No customs...no passport control....follow signs for airline transfer.....you will go through a security check whether you remain in same terminal or different terminal but at no point, if your baggage has been checked through will you go through passport control....

If the stamp in your passport annoys you, why don't you report your passport lost and get a new one?

I figured they have some sort of electronic record of my detainment and it would show up and look suspicious that I "lost" it right after the incident.

Thank you for the comforting words about the airline transfer.

It will definitely be in their computer system, and if you do go through UK passport control again at some point you will likely be more thoroughly questioned. However, if you are legally ok to visit the UK you should be fine. Just more questions. I'd be prepared with name and print out of hotel reservations and return flight information and be ready to answer questions about last time...

This time you wont go through passport control so shouldnt have any problems.

As long as you stay airside (follow signs for Flight Connections) you won't have to worry about UK immigration.

What Italian immigration will say if they see the "denied entry" mark is another thing.

Good point about the Italian passport control. I would definitely bring proof of your return flight and where you are staying. And be prepared to explain the situation easily and clearly to officials if they ask what happened.

Some of the people who have answered above answer lots of questions and seem to be very seasoned travelers. So I don't get it - I can't ever remember landing in Europe after a flight from the US and not having to go through passport control in that first country. Regardless of bags checked through, no bags checked, etc. I always recall passport control at that first destination (in the OP case, LHR)and not the second country (in this case Italy)( unless the second country is outside the EU, in which case passport control at both airports).

The difference, Isabel, is in the airports, not the countries. In some European airports, and LHR is one of them, you can stay "airside" and *not* go through passport control. In many (most?) European airports, it's not possible to stay airside, and you do have to go through passport control.

I'm pretty sure that you do not have to go through passport control, since I once got lost in Heathrow, went through passport control accidentally (despite my repeatedly telling them that I wasn't supposed to be there, since I was trying to make my connection to Shannon), and nearly missed my plane. The plane people confirmed that I had been lost, and Irish passport control was a little annoyed that they had stamped me in Britain, rather than just pointing me in the right direction. Now this was years ago, so it may have changed, and points up how easy it is to get misdirected in Heathrow.

" I always recall passport control at that first destination (in the OP case, LHR)and not the second country (in this case Italy)( unless the second country is outside the EU, in which case passport control at both airports)."

Either your memory is wrong, or you're misapplying limited experience.

If your baggage is through-checked to your final destination and you're changing planes en route, the international standard practice is that you don't go through immigration until you arrive in the Common Travel Area where your journey terminates.

So if you're changing planes in London for a destination other than the UK or the Irish Republic you don't go through immigration at London. It's irrelevant whether that next destination is France or Azerbaijan: they're both foreign (France obviously more so: we've spent most of the past 1,000 years at war with them)

"unless the second country is outside the EU, in which case passport control at both airports" is universally untrue.

The belief that one goes through immigration at the "first destination" is a confusion either with the US (which, almost without exception, forces transiting passengers through immigration - and fingerprinting, photography and all the rest - whether they want to stay in the US or not, but that's a piece of gratuitous nastiness to foreign visitors unique to the US) or with the system in Schengen, where transit passengers to the Schengen destinations go through immigration at the first SCHENGEN airport

PS. I hope the OP sued the employers who sent her to work abroad without a work permit and potentially screwed up her future foreign travel as a result!

What sort of company sends someone abroad to work without getting the right visa first.

Isabel, you are confusing the EU with Schengen. The two aren't the same. One is a common trading area, the other is a common travel area.

When you first enter the common travel area your passport is checked if your next destination is within the common travel area. The UK isn't a member of that common travel area, hence there's no need to have your passport checked if you stay airside.

The UK does however share a common travel area with Ireland therefore if you arrive in the UK for a destination in the Republic your passport would be checked

OP

Presuming that you don't want to miss meeting up with your boyfriend then I would strongly suggest you contact the Consulate of both the UK and Italy before leaving. This could clarify everything before departure.

You are probably not on a non-fly list but just as the UK and others deliver lists of passengers to the US before departure the same happens in the other direction so you will probably be flagged on your arrival in the UK so it it is better to have sorted things out before departure with hard copy in hand.

As far as Italy is concerned you will still have to go through passport control (passport control is one control and customs is another) as the UK is not in the Schengen area. Your name could also be flagged on Italian passport control computers due to data sharing so I suggest you do not clear things only with the UK authorities.

Love sometimes means you have to go that extra mile!

Thanks alan, that makes it more clear. I haven't actually transferred through LHR (always stayed in the UK at least for a few days) but recently transferred through both Madrid and Paris and in both cases the passport was checked there even though I was just transferring through to someplace else.

Last year we connected at LHR on our way to Brussels - no passport control in LHR as we didn't technically enter the UK.

I don't think it will be a problem to enter Italy with the entry denial from the UK due to the work visa issue - will just probably result in some extra questions. I do think that checking it out on the Italian side is a good idea though, just to be sure - there is probably a web site with the information on it.

Also good advice about making sure you have all your information in order - receipt for your onward flight, name address and phone number of where you will be staying, etc.

What sort of company sends someone abroad to work without getting the right visa first.

It isn't clear that the OP actually needed a visa or that they actually violated any law. As long as the OP is an American citizen, their salary was paid by they US entity, and they didn't take the place of a 'local', then a 3 month assignment could readily fall under the business visitor category. We could simply be dealing with a confused or overzealous immigration agent.

travelgourmet - I was thinking the same thing. We have overseas contracts in my company and sometimes do work on-site in other countries. Next week I am going to Spain to do just that. No visa needed because we are business travelers, not foreign workers - our salaries and expenses are paid by our own company. A visa is only necesary if someone is going to overstay their 90 days.

I could see how an immigration agent might draw the wrong conclusion depending on how questions are answered though.

"I am here to do some work for company X in the UK" is very different from "I work for company X in the US and we have a contract with company Y in the UK - I am here on assignment as part of that contract."

i agree with Nov...never, ever, ever say that you are going anywhere to 'work' unless you really are going to work with the proper work permit. 'work' + no permit = nightmare (in any country).

we britons fingerprint all foreign visitors at heathrow so we can certainly find everyone in our databases. we do not respect the privacy and human rights of foreign visitors on our shores. sad really that our agents are so aggressive and unaccomodating to visitors. it's a dark day and i'm ashamed to be a briton.

"we britons fingerprint all foreign visitors at heathrow"

NO WE DON'T. People applying for visas for the UK are fingerprinted as part of the application process. But there isn't a requirement to fingerprint everyone who enters the UK by the front door - not even at LHR.

sorry...yes you are correct. we do not fingerprint ALL foreigners...only those from the poor, browner countries that require visas. so it's ok.

My hubby was fingerprinted this past summer as he was still on a spousal visa when we arrived at the airport from a trip to Italy. And he is caucasian.

Fingerprinting also those from rich countries who apply for a visa to study, to work, to settle etc.

Well you guys should, at least all Americans as a retaliation of the idiotic fingerprinting and photographing of visitors when they arrive in the USA. What's good for the goose is good for the gander or something like that.

Canada has tightened things up for business travellers - maybe it is a result of goose and gander thinking, I don't know. We now need a letter of invitation from the company we are visiting plus a letter from our own company that states that we have a job and will be fully supported by our company while in Canada - even to attend professional conferences.

When I went to Ontario a couple weeks ago, I was asked some questions, but not asked for these letters. But, someone who works with my husband didn't have these letters and was denied entry.

>>>>>
We now need a letter of invitation from the company we are visiting plus a letter from our own company that states that we have a job and will be fully supported by our company while in Canada - even to attend professional conferences.
>>>>>

what? if you go from america to canada for a 3 day conference or week of sales meetings you need a letter from your employer and/or one from the company you are visiting? that's madness.

Thats odd Nov-moon. I went to Canada 2 weeks ago on a business trip - was doing a due diligence visit to a company we sub-advise for - and they didnt ask me for anything. Just asked what I was going to be doing and let me through! I was traveling on my UK passport.

"we britons fingerprint all foreign visitors at heathrow"

walkingaround, you talk a load of crap.

hooamaey, if you read on you'll notice that i acknowledged by mispeaking and (unlike most people here) i quickly corrected by mistake.

we britons fingerprint everyone who needs a visa to enter britain (largely the poorest, brownest and most vulnerable in the world). at the same time we britons hold ourselves to a higher moral standard because we think that it's only the americans who fingerprint foreigners. at least the americans treat all visitors the same way with regards to fingerprinting.

"(largely the poorest, brownest and most vulnerable in the world). " as well as everyone - including Americans & Austrlaians - who need to apply for a visa to enter the UK. So it's not "brownest", it's general and applies to Whitey just as much. There are also several "brown" countries - notably South American ones - where you don't need a visa to enter the UK as a tourist.

So stop spouting carp.

wakjubariybd,,,,most of the Western European countries have traditionally (this predates the formation of the eu and agreements such as schengen) have not required visas obviously for each other and for Americans, Canadians, Aussies, New Zealanders the ratinale probably being since their ways of life are more or less on an equal levels, there would not be a rush of people coming in as visitors and wanting to stay. It happens to make sense. Before the idotic fingerprinting and photographing started, the USA's list of visa waiver countries were generally based on the same idea. I really don't see a problem with that.

"hooamaey, if you read on you'll notice that i acknowledged by mispeaking and (unlike most people here) i quickly corrected by mistake.

we britons fingerprint everyone who needs a visa to enter britain (largely the poorest, brownest and most vulnerable in the world). at the same time we britons hold ourselves to a higher moral standard because we think that it's only the americans who fingerprint foreigners. at least the americans treat all visitors the same way with regards to fingerprinting."

"We Britons" think you're a lamb shank.

Glad to see this turn into the typical sanctimonious whining from some of our British friends about fingerprints and photographs in the US. Were they equally up in arms about Japan, Korea, or Thailand, then perhaps I would take it as something other than reflexive whining about the US.

Frankly, it is sad. I can't imagine being from a country so uncomfortable in its own skin, that the entire national identity seems wrapped up in being "not-American".

No it's just that walkinaround has an interesting angle on the truth and (s)he needs to be corrected

Of course the reason for the tighting of security was due to 9/11. Guess the Brits have forgotten, we hanen't.

Perhaps we could mention the British surveillance cameras all over the place?

Oh dear, why does a simple, reasonable request for help have to end up in yet another Transatlantic slanging match?

Control yourselves.

Hooameye were you happy with last night's result ?

Walkin, do you like anything about the UK? It seems you do not like living there.

jamikins and walkinaround - Yes, these are the new rules. I think it is nuts too. They aren't asking for these letters from everyone, but some are being turned back if they are asked and don't have them. I was just asked a bunch of questions, which I guess satisfied the border agent. A colleague wasn't asked hardly anything. No one asked either of us for the letters - we entered through Toronto.

Several people from my company are in Vancouver this week for a conference - the first we heard of this new requirement was when we got an email from the conference host with the letter of invitation attached. I am interested to know how many had to produce the letters and how many were let in without them. I am also interested to know whether this new requirement will affect Canada's conference and convention business.

Here's the link from the Canadian citizenship and immigration site:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/business-arriving.asp

That's interesting, november_moon - the link doesn't sound like you have to have a letter if you're just attending a conference (rather than doing work). If I were reading it without any other information, at least, I wouldn't interpret it that way. But I went to a conference in Vancouver in August, and our registration packet included a letter like the one you describe. I didn't have one from my university, though, and was never asked for either.

(I was, however, made to smile by the US customs agent in Toronto who was convinced that I have dimples in my passport photo. For the record, I have never in my life had dimples.)

jent....were you travelling to or from Tornto via the USA..if so then I believe you have to put up with our paranoia and have your mug shot taken as well as your fingerprints. If it weren't so ridiculous, it would almost be laughable. And for all my countrymen who try to defend this, remember the 9/11 bombers entered the USA legally and not from Canada like John McCain and Napolitano try to tell us in defending the absurd bortder crossing regulations with Canada. Funny how the European countries have been taking down borders despite a history of conflict and the USA has put them up against their closest neighbor who, for the most part, they can count on for help. BTW did you hear the one how there was a fire in a border town in the USA near the Canadian border and the Canadian fire department on the way to helop was held up at the border because they didn't have proper passports. Such paranoia on our side, such paranoia. We're talking about citizens of our allies, you know Britain, France etc. If I were them, I would be incensed about it too.

xyz, I'm from the US and flew Nashville-Vancouver and back via Toronto. No mug shots taken at any time, to the best of my knowledge. The agent in Toronto (where I went through US customs) was just very uncertain about my passport photo versus my actual face...

you people are funny. we britons climbed up on our moral high ground when america started fingerprinting. we were completey outraged at this 'injustice'. then in a matter of months, we britons started fingerprinting also. then you did not hear a peep from us britons about america fingerprinting. it all just went away. logically this is all wrong. we britons can't control what happens in another country and we britons should feel MORE moral outrage when an 'injustice' is occurring in our own country rather than some foreign country. are we complaining about our own fingerprinting...no but we just make up bizarre excuses to explain why are fingerprinting is not a moral outrage like americas - we just fingerprint people from poor countries who need visas...we fingerprint fingers on the left hand while america fingerprints the right hand...etc, etc.

we britons are an odd lot!

jent...I read your response quickly...when you mentioned mug shot by the US asgent in Toronto, I assumed you were not a US citizen or green card holder or holder of a Canadian passport because those are the ones exempt from the fingeprinting and photographing. If you are a US citizen or resident, no photo or fingerprint would be taken so I didn't follow all your responses and agree it would be odd for the US immigration official to take your mug shot.

walkinaround....all countries more or less don't have one set of reg regarding visiting their countries...they have many dependiing on a number of factors including their relationships with various countries. Thus for a long time, probably before many of those on this board were born, all visitors to the USA required visas to enter the USA except citizens of Canada and Mexico. I always thought that funny as I (a US passport holder) did not require a visa to enter most NATO countries...after all we were all supposedly close friends. We, of course, required visas to enter countries behind the Iron Curtain and need all sorts of pre paid travel arrangements say to enter the USSR. We even needed a visa to enter Japan (I went back to my first passport which I still hve and took a tour of Japan in 1973 and sure enough there is this large Japanese visa in my passport which I had to get before the trip; luckily living in New York City it was no big deal to stop by the Japanese consulate in NY and leave my passport one day and get my Japanese visa the next.

Sometime in the 1980's I believe, the USA enacted the visa waiver program. As I understand it, I could be corrected on this, citizens of certain countries (mostly the NATO countries as well as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Switzerland) were allowed to enter the USA as a tourist without a visa (it was called visa waiver); that is the green form that was used for years and I think is still used which is stapled into your passport and given up when leaving the country. Not that the immigration department had any real way to track your comings and going and never checked upon departure that yo had left within the 90 days or whtever the visa waiver was good for. To this day, there is no passport control leaving the USA; it is the responsibility of the airline to check you have a passport and take that green form from the passport.

Also somewhere along the way, visas were no longer required for US citizens visiting Japan. Australia also for a while required a visa of US citizens (not Canadians commonwealth buddies) but that was dropped too.

There were all sorts of fights as the Iron Curtain parted about adding countries who were now supposedly good guys to the visa waiver program. I think Czech Republic was added byt Poland was not which kind of annoyed the Poles who considered themselves to be close friends of the US (or maybe this happened later).

Along came 11 September 2001. All sorts of investigations, reports, innuendos whatever. The bottom line is it was claimed the US border controls were poor and all sorts of things added with complaints that our Nato allies were not as vigilant about granting status to some of our enemiess. thus was born the fingerprinting and photographing which continues to this day of all visitors to the country, visa waiver or not with the exception being holders of Canadian passports (they still have to go on the non USA citizen queue when arriving on an international flight but they need not fill out a visa waiver form nor have their mug shot taken and fingerprint taken). Along with this came th eidiotic addition of requiring passports to cross the US-Canadian border with some of the idiotys saying well this was necessary because some of the 9/11 vermin had entered the USA from Canada. To this day, this is absurd. There are some towns in upstat New York, Vermont, where the USA/Canadian border goes right down the middle of a street so something akin to the Berlin Wall had to be built. Citizens of these towns for years used each other's services, just crossed the street between one country and the other. There were even some houses where the living romm was in the USA and the bed rooms in Canada. Nobody cared. We and the Canadians although we had some minor differences in foreign policy and other things were very closely related and very close friends for the most part. Kids in upstate New York, say in Plattsburgh wouldn't think twice of getting in their car, driving 60 miles to spend an evening in Montreal with its fine restaurants (and lower drinking age and at one time cheaper gasoline because of the lower Canadian dollar, boy have times changed).

It is asinine and everybody knows it really doesn't add one iota of protection, just like so many of the other things we are subjected to such as taking our shoes off when we fly or taking our computers out of the cases for a visual inspection. But it makes people feel safer. As far as Britain is concerned, they don't require visas for US citizens as well as Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and many others for a normal 60 day visit. No finger printing, no mug shots, just a quick glance at your passport, how long will you be staying in the UK, have a nice time. Whereas for other countries, just like all countries, they require visas and fingerprinting and the like. I totally understnad that and obviously have no stake in what they decide to do but I wouldn't have a problem if citizens of certain known terrorist countries entering the USA were required to have visas and the like.

But this has to be a two way street. If my country wants pre-registration from Brits coming to the USA and finger prints them and taks their mug shots, the Brits should do the same to me. I would be incensed but I would blame my own government for its paranoia.

Incidentally just to show where we're at in our country, both John McCain and Director of Homeland Security Napolitano in trying to defend the situation at the USA/Canadian border most assuredly answered it was necessary because some of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country from Canada. Can you believe the lack of inteligence that so many of our so called leaders display. You know why there's is this controversy at the US/Candian border? Because there is a real problerm at the US/Mexican border and if they were looser controls at the Northern border, the familiar cry of racism would fill the air.

Nobody took my photo as I was going through customs/immigration. The agent was scrutinizing my passport photo, because apparently it looks slightly different from my actual face, at least to him (though he's the only one who's ever questioned it).

Well all I can say is I had no problem. I arrived in the USA in Philly on a UK passport strictly for business. No problem with the border, having done my 'visa' online. Cant remember the requirement. Did get fingerprinted, but I dont really care, I am entering another country and will abide by their rules.

Flew from Chicago to Winnipeg, declared was there on business, had no problem crossing on a UK passport - this was Oct 24. Took about 30 seconds.

No issues at all crossing the CDN border, so if they have implemented something recently it is not being applied with any standard across border crossings.

PS: I am also a CDN citizen but didnt use my CDN passport at all on this business trip.

It is asinine and everybody knows it really doesn't add one iota of protection, just like so many of the other things we are subjected to such as taking our shoes off when we fly or taking our computers out of the cases for a visual inspection.

I've never seen this proven anywhere. I've seen a lot of people claim that it doesn't add any protection, but I've never seen anyone back it up with even a scintilla of evidence. I am eager to see the proof that you surely must possess.

Personally, I would like people to be forthright about what they know vs don't know. Barring you being a legitimate security expert (preferably with significant scholarship to point to), I would think that the best you can claim is that you, as a layperson, remain unconvinced of the merits of the border controls/security procedures/etc. My guess is that, while the processes could be improved, that they are not completely worthless.

Then again, I don't wear a tinfoil hat.

If my country wants pre-registration from Brits coming to the USA and finger prints them and taks their mug shots, the Brits should do the same to me.

Again, it isn't the complaining, it is the fact that our friends only complain about the US. I have never seen anyone on this board criticize the Japanese for fingerprinting visitors. I have never seen anyone on this board whine about being photographed by Thai immigration authorities. I have never seen anyone on this board cry about the Australian ETA.

Since those that complain loudly about the US system do not complain about the many systems that have similar requirements, one is left to question whether those folks actually care about the principle or if they just want to complain about the US. My money is on the latter.

Okay...travelgourmet so you believe things you hear from Secretary Napolitano, you know the genius who told us after the Christmas Day bomber was subdued on the plane near Detroit how the system had worked and as I noted who believes that some of the 9/11 vermin came into the US from Canada.

To each his or her own I suppose.

"Walkin, do you like anything about the UK? It seems you do not like living there."

From the phrases and the way he/she writes , I don't think he/she lives in the UK.

So... xyz123, I take it that you are tacitly admitting:

a) That you have no evidence that the precautions do not work, and
b) That you are not actually a security expert.

Why, then, should I believe you when you say it is all for show? I have a pretty low opinion of government, but not so low that I am willing to believe every crackpot on the internet when they tell me that the government MUST be wrong because, well, they are the government.

I mean, let's assume that I have a very low opinion of Ms. Napolitano. She is still competent enough to be nominated and confirmed into a relatively important position. More importantly, she presides over an agency that seeks to employ security experts. Even if we assume that they stink at finding people, there must be one or two good people there. Those people certainly have more knowledge than you or I.

Healthy skepticism is fine. But to think that I am in a position to 'know' that the procedures don't do anything, despite having no specialized knowledge, despite having no access to privileged information, and despite not spending my working hours researching the subject, is flatly absurd. For you to make the claim is, well, even more absurd, since your contribution so far suggests you have thought about the subject even less than I have.

tg - an accountant, not a security expert and man enough to admit it...

Simple the return of a political debt. I don't know of anybody who thinks she has the slightest competency for the job (do a google search) and no less an expert than the President of British Airways lambasted the BAA for kow towing to some of the simplistic requirements imposed on the UK government that have to be carried out unless flights to the USA would be put in a separate terminal including the removal of lap tops from cases and the shoe thing. (The liquids too but we have to blame our British friends for that and after all, if you don't allow people to bring liquids through security, think how much the overpriced concessions on the other side of the security can charge for items such as water, sodas whatever)....I trust him to be knwoledgeable in these matters.

But I suppose if all this makes people feel safer, who am I to complain, right.

no less an expert than the President of British Airways

It was the Chairman, not the president.

And no less an expert? He has never actually worked in airline operations, nor has he ever worked, AFAIK, in any security-related job. He is a former tobacco company executive (apparently, a finance guy). He might be a business expert, but there is pretty much no evidence he knows anything about security.

I trust him to be knwoledgeable in these matters.

You don't trust him. You don't even know who the hell he is. He simply agrees with your prejudice and you are going to latch onto it as proof. That's fine, I guess. Just do us all a favor and don't pass somebody off as an expert unless you actually know who they are and they are, you know, an expert.

who am I to complain, right.

You can complain all you want. I'm just saying that you haven't shown any reason why anyone should take your complaints seriously.

same difference but we're getting nowhere....so I won't bother any longer but much of it is still, in my opinion,nonsense.

>>>>>
Again, it isn't the complaining, it is the fact that our friends only complain about the US.
>>>>>


let's be clear...this was not just 'complaining' about america fingerprinting...it was a vigourous charge by us britons that america is injust and treating visitors inhumanely by fingerprinting. it was not about the detailed rules about fingerprinting it was that the very act of fingerprinting is treating people like criminals and therefore inhumane, unjust, etc.

this is a very important distinction because we britons are now trying to argue that britain's fingerprinting is done to fewer people (e.g. only those who need a visa to enter). however, this is completely illogical because if it is unjust and inhumane, then it should not be done at all. wouldn't you agree? although perhaps i missed one or two comments, i have never seen a briton lash out at british fingerprinting like they have for american fingerprinting. i have only seen we britons DEFENDING our fingerprinting as 'not as bad as america's'. we britons are a bizarre lot!

hooameye...many britons here just play for team briton with blind patriotism. many are delusional, provincial and have strange views about britain vis a vis the rest of the world. arguing against views does not mean i hate britain. likewise, criticising britain and recognising its faults does not mean i hate it.