoyage should not try to compete with her. If editors think we need to teach readers how to handle every possible circumstance, start a branch article. My experience with Americans is that they are not as easy to offend as this section suggests. Ground Zero (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that some sections can be cut:

• "Americans tend to be inquisitive. Foreigners can expect to be asked about their home country, their vocation, and so on." I would disagree; compared to other cultures, I would say Americans have a stronger "mind your own business" attitude regarding curiosity toward others.
• "Americans often identify with the countries of their ancestry, even if several generations of ancestors were born in the US. This self-labeling is understood and considered correct in the American context." I'm not sure this matters to a visitor/traveler.
• "Punctuality is valued: being five minutes late for a meeting is not usually a problem, but if you will be any later, try to call or text beforehand." I would say this is reasonably true in the East, but I'm not sure it is all over the U.S. so I don't know that we should include it here.
• "Americans often draw a strong distinction between their work and personal life. It is generally inappropriate to inquire about someone's personal life in a professional context." Also quite obvious.
• "Calling someone by their last name is more formal, and with rare exceptions is always done with "Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss", or with a professional title with the last name (e.g., "Doctor", "Professor" or "Officer"). Such professional titles can also be used alone without a name. If you don't know someone's name, use "sir/ma'am". If you're still not certain, it's safer to be polite and use last names. Many people will soon respond with "Please, call me [first name]". Or, you can ask someone how they would like to be addressed." Everything except the first sentence of that bullet point just seems extraneous to me.

I think the other information is helpful to the traveler. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some comments:

• The level of curiosity varies across people. I don't think it is important to try to generalise here, unless people in the US really stand out compared to most of the world – but we do warn about people asking personal questions in some country articles.
• I think that a 19th-century immigrant telling you they are Irish/whatever may be confusing for people from elsewhere. Here in Finland, I wouldn't know such distant ancestry for most of my acquaintances, and somebody saying that they are Irish would suggest they themself immigrated (unless qualified in some way).
• Punctuality may be important to mention for visitors from countries with a different culture. Be there on the minute if you can, but is it odd to send an SMS if you will be only half a minute late?
• The distinction between work and personal life isn't at all obvious. In Iran, you have to get acquainted before you can do business, which includes knowing about family (or so I've understood).
• There is a problem with the bullet on addressing people, which isn't so much about unnecessary information, but unclear advice. If somebody says "Hi, I'm Joe", then obviously I can call him by first name, but if somebody says "may I introduce you to doctor John Doe", then I would use "doctor Doe". If somebody says "this is John Doe", then I wouldn't be sure and would default to Mr. Doe, letting him ask me to use his first name. Is that a good strategy? It isn't obvious from the bullet – telling what people usually do isn't very helpful, as I don't know whether my situation is the usual one. I would not remove the sir/ma'am thing – to me saying so feels odd (especially towards young or informal-looking people), so I really have to be told about it. And what about my children (if I as an adult usually can use first names)?

–LPfi (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the others can be cut down, but I would leave the points on punctuality (not super captain obvious for people from some parts of the world) and work/personal life (also not nearly as clear in some parts of the world). LPfi makes a good point with the ancestry bit because I too (that definitely stumps me off too). --SHB (t | c | m) 22:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, genuine question, in Australia do people not see themselves as originating from Poland/UK/other countries of ancestry? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nah, not really. There are some people who do feel close to their country of ancestry, but almost all of them are 1st- or 2nd-gen migrants (and even then that's becoming rarer). --SHB (t | c | m) 02:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, I trust you all to know what should and shouldn't be cut. The one I think should be cut is that first point about curiosity. Beyond that, I can understand yall's points above. (Speaking of which, maybe that word deserves a mention.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree the curiosity bit deserves to go. --SHB (t | c | m) 03:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the American curiosity bit and the "work-life separation" line can both go. Even if it's not intuitive, it's mostly about avoiding too much personal talk at work, which tourists don't need to know. Explaining work culture is outside of scope in an article that already suffers from never-ending bloat. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We can probably remove the part on curiosity. This probably varies greatly depending on which group of people you hang out with. I've also seen guides about the U.S. that says that returning American expats should not talk too much about their experience living abroad because Americans are just not interested in what happens outside the borders of the U.S. And regarding work-life separation, one difference I can point out is that in Singapore, it is customary to invite you work colleagues and your boss to your wedding. In America, you don't because work is work and your wedding is your personal life. The dog2 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think most the stuff about work, other than basic things like expectations of punctuality, could be farmed out to Working in the United States, with a summary like "See Working in the United States for some remarks specific to workplace behavior in the country." Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

By the way, if we do mention punctuality, expectations are very different for appointments (text if you're going to be more than 5 minutes late for an interview or other business meeting, more than 15 minutes late for a doctor's appointment), dinner parties (try to show up on time and text if you'll be more than 15 minutes late), and any other type of party (if you show up less than an hour after the scheduled start, you are early and may be expected to help set things up). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

:-)

So this requires at least a short explanation. Over here being 15 minutes late for a doctor's appointment, you probably have missed it – you are expected to show up at least 15 minutes early to be ready to enter at the minute. I suppose that for this article, what is there seems enough for appointments, but we should explain that those arriving "early" to parties may be expected to help. If you might embarrass the host by showing up on time (which you could do here if turning up more than a quarter before the advertised time), then we should have a warning. –LPfi (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're not likely to miss a doctor's appointment by showing up 15 minutes late, but you may have to wait longer, and it's polite to let them know you're running late. You definitely never want to show up early for a regular (not dinner) party! I ordinarily never show up less than an hour after the starting time. For a dinner party, if you show up early, you might not be let in, and therefore you should call the host if you're running early, but if you are let in, you may be expected to help prepare things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the reason why it's offensive should be explained. Be that as it may that most Asian tourists know about World War II, people don't instinctively associate the Swastika with the Nazis in many parts of Asia like they do in the West. Growing up, I associated the Swastika with Buddhism rather than Nazism, and I wouldn't have known that displaying it would be offensive to a Westerner. The reason may be obvious to a Westerner, but it is not to someone from an Asian country where Swastikas are regularly used as a religious symbol. The dog2 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, I want to point out that in much of Asia, the focus when it comes to World War II is on Japan's occupation of much of East and Southeast Asia. Educated people know about the Nazis in Europe in passing, but it's not something that comes to people's mind very often. The dog2 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that this delves way too far into situations that are very unlikely to arise. When I have been to Asia, I have not seen people wearing swastikas on street clothes. I have seen them in temples. I don't believe that an Asian tourists is going to bring a temple with them on their visit to the USA. If any of our American contributors think there is a problem with Asian tourists wearing swastikas around town, then sure let's include the explanation. Otherwise, let's keep it brief. Or create an "Etiquette in the United States" article to address every extremely unlikely occurrence that contributors might think of to warn travellers about.

Sadly, I think it us far more likely to see Americans wearing swastikas in order to offend people, than it is to see Asian tourists doing so unintentionally. Ground Zero (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Asian tourists may carry good luck charms from Buddhist temples that have Swastikas on them. And if you go to a Buddhist temple in Asia, the temple volunteers may sometimes wear shirts that have Swastikas printed on them. We would want to avoid a situation where one of those temple volunteers visits the U.S. as a tourist and offends people by wearing the shirt with a Swastika on it. The dog2 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

How likely is that to happen? I am asking other editors, because you are clearly wedded to this edit. Ground Zero (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. The entire situation is hypothetical. It is enough to say it is highly offensive and leave it at that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would this cause more offence in America than in a country like France that was occupied by the Germans? In Europe there are warnings on the pages for Germany, Hungary and Austria where displaying a swastika is a criminal offence, but not other countries where people might be offended. I am not sure that we need to mention swastikas. AlasdairW (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

America has lots of Jews so that makes it especially offensive there. Virtually every American Jew has lost family members to the Holocaust. But what I'm saying is that yes, I understand that the association of the Swastika with Nazism is obvious to Western tourists, but to someone visiting from say, India, China or Japan, it's not obvious. The dog2 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If we mention the Swastika, we can also mention the reason. Now we do and it fits on one line – shortening that line would do a disservice to the few travellers who need the advice. But would a temple volunteer really pack that shirt when travelling to the USA? Would it be confused with a Nazi symbol, would those good luck charms be? –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

So far, my experience is that most Americans are not aware that the Swastika is also used as a religious symbol unless they have spent a lot of time living or travelling in Asia, so any Swastika will automatically be seen as a Nazi symbol. There was a case of Pokemon cards having to be removed from distribution in the U.S. because they had Swastikas on them. There's also a case here of a Chinese retailer having to pull a necklace out of the U.S. market because it had Swastika pendant. The dog2 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply