Talk:United States border preclearance

message: I live in Toronto, and go through preclearance at the airport here several times a year.  I've always wondered -- who are these pre-clearance agents???
Are they American Citizens? Canadian Citizens? Dual Citizens? Do they live in Canada full time, or are they from other border posts and doing a "Canadian Rotation"? Do they need a work visa?!? Is there housing for them?
:I suspect they are staffed from the nearest US city bureau on secondment in rosters, for example, those working at Niagara Falls and Buffalo Bureau may get a shift at Pearson for part of his/her work. --JNZ (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They clearance airport is a post all by itself, they are US citizens, live in Canada, and have some sort of special visa that authorizes them to live in Canada while working for the CBP. --07:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Who are the agents?

message: Howabout flights originating from a third country and proceeding to the United States with a stopover in Canada?  If that airline takes passengers from Canada onward to the United States such as Philippine Airlines which has a route Manila-Vancouver-Las Vegas or Cathay Pacific which has a Hong Kong-Vancouver-JFK route, do all passengers there need to undergo pre-clearance or will they have to clear CBP inspections at the US port of entry?  
Also, what is the order of pre-clearance in Canada?  Immigration -> Customs -> Check-in?  Customs -> Check-in -> Immigration?  
You may want to include those points in the article because I am not sure how they work.  --58.69.4.249 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my personal experience in Vancouver (from some years back), it is Check-in -> Immigration -> Customs. (They won't let you go to the immigration desk without the boarding pass; and customs always  follow immigration, in US airports or border crossings as well). If one flies e.g. YHZ-YUL-EWR, one checks in in Halifax, but only goes thru US immigration and customs in YUL, on the way to his US-bound flight. Vmenkov 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Cathay example of HKG-YVR-JFK, passengers will go through US preclearance in Vancouver. As far as I know, they will not go through Canadian immigrations and customs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.248.39 (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge Cathay does not use preclearance. HkCaGu (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, Cathay does not use preclearance. Instead, people travelling from YVR to JFK will enter the international departure lounge instead of the preclearance lounge, and all passengers clear US customs in JFK. Briguychau (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  International flights and order of pre-clearance 

message: I recently came back from Toronto to New York last April... when I went thru pre-clearance, they only stamped (the admitted thing...) my boarding pass and my customs and declaration card, but they didn't stamp my passport. Shouldn't this be stated in the article? -chris^_^ 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not too different from the land borders: they sometimes stamp your passport, and sometimes don't, depending on your nationaliy and status on this visit. E.g., the US Immigration will (usually) stamp somebody's passport if he has to be issued a new I-94 (departure card); but if there is no I-94 (most Canadian citizens on a "visitor for business/pleasaure", i.e. B-1 or B-2 visit), or a the existing I-94 is reused (a Canadian or thrid-country national re-entering the US from Canada and reusing his I-94 issued on an earlier entry into the US), then the Americans usually don't bother stamping his passport. Vmenkov 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamped or not? 

message: It seems to me worth noting that not all flights out of the airports listed into the US use the preclearance facilities.  For instance, I flew from Bermuda to Baltimore a couple of years ago and we cleared customs at the airport in the US as usual.  Before putting in anything about it, it would be useful to determine why some flights use these faciliites and some don't. --Jfruh (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all flights... 

message: I know this article is about U.S. border preclearance, but it would be interesting to know about other countries.  I seem to remember an official passport check before boarding the London-Paris train, in both directions. Szu (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries? 

message: I once flew to Toronto from Auckland years ago.  On that flight I literally had two border clearances on the same day: US immigration at LAX, then a domestic flight to ORD, and finally a flight to YYZ that was nothing different from regular domestic flights at ORD (for US airlines, flights to Canada like other intl flights, mostly fly from their own terminals), but on arrival at YYZ I had to undergo immigration and customs and needed to fill in immigration forms - which is something you don't need for land border crossing points.  
Does anyone know if clearance procedures for passengers flying to Canada from the US is any different from flying to Canada from other countries, such as fewer forms, different immigration and customs counters or, and less procedures? --JNZ (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge - I have arrived to YVR (and occasionally other Canadian airports) many times on flights both from the US and from the "far abroad" (Mexico, or real "overseas" countries), and there was no difference - in fact, passengers coming from different international flights - whether from US or Europe or Asia - all come to the same passport check gates. Vmenkov (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Other Way (Flying from US to Canada) 

message: "U.S. government officials based in host countries can and do adopt a pedantic and overbearing attitude towards passengers."
This sentence should be deleted. During all my travels to the US for the last 25 years virtually all immigration staff proved to be pedantic and overbearing. This has nothing to to with preclearance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.114.7 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantic officials 

message: The Article says:
"A passenger can choose to abandon their flight and refuse search, and unlike in the United States, officers cannot search them."
But this rule seems so stupid that I just can't believe the U.S. government would ever agree to that. That is like inviting terrorists to go and have a try if they make it on the plane, but if they are found out they just turn away. That's now how things work.
So this probably needs to be deleted / updated.--192.138.214.100 (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't believe that1 

message: I recently added a POV-check tag due to the article containing words like 'supposedly' and 'theoretically,' which violates the WP:ALLEGED style guideline. Opinions on the neutrality would be appreciated.
Winterswift (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording is non-neutral 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States border preclearance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140126203639/http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/US-Customs-passenger-facility-opens-in-UAE-5176441.php to http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/US-Customs-passenger-facility-opens-in-UAE-5176441.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The U.S. government clearly states that preclearance is only for paxs that go through U.S. immigration and customs in a foreign country. USVI, Guam and CNMI are not legally foreign and hence border checks on these U.S. territories are NOT preclearance. Preclearance is a privilege enjoyed by the U.S. government on foreign soil, while Federal Government enjoys such power without prior authorization on U.S. soil. They can legally set up as many passport checkpoints as they want in a border zone. C-GAUN (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Preclearance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States border preclearance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608182147/http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2008/7/25/28787/Busiest-Dominican-airport-to-have-US-Customs-Immigration-station-Nuevo to http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2008/7/25/28787/Busiest-Dominican-airport-to-have-US-Customs-Immigration-station-Nuevo
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071126045759/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0367/D.0367.198606060003.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0367/D.0367.198606060003.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's clear at this point that the United States is the only country which calls this process preclearance.  And the term "preclearance" is used in only two contexts in U.S. law: this context and preclearance of changes to voting procedures under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In general, we don't include country names in article titles when the article subject under that specific name is unique to one country and hence there is no possibility for confusion. 
I propose renaming the article to Border preclearance.  What do others think? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is to rename it to USCBP Preclearance to show that it is US Customs and Border Protection running it. --OSSYULYYZ (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current name is appropriate. This is about the specific US program, not the concept in general, which is at Border_control#Prescreening, even if a different name. We should also avoid the acronym in the title. Reywas92Talk 19:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: At first I was going to say you're still not reading my proposal right, but then I thought it through some more and saw the real issue.  The Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance is a fully bilateral treaty.  Although it is unlikely the Canadians will ever exercise their right to implement border preclearance for outbound Canada-bound traffic in U.S. ports, the existence of that treaty implies that the United States is not the only country using the term "preclearance."  I suppose the current title will have to suffice for now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article title is way too long 

message: I think that this article should be expanded regarding the consequences for passengers who aren't travelling to the US but only have one single layover in the US, followed by a connecting flight to a third country. Let me illustrate this with an example: Let's say a Mexican national flies from Dublin to Mexico City. Itinerary is DUB-LHR-JFK-MEX. My understanding is that with this itinerary, our passenger would go through UK border controls in London. Preclearance would not occur as LHR doesn't do US preclearance. Upon arrival at JFK, US authorities would treat our passenger as a transit passenger - i. e. our passenger could just transfer from one international flight to another without the need to go through US border controls or customs. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.) Now what happens if the itinerary of this journey is changed?¹ And by that I mean something like DUB-JFK-MEX. Now the US-bound flight leaves from a preclearance airport which means that our Mexican guy has to go through preclearance in Dublin. Now what happens to our Mexican guy when he arrives at JFK? Does he have to go through border controls again to exit the US? Also to what extent will preclearance subject our Mexican guy to US immigration laws? Can he be denied boarding on the ground that he's not allowed to travel to the US? Does he need a US visa or visa waiver? To me, it looks like preclearance can be a dangerous trap for people who are just flying to the US for a layover.
(¹There is a good reason for not travelling DUB-LHR-JFK-MEX and rebooking such a ticket: As a result of Brexit, the UK and Ireland now have different immigration rules which means that some people can only travel either country but not both. Most notable example of this are EEA citizens who can travel to Ireland with just an ID card but need a passport for the UK. At the same time, however, the UK and Ireland still have a common travel area. No border controls between the UK and Ireland. This means that if you fly from Dublin to London but London is just a layover for an international connection, you have to exit the CTA in London. This means you have to go through British border controls and you have to comply with British immigration laws. I don't know if our Mexican guy would be allowed to go through the UK; Without further reasearch, I would clearly advise against flying DUB-LHR-JFK-MEX.)
-- Dynam1te3 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken, the US does not have international transfer zones. All transiting passengers must go through immigration, be it at the US airport upon arrival or via preclearance, and it won't matter which of these itineraries you choose. Reywas92Talk 13:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about transit passengers? 

message: The table of ports of entry pedantically lists the POE codes, but not the useful codes for travel planning, IATA (for airline planning) or ICAO (for flight plans).  Will anyone object if I add those colummns?  I'd shorten the title for the port of entry code column to POE code. Ydhirsch (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List