As of this month, visitors to the United States who don’t require a visa must fill out a Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). No one seems to like ESTA, which some have called costly to the US tourism industry and others believe is unnecessary. But has anyone bothered to take the look at the actual questions on the form?
Before I share those with you, I should note the Department of Homeland Security is running this show. I hate to pile on DHS after my little run-in with them over the New Years holiday, but you can’t make this stuff up. (These queries don’t appear to be new, for the most part, but they are being encountered by many international visitors for the first time.)
Here are the questions:
Do any of the following apply to you? (Answer Yes or No)
A) Do you have a communicable disease; physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict?
B) Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?
C) Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?
D) Are you seeking to work in the U.S.; or have you ever been excluded and deported; or been previously removed from the United States or procured or attempted to procure a visa or entry into the U.S. by fraud or misrepresentation?
E) Have you ever detained, retained or withheld custody of a child from a U.S. citizen granted custody of the child?
F) Have you ever been denied a U.S. visa or entry into the U.S. or had a U.S. visa canceled?
I did a double-take on the question about terrorists and Nazis. That’s just a stupid question. Why? Well, if you were a terrorist or a former Nazi, would you answer “yes”? Do you think the jihadists who try to blow up planes with their underpants would answer the question honestly, if they came from a visa waiver country?
Duh.
Silly questions like this just insult visitors to America, as opposed to making them feel welcome. People like Trevor Broome, who lives in England, and was kind enough to forward his ESTO application to me.
“I’ve no idea who composed the enhanced security questionnaire,” he told me. “But the questions were excruciatingly funny.”
He means funny, in a bad way.
I wonder: Did anyone read the questionnaire before they approved it? And if so, who?
What do you think DHS should be asking international visitors before they enter the country?
(Photo: BraunImaging/Flickr Creative Commons)
Update (10:30 a.m.): I’m grateful for all the comments on this post. I’m aware that these questions are being asked for legal reasons, and as such, may be deemed necessary. That doesn’t make them any less insulting to visitors.
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
My British husband would probably travel with me to the States to visit family more often (and we’d end up spending more money there) if it weren’t for nonsense like this. Instead, I usually go alone.
I hate to sound like I’m defending this sort of stupidity, but these questions are not new to the ESTA security questionnaire; they have been on the US Visa Waiver form for many years, and there are similar questions on the immigration forms for most countries.
It’s also not hard to see why they would ask this question: sure, if you’re planning to blow something up on this visit you wouldn’t tick ‘yes’ on this form, but if you tick ‘no’ and are later found to be involved in however indirect a way with a terrorist organization you can immediately be deported or detained for perjury, for having entered the country under false pretenses, etc., without anyone having to prove anything more complicated or serious than that in the first instance.
So yes, it’s horrible, but it’s not stupid.
These are the same exact questions they had on the green I-94 forms. I always understood they were there because if somebody did lie on that form, that in itself is all the reason they need to deport right there. Presumably those questions have been authorized by various immigration acts over the years, and as such are not something which will can be casually changed or omitted by a web designer!
Maybe this is a stupid question, but is it legal/ethical to ask if someone has a mental/physical disorder? I know you can’t ask that in the US (for the most part). What are they going to do? Protect us from all the people with congenital defects, epilepsy, heart disease or depression? You get the idea. It’s not like the government is going to rush to the hospital with this form if an international visitor becomes ill.
I concur entirely with Djibril. These questions are not at all new: those who apply for visas fill these out as well, and as silly as they sound, they establish a future legal basis for action in case someone does violate these.
Actually, the Terrorist/Nazi question makes sense when you think of it from a legalistic standpoint. Say you answer “NO”, and you were. It’s easier to arrest/jail/deport you for making a false statement on a federal form (read the fine print on what they can do if you lie) than it is to arrest/jail/deport you for working with a terrorist group/The Nazi’s
It’s the “Al Capone got put in jail for lieing on his tax forms” thing (actually, he was jailed for MAILING tax forms on which he lied, but..)
I agree with Djibril, but will add that I don’t think it’s stupid to ask these questions. Of course someone who has been engaged in terrorist activities is not going to answer “Yes”, but if they were to enter the country and engage in illegal activities would it be worse for the government to answer the public with “He lied on his ESTA” or “We didn’t even bother to ask”?
These questions should not insult visitors who have nothing to hide. They let visitors know that our government does not condone activities such as drug trafficking, genocide or ignoring custody orders.
The only question I have a concern with is the one regarding “physical or mental disorders”. This should only be a concern if the mental disorder is one that has caused the visitor to behave violently toward other people in the past.
If you think this is bad, you should see the 50 page questionnaire for a student or work visa to enter the United Kingdom.
If you think those questions are silly, try the questions they ask if you actually want to stay permanently. You get most of those plus gems like “Are you planning to practice polygamy in the US?”
But indeed, the purpose of these questions is to throw you out later for lying on them…
Who knows? Maybe, on balance, international tourists will be attracted by this additional evidence of the American frontier-isolationist mentality in which making “nice-nice,” especially to strangers, is suspiciously wussy.
I remember the first time I went behind the Iron Curtain as a tourist. We found it oddly “exciting” to see all the obvious signs of government repression and police-state ways of doing things–beginning with the very unpleasant hour spent at the little border-police house when we drove it. It was repulstive but, as tourtists, we would have been disappointed if they didn’t act boorish and threatenting, just as we expected them to.
The questions are not new. Sadly, neither is the language. Imagine learning English as a second language and then try to understand that legalese!
As dumb as I think it is, in my travels I’ve seen many similar silly questions.
Many of your commenters suggest that the questions are a setup. We’ve also seen these before — the Austrian husband has many a green form in his pre-green card status past. And yeah, they’re absurd questions, the whole “fill out this form” thing is absurd. If you ARE a terrorist or Nazi, it’s probably not an issue for you also to commit perjury. No problem there. It’s probably more useful to adapt the screening procedures and ask real questions that the immigration agent can work off. Where did you go to school? Where are you staying? How long will you be in the US? Do you have a return ticket?
It’s been a while since I’ve passed through security in Tel Aviv, but even pre 9/11, Israel screened by talking to people, not by checkboxes on forms.
I have a simple test question to add to the form:
Do you want to hurt anyone for any reason based on ANY religious or cultural views you have? And…specifically, do you maintain or harbor any militant or extremist jihadist views whatsoever?
Let’s dig at the root of the plant and see how people react.
Alan’s comment most closely approximated my initial thoughts. I suspect that a high school graduate would have difficulty understanding the questions. A non-English speaking person would absolutely need a translator.
Think of it this way…could you understand these questions if they were written in French, German, or Arabic? How could we expect a Frenchman, German, or Saudi to understand the English version?
After you hand out the form to DHS, they say, “Welcome to the United States of Soviet Amerika, komrade!”
I don’t suppose you can plead the 5th, though…
To tag on to Len Oxman’s comment, I am an immigration lawyer and once had a client nabbed on the question of “crime involving moral turpitude.” Even though I have been practicing immigration law for more than a decade, I still couldn’t tell you without conducting legal research whether a particular crime involves moral turpitude. So how is a layman supposed to know?
“Do you have a communicable disease”. Define communicable disease. A ‘common cold’ might apply.
“were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies”. This question is unclear on its face. Someone could read this and have to answer yes, because they landed on Normany Beach as part of the D-Day invasion. I’m no lawyer, but I think that would be an “associated persecution.”
Let us count the visitor untouchables/most screen-ables:
1) the diseased, infirm or mentally unstable
2) the drug abuser/addict
3) morally undesirable
4) criminals – exiting and wanna-be’s
5) spies & saboteurs
6) terrorists (or would be terrorists)
7) genocidal and homicidal types
8) former Nazi (or WW II axis powers) murders and supporters
9) job seekers
10) previous deportees/rejections
11) visa fraudsters/mis-representers
12) child stealers (custody combatants)
13) previous visa or entry denials/cancellations
Who do we really need to be concerned about, as a priority, when it comes to national security and (im-)migration control?
1) terrorists (aka militant and extremist Islamic jihadists AND violent narco-terrorists and organized criminals) – these folks shouldn’t be allowed to cross any borders, anywhere, anytime. (note: Personally, I don’t want to hang with Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu extremists either, but last I recall we didn’t have much a national security problem with those other religions as it relates to planes-as-missiles and explosive devices. But if we did, they get rejected or expelled too).
2) serious criminals – murderers, rapists, drug kingpins, organized, etc. (and including the migrating liars and thieves)
3) the seriously diseased and mentally ill (although maybe they could seek asylum and planned assistance on humanitarian grounds if we, as a democratic, charitable society, had a plan and were willing to help)
BOTTOM LINE: we have to have priorities to let in visitors based on our powers of imagination to predict who would do the most harm to our nation, interests, people, values, etc. Harm or potential for harm should be a guiding light.
In olden days, the form used to ask you for your race. Reportedly, when Albert Einstein emigrated to the US and got to this field, he simply filled in “human”.
Moral Terpitude: the State Dept bureacracy probably has it defined on their website (for visa waiver purposes…who would think otherwise?), but here’s a good treatment of the issue by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude
These questions have been around on visa forms for at least a decade. The funny thing is that I know a couple of Germans who are descendants from Nazi’s (involvement of you or your family). There are no consequences to actually checking ‘yes’ there.
There’s also a question about communism. That’s a ‘yes’ for every adult from Eastern Europe, the remains of the USSR and China. Did you know Italy currently has a president from the communist party?
I do feel that these questions are insulting. This not a way to welcome guests into the land of the free and home of the brave. This is a welcome into the land of the bureaucratic ass-covering lawyers and home of the distrustful.
There’s a saying in Dutch: Zoals de waard is, vertrouwt ‘ie zijn klanten. As the host is, he trusts his guests.
I know plenty of people who are avoiding the US exactly for this reason. They are now spending their tourism money in other parts of the world.
Legal reasons or not….. I mean… Who is going to check yes? It’s like a police officer asking if you were speeding and expecting you to say certainly sir, I was going 30 over but LUCKY you only caught me doing 10. We’ll keep that on the down low!
A) Do you have a communicable disease; physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict?
A child born with HIV in his blood, and all the sudden the groups him in the same category as drug abuser or addicts? How did a liberal president of the US not do something about this?
Alan Fiermonte
Plenty of Extremism associated with Christianity. Guys on Trial right now for murdering an abortion clinic doctor. Do we recall the 1990s where this was a huge issue? IDIOTS like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson advocated / advocate the harming of others. Pat Robertson has made SEVERAL off the wall statements such as:
1) We assassinate Hugo Chavez, a legitimate and elected leader. A terroristic threat. If you or I stated that about ANY U.S. President, we’d be ROTTING in jail right now.
2) He Blamed the TRAGEDY of Haiti on the Hatian’s themselves.
3) Jerry Falwell blamed Katrina on Gay People and the U.S. acceptance of them.
These IDIOTS have 10s of millions of followers and are NO DIFFERENT in spreading their ignorance than a Jihadist cleric. People die as a result of words. Matt Shephard was Murdered for Being gay. Doctors who are DOING THEIR JOB are murdered. You might not agree with the work, but it is legal (Abortion).
The ultimate problem is religion simply turns people into morons. You want to believe in God, by all means. You want to believe in “Religion” and you create nutjobs who think THEIR BELIEFS and THEIR GOD supersede that of everyone else. Wars are fought over this issue every day.
Hitler used this argument to exterminate 6 million Jews. The German Clergy and Churches, Companies that were complicit, etc sure didn’t object too loudly as they aided.
Milosevic executed 100-200,000 Muslims in the Bosnian war.
Bush Jr. Said God gave him Permission to Invade Iraq.
You know the underlying theme here? We have TOO MANY PEOPLE thinking their God and THEIR religion give them ALL the power to ACT IN A MANNER that is not in humanity’s best interest. Based off these Jihadist, Hitler, Bush, and Milosevic…..so long as “God” tells you to do it.. it’s ok.
Bad behavior is not exclusive to one religion…..
On a side note…. You mind handing over your guns? We have 16-20,000 Murders by Americans on Americans in this country. Our guns are funneling to Mexico causing 10s of thousands more murders there. Our guns are making it to Canada and causing crime.
Yet… Terrorism has killed less than 4000 people overall in this country. Some 160,000 Americans have been Murdered in the same time frame by our own country men. Why is it we’re so willing to hand over our rights here… And speak out against a people so harshly.. Yet, we have MORE AND LARGER problems… but we seem to ignore?
My 2 cents.
@Eros Hermes
“How did a liberal president of the US not do something about this?”
He did.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec09/travel_10-30.html
I love the question about the Nazis. The war has been over since 1945. Let’s do the math. Someone born in 1945 is now 65 years old. He or she is definitely a child born to a person who was alive ‘during the Nazi’ regime.
Okay, now assume that child born in 1945 was born to a man or woman who was 25 years old in 1945. The person (the parent) would have been born in 1920. This means that the parent would have been born in 1920, making that person 90 years old! Anybody who was born in Germany (or any of its captive countries) during the time of the Nazi regime would have ‘ties’ to the Nazi regime just for having been born during that period.
But as to the specifics of the question, yes, there are (or were) a number of people who were members of the Nazi party who escaped prosecution by fleeing to other countries. Does anybody remember Adolph Eichman and his kidnapping (by the Israelis) to stand trial in Israel? He was convicted and hanged. There are several instances where active Nazis were given refuge in America because 1) they were of great use to the occupying armies, 2) they served as translators or 3) they couldn’t wait to cut a deal w/ said armies and turning on their old friends and colleagues.
We have several people here in our little ex-pat community who are German, (still have their German passports), were born in Germany and emmigrated out of Germany (the winter weather there really sucks) to a more hospitable climate, or claim German heritage. Were they involved in the persecution of Hitler’s ‘unwanted?’ Not unless they were teeny, tiny children being indoctrinated from infancy.
Who wrote this stupid question anyway? Time for it to lay down and die.
Adios, mis amigos, hasta luego.
Kathie
Eros – he did: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8438865.stm
So, several posts here have indicated that the form is really used to catch people in the act of perjury so they can be deported or punished AFTER perceived involvement in a terrorist act. As usual, this form is not proactive and does nothing to prevent the acts in the first place. Now, asking these questions orally and actually watching people’s reactions might have some preventive effect.
How *do* you answer a question like this with a Yes or a No?
D) Are you seeking to work in the U.S.; or have you ever been excluded and deported; or been previously removed from the United States or procured or attempted to procure a visa or entry into the U.S. by fraud or misrepresentation?
This is approximately 3 questions rolled into one, and a “yes” to the first part is not the same as a “yes” to the other 2 parts. Trick question???
@Justin:
Well said.
As others have said, the questions were on the green visa waiver form that you filled out on the plane long before there was such a thing as an ESTA. I’ve filled them out many times. I wonder what ex-IRA members put…
My favorite question is: or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?
I can just visualize the poor guy coming from “elsewhere” in hopes of getting laid by those loose American girls he keeps hearing about, agonizing over whether or not he really has to answer yes to that…Fabulous. The people we need to worry about won’t answer truthfully, and the ones that do are likely to be misunderstood because they’re afraid of “lying.”
@MJ
MJ makes a good point.
Actually, on reflection, I think this is an IQ test. Anyone “dumb” enough to answer yes to any of these questions is denied entry on the ground of mental incapacity.
TSA did not invent these questions, they are on the USA VISA application forms since probably after World war II. I think the Government needs to review all the VISA questions for relevance.
@ Kathie
While the odds of catching a Nazi today are small, there are still quite a few left. I am not going to get into the whole debate here. I believe what they did was wrong, against humanity, etc. However, we’re talking about horrible people who committed acts 65 years ago. It’s a rock and a hard place issue. Most of these individuals are very elderly, so very little is served by going after them. Sure, it sends the message that this behavior will not be tolerated, and that is rightfully so. Sadly, when you are talking people in their early 80s and later, they have lived their lives, had children, and moved on. Nothing you do to them will really change that fact. There was a gentlemen in Cleveland who they extradited to Germany recently. He’s like 90 or so. Granted, you can toss him in jail, but it won’t be any different than life in a nursing home. I mean, you can’t really lock up a 90 year old man in a general populous. Likewise, we are no longer holding executions for these people. The last such one was Adolf Eichmann in 1960 or there about by Israel. Anyhow, these individuals do exist. Yet, I highly doubt they’ll check “Yes”.
On a side note. We could take the world’s biggest Monsters “Nazis” and give them a fair trial at Nuremberg, but we can’t take these religious fundamentalists and give them a day in court? Are we to believe the international community is far better at handing out justice than the U.S. It certainly seems so. What happened to us setting and living by our example of freedom? We are giving this abortion clinic doctor a trial, and what he did was no better. We try murderers every day. Better yet, we even gave Mcveigh a trial. However, we somehow can’t ship these idiots off to the Hague or do it ourselves? Really. Something’s truly wrong with a country who has something to hide. Nothing is lost by giving justice regardless of the outcome, but everything is lost by denying it. No truer words will ever be spoken.
I’m a foreigner who lives permanently in the US… these questions, as has been stated several times, are nothing new.
Until American citizens somehow experience the unpleasant nature of trying to get into this country, there will never be any incentive to make it even slightly more welcoming. The entry forms are poorly laid out and confusing (it really shouldn’t take a flight attendent ten minutes to explain it). The staff at INS are often surly and grumpy. And getting a US visa is ghastly, at best. I have, of course, had delightful entry experiences into the US with friendly officers but these have been the exception. Then there is the whole finger-printing business.
Fortunately, once you get out of the airport, the US is a great place to be. But the first impressions are terrible.
In fairness, I believe the quaratine forms of my own country still ask travellers if they are carrying uranium in their luggage.
As stated, they haven’t changed in a while, but there is more fun to it :
1) Everyone has to answer those questions twice for the same travel (electronically before travelling and on the green (lovely color) 94 forms to disembark in the US) !
2) Said green forms and web app also ask for details that automatically pop on the officer’s screen when he scans your passport (and are therefore probably never used in their paper version) !
3) Part of the green form is stamped, stapled in your passport and taken back by the gate agent when you leave the US : unless you go to Canada and the gate agent forget to ask you wether you’ll be travelling backto your hone country through the US (you can imagine the trouble when you come back to the US the nxt time)
4) Kids, ans even babies have to answer those questions … AND SIGN the lovely green forms !!!
Well past time to update and add some intelligence in the foreigners tracking system !!!
Question 1: Were you born in, traveling to or from, ever possessed an international travel document, or do you claim ancestry from any of the following nations [identify all nations with sharia law or which may religous freedom illegal].
Question 2: Do you practice or claim the Islamic Religion? If so, state your age.
Anyone answering yes to any of the above gets physically searched or puffed or through the clothes scanned for explosives.
Lets call a spade a spade here – to us an old expression. Either of the above questions, together with an active review of travel documents, would have identified Reid, Muttallab, and every single one of the 9/11 hijackers. Then its simple police work.
The reason why this works is that all of the people ‘who would do us harm’ and who already have attempted attacks would have been caught by these questions since they are not citizens and would have needed to answer them. Unless they have pristine passports issued without any other stamps – they would have to tell the truth since their travel documents would belie their travels to Yemen or Pakistan or wherever else terrorists travel.
We are talking about air travel; not driving truck bombs to government buildings. So don’t give me McVeigh as an excuse.
Finally – every one of the folks who answer yes or who possess travel documents for identified nations are screened by female and Jewish ICE agents – lets put the pressure on a little bit right at the outset.
Why would you need a “legal” reason to deport someone who is not a citizen and without rights here. By definition non-citizens travel to the US as guests and we can ask them to leave without a reason. You’re confusing rights with guest status.
“between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany”
–as written, this would include concentration-camp survivors and Resistance workers such as Miep Gies. They were certainly “involved”.
and what physical disorders are we talking about exactly? Shall applicants say Yes because of sleep apnea? Wheat allergy? Bunions?
Petty shit is bad enough, but /badly-implemented/ pettiness makes me even crankier.
@ Buckster–
You are incorrect. The moment a person crosses the U.S. border, they acquire rights, including the right to due process. A person seeking entry into the U.S. can only be excluded under one or more of the grounds listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act; a person who is admitted into the U.S. can only be removed (formerly called “deported”) under grounds in another section of that same act. Just because the person is a foreign visitor, it doesn’t exempt them from Constitutional protections.
@ Elliott-
You may think these questions insulting, and that’s your right, but they are necessary and do need to be asked. Part of what makes the U.S. a safe place to visit is knowing that there’s some minimum standards to actually enter the U.S. and that there’s certain kinds of people–Nazis, criminals, drug addicts–who shouldn’t be let in. The plain fact is that these questions have been around for decades and it hasn’t insulted people in a way that keeps them from coming to the U.S. in droves.
@Joe Farrell
……Sir, have you lost all reasons of common sense? Your post HURT my brain reading it. Do you SINCERELY think that questionnaire would have caught these suspects.? I hope not. On the other hand, I guess by your response, you live in Jim Carey’s “Liar Liar” movie. Everyone has to tell the truth and can’t act in a deceiving manner. Like a terrorist is going to answer yes to any one of those. Do you think they have the IQ of a rock? They might be suicidal but they are from from DROOLING IDIOTS. Come on. If you are going to post something SO ILL THOUGHT OUT, at least do so in satire and not trying to sound smart. Your post has really made me question the veracity of things you say.
@Anthony
The same goes for you. Like people HAVE TO ANSWER YES and there are some mind reading tools that exist to know otherwise. I think you and Joe live in what’s known as a fantasy world. Either that or you have some magical psychic ability that you guys need to market. Nothing stops these guys from lying. So long as their behavior does not stand out as irregular, they would then moved along without further delay. Therefore, all they have to do is check “No”. What a revelation!
This form as amended by Alan Fiermonte would be very effective if it were filled out in an airport while the person was under individual specific surveillance.
Question c) bothers me, a little, not because of the Nazi bit, but because of the incredibly general “have you ever been involved in espionage…?”. I mean, they probably know that I have (along with several thousand others in my particular department), but that’s because there was a lot of information sharing between agencies at that particular point in time. But I’m pretty sure they’re only really interested in people who have been involved in espionage for hostile countries, not allies (and does pushing paper in an office really count, anyway?). HOWEVER… if I tick ‘no’ AND they happen to have me on file… am I going to be in trouble for lying on the form? I suspect probably not, and I intend just to tick ‘no’, however this question is irritatingly blunt.