"No, but again, it is doubtful that the laws are intended to prevent American college students from traveling around Europe for 115 days, rather than 90" - as janisj implies, you just proved my point.

"But you can move on to the next country." You can do that in Europe too. Not all of the continent, never mind the UK, is in Schengen. Plus the Middle East and North Africa are a short plane ride away.

"their bureaucracy is the pits." - sounds like you've never dealt with the US immigration department!


How true ! How to apply for a visa to enter the US :
http://france.usembassy.gov/visas.html
Note that you must pay just to get an appointment.

The European "problem" began when the Schengen agreement started. Before then, people could spend 3 months in France followed by 3 months in Germany followed by 3 months in Italy, etc. Obviously, that is no longer possible for people who want to respect the rules. Also obviously, the new rules only pose a problem to about 1% of the visitors -- most people are happy if they can spend one month in Europe before going home broke and craving 'real food' again.

If having a 2nd citizenship meant you could get round the Schengen rules then people would be using it.

If they were using it then they'd be advertising it and it would be a well known get-round.

That it isn't implies that it doesn't work, that people who use it don't mention it at all or that it's a newly thought up trick.

Neither of the last two seem likely therefore the assumption is that it doesn't work.

QED

And apparently it's only "American college students" who should be exempt from the rules... What about Canadian college students or American senior citizens?

The US includes time spent in Mexico, Canada & various Caribbean countries as part of time spent in the US.

In comparison being able to leave Schengen and have the clock stop is very generous.

<i>as janisj implies, you just proved my point. </i>

Your point was that the 90-day rule is intended to prevent American college students from visiting Europe for 115 days rather than 90? If European governments are enacting immigration laws to prevent that, then they are even more incompetent than even I believe. No, I suspect that the 90 day rule is intended to prevent folks from engaging in work or availing themselves of social services.

As to your mistaken belief that this is some sort of American hubris, I believe the same thing about the US VWP rules, and seriously doubt that they were put in place to prevent French people, for example, from taking a 115 day holiday, as opposed to a 90 day holiday. I also doubt either set or rules was intended to cover Canadian college students or French senior citizens.

The Canadian student or the French retiree, like their American counterpart, bear a risk of potentially severe punishment should they get caught, but I don't think they have some clear moral obligation to abide by the letter of a law that almost certainly wasn't intended to cover them in the first place.

<i>You can do that in Europe too. Not all of the continent, never mind the UK, is in Schengen.</i>

Yes. One could also go to the US or Hong Kong from the Schengen countries.

The Schengen area covers 25 countries, over 4m sq kms, and a population of roughly 400m people. Aside from the US and China, there aren't many comparable areas where one is as limited in the duration of their visit. You are comparing apples to oranges and I suspect you know it.

<i>The US includes time spent in Mexico, Canada & various Caribbean countries as part of time spent in the US.</i>

Yes, but the US doesn't have the 90 in 180 rule, either. This rule is only intended to prevent people from entering the US and going to Canada (or Mexico or Bermuda) merely to reset the clock. The way the rules are written seem to imply that you could go to the US, stay for 75 days, go to Canada for 30, and then come back to the US with a brand new 90 day limit. It isn't clear that the US rules aren't actually more flexible.

<i>If they were using it then they'd be advertising it and it would be a well known get-round. </i>

I suspect the relative rarity of multiple citizenship would limit the appeal of this workaround.

"Aside from the US and China, there aren't many comparable areas where one is as limited in the duration of their visit." India. Russia (28 days max. and jump through hoops to get that). Central
Asia (ditto about the hoops). Haven't checked Australia or Canada lately, but likely similar.

"but I don't think they have some clear moral obligation to abide by the letter of a law that almost certainly wasn't intended to cover them in the first place." If it wasn't intended to cover them there'd be an exemption. What makes you think you somehow know what the authors of the law were thinking better than they do? You just want special treatment and are trying to justify it.

<i>Haven't checked Australia or Canada lately, but likely similar.</i>

Yeah, because roughly 30m people is the same as 300m to 400m people...

<i>If it wasn't intended to cover them there'd be an exemption.</i>

Really? You think the target of the law is stopping tourists from visiting for extended periods? That sure doesn't seem logical to me. It would certainly seem more logical if the laws are intended to prevent other, undesirable behavior, and certain desirable behaviors are simply swept up in the whole thing.

Consider airport security again. Do you think that they ban sharp objects so as to prevent grandma from doing her knitting? No, but she still can't take her scissors on to a plane. There are all manner of laws whereby people who are not targeted by the law are still impacted.

<i>What makes you think you somehow know what the authors of the law were thinking better than they do?</i>

Well, I'm in a charitable mood, so I'm assuming they aren't irrational. Since there is no rational reason to prevent someone from traveling in your country that can afford to do so, I am assuming that such people are merely caught up in laws meant to address other issues.

<i>You just want special treatment and are trying to justify it.</i>

I don't want any sort of special treatment, and with another year on my residency permit (and the knowledge that extending is a foregone conclusion), I don't need it. I just see no reason why the OP should feel bad about breaking this particular law, assuming that they will pay their own way and not otherwise break the law. They should be mindful of the potential consequences, but there isn't much of a moral imperative to obey this particular law.

>>Re-read the OP's and travelgourmet's posts and decide for yourself . . . .<<

just sayin' ;)

"Since there is no rational reason to prevent someone from traveling in your country that can afford to do so, I am assuming that such people are merely caught up in laws meant to address other issues."

So the majority of the world (add China and India alone and you're at a third of the total population, and then you can add Russia, Europe and the US) have irrational immigration laws according to travelgourmet. Nothing like thinking you know better than everyone else. (Not that I'm fond of these laws myself, but it's binary, just like virginity. Either you're obeying the law or you're not, whether you like it/think it's rational is irrelevant.)

<i>Really? You think the target of the law is stopping tourists from visiting for extended periods? That sure doesn't seem logical to me. It would certainly seem more logical if the laws are intended to prevent other, undesirable behavior, and certain desirable behaviors are simply swept up in the whole thing.</i>

Yes, but what happens when the undesirables masquarade as tourists? Or when even an honest, law-abiding tourist is tempted to earn a few euro working under the table?

<i>just sayin' </i>

And you are still wrong. Did you not read the posts, or are you incapable of understanding what was said?

I have never said that Americans have a 'right' to stay longer than 90 days. Nor have I disputed that there is a risk of being caught and that this could result in serious consequences. I am merely disputing the notion that choosing to break this law is somehow 'wrong', since nobody else is hurt. Were the circumstances the same (self-supporting, not working, no use of public services), I would say the same thing, regardless of whether the person breaking the law were American or Kenyan.

You seem to suffer under the mistaken belief that legality = morality, when that is not the case. Do Americans (or other nationalities) have a legal right to stay as long as they want? No. Do they have any sort of moral obligation to obey the letter of the law, if they otherwise cause no harm? Not in my opinion.

The more you bloviate, the more you prove the point

<i>So the majority of the world (add China and India alone and you're at a third of the total population, and then you can add Russia, Europe and the US) have irrational immigration laws according to travelgourmet.</i>

Who let out all the poor readers tonight?

I never said that the laws were irrational. I think that the laws are intended to address very real concerns. They are intended to prevent foreigners from entering countries and working without permission, using public services, or committing crimes. That the laws catch up some people that want to stay for a while longer, but otherwise would be highly desirable guests, is an unfortunate consequence. Given the fact that the number of people wanting to stay for longer than 90 days is likely to be relatively small, I would think it quite rational to keep the law as is, rather than change it to meet the needs of such a small group.

<i>Nothing like thinking you know better than everyone else.</i>

Not everyone else. I probably know better than a lot of folks, but not everyone else.

<i>Yes, but what happens when the undesirables masquarade as tourists?</i>

They suffer the same risks and consequences that the tourists do. I am not saying that the OP has a case for escaping punishment - the law is clear - I'm simply saying that, if they are willing to accept the risks and consequences, that I don't see anything 'wrong' with overstaying.

<i>Or when even an honest, law-abiding tourist is tempted to earn a few euro working under the table?</i>

I would consider this a violation of the spirit of the law, as well as the letter.

<i>The more you bloviate, the more you prove the point</i>

So, incapable of understanding what was said, then?

Yikes... from another website: "Thought it might be helpful information to let everyone know that a few days ago I left the Schengan zone via Zurich. I had flown into Zurich 100 days prior. Basically, I had overstayed my allowed 90 days. Granted, it was only 10 days over, but apparentley the Swiss do not mess around. The second the customs official saw my passport and entrance stamp, he had the police come and detain me. I was then questioned for over an hour and eventually fined a by-day-fine. I was told there is a chance I will be banned from the Schengan for 1-2 years, but since I paid my fine right away, being banned was probably not going to occur. I am supposed to find out via mail what my final punishment is.
I am a 25-year-old American female who was simply traveling, mostly in Austria.
I was shocked at how strict the Swiss were with me. I am petrified of being banned since I want to return to Austria to see me boyfriend in July 2010, about 3 months from now."

Response: "IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK TO EU OR YOU HAVE SOMETHING URGENT IN EU THAT WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE A MESS IF YOU CANT GET BACK (example a girlfriend, or an apartment, or whatever)

SOLUTION:

DO NOT leave the schengen area !!! Once you leave you will NOT be able to come back for 1-3 years FIRM. Instead, once you have handled your affairs as much as possible, head over to immigration in one of the countries in EU. Each of them have specific ways for you to get a permit to stay. Some, such as Germany simply let you take some language classes. Yes you WILL need proof of savings in a bank, usually around 6,000 Euros and then you can get a six month stay legally. In any case, they wont eject you so rudely, … no matter what, they WILL find out you overstayed, its best to try to fix it with immigration before your exit. Its the only chance you will have to come back to EU any time soon.

This applies to Swiss, UK and EU."

And this: Just spoke with one of my colleagues who has a nephew who faced a terrible situation with visa overstay - by 2 weeks. He had to pay a substantial fine and was banned from re-entry for 3 years. He didn't take that seriously (stupid) and attempted to re-enter a year and a half later and was turned around at immigration, fined again and the ban extended for another 3 years. Well, well... how about not trying this.

<i>apparentley the Swiss do not mess around</i>

This is true. I would avoid entering or exiting via Switzerland if you are trying to skirt the rules. My first choice for an entry or exit point would be Denmark, where they don't seem to care at all. The Dutch used to be very lax, but my past few transits at AMS suggest they are starting to clamp down.

How could someone be shocked that the laws are enforced.

A lot of Americans (many of whom are determined to close our border tight as a drum with draconian measures) seem to think that Europe is just an oversized Disneyland - not a group of sovereign nations - and that they an do whatever they choose.

It should be plain that european countries do not want hoards of young people - often on a shoestring and with the potential to cost them a lot of money and effort in terms of social services - EVEN if they are American. Out kids can be just as much a pain in the butt as those from anyplace else.

The laws must be taken seriously - or they face - as noted above - fines, travel restrictions and instant deportation.

I don;t know why this is so difficult to understand. And no - being a tourist and spending a few $ for a couple of weeks does not free you of the regulations.