Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > x-no-archive: yes > America. > Coffee, Tea or Handcuffs? > An Australian journalist gets a taste of Department of > Homeland Security hospitality > by Steven Mikulan > ‘LA Weekly’ > Sue Smethurst enjoys traveling. It’s one of the things > about my job that I absolutely love," says the 30-year-old > Australian, who works as an associate editor for the > women’s magazine New Idea. She doesn’t even mind flying. > "It’s one of the great pleasures of the world to be able to > turn off your cell phone and be where no one can annoy > you." > But when her Qantas flight from Melbourne, Australia, > touched down at LAX around 8 a.m. on Friday, November 14, > Smethurst found herself nightmarishly annoyed – by the > Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Smethurst was > supposed to continue to New York and on Monday interview > singer Olivia Newton-John. Smethurst had honeymooned in > Manhattan last year and was looking forward to a long, free > weekend having a good walk through Central Park, getting a > decent bowl of chicken soup and going Christmas shopping – > all those gorgeous New York things." > Better still, her six-hour layover in L.A. would allow her > to have lunch with her American literary agent. "I had a > room booked at the Airport Hilton, where I was going to my > leave bags, shower and get a cup of coffee." > But first she had to clear LAX’s immigration check-in, > which she reached after 20 minutes in line. An officer from > the DHS’s newly minted Customs and Border Protection (CBP) > bureau studied the traveler’s declaration form Smethurst > had filled out on the plane. > "Oh, you’re a journalist," he noted. "What are you here > for?" > "I’m interviewing Olivia Newton-John," Smethurst replied. > "That’s nice," the official said, impressed. "What’s the > article about?" > "Breast cancer." > When Smethurst tells me this, she pauses and adds, "I > thought that last question was a little odd, but figured > everything’s different now in America and it was fine." > What she didn’t know was that her assignment and travel > plans, along with the chicken soup and stroll through > Central Park, had been terminated the moment she confirmed > she was a journalist.
Bad idea, she should have lied, and told then she was in America on holiday. Customs would never have known the difference. I am with an E-zine in Australia, and I travel the world, and I NEVER tell Customs, in whatever country I go to that I am a journalist. When she went to send her story back to her paper in Australia, she could just simply hide her activities on the Internet by using a proxy to connect to her home office. Anyone monitoring the Net would know that she connected to a proxy server, but they would not know where she went BEYOND that proxy server. So all your journalists out there can learn something here. Just simply lie on your Customs form, and tell them you are here on Holiday. You can simply hide behind a proxy server to send your articles to your paper back home, and nobody will know what you are up to. All the server logs of whatever ISP you are using will say is that you connected to the address of a proxy, and on a specific port. A lot of reporters do this to avoid the special visa requirement for journalists. For anyone cotemplating this, you can find lists of proxies, in which you can hide your activities, at: http://www.atomintersoft.com – AtomInterSoft (also has updated Socks proxy lists) http://www.stayinvisible.com – Stay Invisible proxy list. Not I am a USA/Oz dual, so entering the USA is not a problem for me. However, to avoid problems in other countries, I just simply lie on my Customs form (if the country I am entering has one), and tell them I am there on holiday, and Customs is NEVER the wiser. The lesson here is to simply leave it off your Customs declaration form that you are a journalist, and nobody will never get wiser.
Response:
I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being quoted? Would be nice to see the entire article. Why exactly was it wrong for an Australian journalist to tell US immigration that she was in the US to interview a fellow Australian? What did US immigration do to her after that? Is this what the Aussies get for being part of the Iraqi invasion coalition? Nice touch USA. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> my idea of America. > Coffee, Tea or Handcuffs? > An Australian journalist gets a taste of Department of > Homeland Security hospitality > by Steven Mikulan > ‘LA Weekly’ > But when her Qantas flight from Melbourne, Australia, > touched down at LAX around 8 a.m. on Friday, November 14, > Smethurst found herself nightmarishly annoyed – by the > Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Smethurst was > supposed to continue to New York and on Monday interview > singer Olivia Newton-John. Smethurst had honeymooned in > Manhattan last year and was looking forward to a long, free > weekend having a good walk through Central Park, getting a > decent bowl of chicken soup and going Christmas shopping – > all those gorgeous New York things." > Better still, her six-hour layover in L.A. would allow her > to have lunch with her American literary agent. "I had a > room booked at the Airport Hilton, where I was going to my > leave bags, shower and get a cup of coffee." > But first she had to clear LAX’s immigration check-in, > which she reached after 20 minutes in line. An officer from > the DHS’s newly minted Customs and Border Protection (CBP) > bureau studied the traveler’s declaration form Smethurst > had filled out on the plane. > "Oh, you’re a journalist," he noted. "What are you here > for?" > "I’m interviewing Olivia Newton-John," Smethurst replied. > "That’s nice," the official said, impressed. "What’s the > article about?" > "Breast cancer." > When Smethurst tells me this, she pauses and adds, "I > thought that last question was a little odd, but figured > everything’s different now in America and it was fine." > What she didn’t know was that her assignment and travel > plans, along with the chicken soup and stroll through > Central Park, had been terminated the moment she confirmed > she was a journalist.
Why? Where’s the rest of the story? > Bad idea, she should have lied, and told then she was in > America on holiday. Customs would never have known the > difference.
What was wrong with telling them the truth? > I am with an E-zine in Australia, and I travel the world, > and I NEVER tell Customs, in whatever country I go to that > I am a journalist.
Is the land of the free, the world’s only god-given democracy, somehow a bad place to be a journalist? > When she went to send her story back to her paper in Australia, > she could just simply hide her activities on the Internet by > using a proxy to connect to her home office.
Oh puuleeze. > Anyone monitoring the Net would know that she connected > to a proxy server,
Who the hell do you think is going to be monitoring her, or anyone else they let through into the country? You are one paranoid puppy.
Response:
> I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being > quoted? > Would be nice to see the entire article.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php > Why exactly was it wrong for an Australian journalist to tell US > immigration that she was in the US to interview a fellow Australian?
Because journalists require special visas. miguel — Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/
Response:
@nwrddc02.gnilink.net: > I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being > quoted? > Would be nice to see the entire article. > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php > Why exactly was it wrong for an Australian journalist to tell US > immigration that she was in the US to interview a fellow Australian? > Because journalists require special visas. > miguel
I travel a lot for a legitimate business purpose, to educate mayself about travel destinations (I sell travel) yet I always put down leisure as my reason for travel. Is this wrong? I really don’t think so as I am not selling on the trips but to tell customs people may cause them to scratch their fuzzy ointed heads. One doesn’t want to feed or awaken trolls (in this case the hiding under air terminal arrival area type).
Response:
:>> I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being :>> quoted? :>> Would be nice to see the entire article. :>http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php :>> Why exactly was it wrong for an Australian journalist to tell US :>> immigration that she was in the US to interview a fellow Australian? :>Because journalists require special visas. Yes. It appears that the Australian either did not bother to learn the VISA requirement or did not feel that she had to pay any attention to it. I wonder if the airline was fined. — http://www.dissensoftware.com
Response:
> I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being > quoted? > Would be nice to see the entire article. Why exactly was it wrong for > an Australian journalist to tell US immigration that she was in the US > to interview a fellow Australian? What did US immigration do to her > after that?
Nothing wrong with that as long as you have an "I" visa. Tourists aren’t permitted tow work. The journalist was entering on a tourist visa and planned to work.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > :>> I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being > :>> quoted? > :>> Would be nice to see the entire article. > :>http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php > :>> Why exactly was it wrong for an Australian journalist to tell US > :>> immigration that she was in the US to interview a fellow Australian? > :>Because journalists require special visas. > Yes. > It appears that the Australian either did not bother to learn the VISA > requirement or did not feel that she had to pay any attention to it. > I wonder if the airline was fined.
Probably not It is possible the airline didn’t know the journalist was going to be working.
Response:
> > Why exactly was it wrong for an Australian journalist to tell > US immigration that she was in the US to interview a fellow > Australian? > Nothing wrong with that as long as you have an "I" visa. > Tourists aren’t permitted tow work. The journalist was entering > on a tourist visa and planned to work.
But presumably she was not being paid by a US employer, ie she was not *earning* money in the US from a US source. Canadian sales rep’s routinely travel into the US to perform demos, participate in arranged sales meetings, attend trade shows, etc, and never is any visa required. I know it’s VERY important that if traveling to the US (for business or any other reason) that in no way do you give the impression that you are being paid by a US source for anything you are going to do in the US (unless you make the paperwork arrangements before-hand). Perhaps the same logic or intent isin’t extended to foreiners other than Canadians. I know as a CDN that when travelling to Europe there is NO such concern whether you are entering EU for business (and whether you’re being paid by an EU client or not). At least I’ve never got anywhere near the same scrutiny when entering EU vs US. Maybe in 50 or 100 years the customs and immigration hassles will dissappear between US and CDN just like there is no such hassle between Mich and Ohio (or Germany and Netherlands, etc).
Response:
> >>>Why exactly was it wrong for an Australian journalist to tell >>>US immigration that she was in the US to interview a fellow >>>Australian? >> >>Nothing wrong with that as long as you have an "I" visa. >>Tourists aren’t permitted tow work. The journalist was entering >>on a tourist visa and planned to work. > > > But presumably she was not being paid by a US employer, ie she was not > *earning* money in the US from a US source. That doesn’t matter. What matters is where the work was performed, not who paid for it. > > Canadian sales rep’s routinely travel into the US to perform demos, > participate in arranged sales meetings, attend trade shows, etc, and > never is any visa required. All of which are permitted under a B-1 or the Canadian visa program. The equivalent in this case would be if the Sales Rep actually "worked" That is, the sales rep would not be permitted to sell things in the US without the appropriate visa.
Response:
> The equivalent in this case would be if the Sales Rep actually "worked" > That is, the sales rep would not be permitted to sell things in the US > without the appropriate visa.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but people don’t need special visas to go "on business" to a conference, meetings, attend a sales pitch from a potential US vendor. This is all "business" travel from the point of view of which box you put a check mark in on the immigration form. Consider the number of flights that have been operaterd between Canada and the USA even before the free trade agreements. There was no way that every single passenger would have required some form of visa just because this was a business trip. Going to conferences, seminars, 2-3 day courses, meetings etc are all considered "benign" by customs forlks if you are an employee of a company. (you are only fulfilling your responabilities and it is your company that actual does the trade between itself and its US counterparts). If you are meeting a (potential) US supplier for a sales pitch, then there is no reason the immigration folks should stop you. However, if you plan on knocking on US doors to seek sales opportunities for foreign products, or worse, seek employment, then you can expect rough treatment, unless you have the right paperwork. FTA/NAFTA didn’t remove the need for paperwork, it only make it easier to obtain. The trick is to send a clear message that you are just an employee doing what your employer has told you what to do, and that you have no idea of the contract issues between your company and the company you are visiting. As far as the australian journalist, she should have just said "I am meeting a friend and going shopping in New York".. There are perhaps special cases for journalists though. News organisatiosn have to get approval/acrreditation to be allowed to operate a news bureau in a country. The BBC , for instance, is barred from Zimbabwe. They are not allowed to send reporters to that country. While we may see a difference between covering a country’s internal affairs (for instance, foreign journalists covering White House issues) and a foreign journalists just coming here to do an interview and then going back to home country, perhaps the immigration folks cannot make a difference between the two.
Response:
>>The equivalent in this case would be if the Sales Rep actually "worked" >That is, the sales rep would not be permitted to sell things in the US >without the appropriate visa. > Sorry to rain on your parade, but people don’t need special visas to go "on > business" to a conference, meetings, attend a sales pitch from a potential US > vendor. This is all "business" travel from the point of view of which box you > put a check mark in on the immigration form.
You aren’t raining on my parade. There is a bit of difference between making a sales pitch and receiving one. DO you not agree that the sales rep would need a visa? The journalist was required to have an I visa and didn’t have one. Go argue with Immigration. As I have noted, there are certain permitted activities under a B-2 or a visa waiver, working as a journalist is not one of them. > Consider the number of flights that have been operaterd between Canada and the > USA even before the free trade agreements. There was no way that every single > passenger would have required some form of visa just because this was a > business trip. > Going to conferences, seminars, 2-3 day courses, meetings etc are all > considered "benign" by customs forlks if you are an employee of a company. > (you are only fulfilling your responabilities and it is your company that > actual does the trade between itself and its US counterparts).
Didn’t I say that? > As far as the australian journalist, she should have just said "I am meeting a > friend and going shopping in New York"..
That would be fraud and subject her to a lifetime ban. What she should have done was obtain the proper visa.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being > quoted? > Would be nice to see the entire article. Why exactly was it wrong for > an Australian journalist to tell US immigration that she was in the US > to interview a fellow Australian? What did US immigration do to her > after that? > Nothing wrong with that as long as you have an "I" visa. > Tourists aren’t permitted tow work. The journalist was entering on a > tourist visa and planned to work.
I read in another article on this that she is the exception, rather than the rule. She was stupid enough to tell customs that she was on assignment for her paper. She should have simply left it OFF her Customs declaration form that she was coming to interview Olivia Newton John. customs would never have been the wiser. I read that a lot of foreign journalists come in without the proper "I" visa, and just simply lie to Customs about what they are doing and get away with it. I travel around the world for my E-zine, and this is where being a USA/Australia dual pays off. Mexico has practically the same requirement for foreign journalists, but I get away without a journalist visa. I have been to Mexico a few times, but I just simply switch over to my U.S. passport, and just simply LIE to Mexican Customs about the purpose of my visit. I tell them I am entering the country as a tourist, and get the standard 180-day tourist permit that Americans can get at the border. Customs in Mexico is NEVER the wiser. Anyone travelling to either Mexico or the USA can do this. Just leave it OFF your Customs declaration form that you are coming in for journalistic reasons. Customs will NEVER be the wiser. Also, if you send your stories back to your paper, via the Internet, you can hide your activities using an open proxy server. The logs of the local ISP you are using will say went to the proxy, but where you went BEYOND that proxy, they would NEVER know. Journalistic visas are more difficult to obtain. It is just so much EASIER to LIE to customs, in ANY country I go to, about the purpose of my visit.
Response:
> I read in another article on this that she is the exception, rather > than the rule. She was stupid enough to tell customs that she was on > assignment for her paper. She should have simply left it OFF her Customs > declaration form that she was coming to interview Olivia Newton John. > customs would never have been the wiser. I read that a lot of foreign > journalists come in without the proper "I" visa, and just simply lie > to Customs about what they are doing and get away with it.
The right thing to do is to get a visa. Of course, you have already stated you beliefs about obeying the laws you dislike, such as being a US citizen and spending money in North Korea. I would wager that you have never filed a US tax return, as you believe your Australian citizenship means you are not subject to the terms of your US citizenship. If that is the case, then why not formally renounce your US citizenship? I know quite a few journalists that enter the US on I visas. Just because it is easier to not get one doesn’t mean you aren’t supposed to have one. Post 9/11, you really don’t want to be caught lying to HS about your intentions while in the US. Legitimate journalist s should know how to legally enter the US to do their job.
Response:
Toledo Blade Editorials | Article published Saturday, December 13, 2003 A repressive embarrassment Anyone who thinks the administration and its law enforcement chief, Attorney General John Ashcroft, aren’t out to impede a free press need only hear how the federal government is treating foreign journalists coming to this country on assignment. Without notification to foreign media outlets, the immigration and customs people are arresting, detaining, and deporting journalists arriving here without special visas. This is so even when they come from nations whose citizens can stay for up to 90 days without a visa if they are arriving as tourists or on business. If that threatening form of registration is not enough, members of the press arriving without the visas, which no one told them they needed, are treated like criminals, handcuffed as they’re marched through airports, photographed, fingerprinted, and their DNA taken. Peter Krobath, chief editor for the Austrian movie magazine Skip, was held overnight in a cold room with 45 others who arrived without the visa. The room had two open toilets, a metal bench, and a concrete bench. He was here to interview movie star Ben Affleck and see the movie Paycheck. Thomas Sjoerup, a photographer for the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet, was deported after a few hours during which a mugshot, fingerprints, and DNA sample were taken. A French journalist said he and five others from his country were marched across the airport in handcuffs, without belts or laces. The International Press Institute in Vienna, a media freedom group, has complained not only about Mr. Korbath’s treatment but also, and indeed more important, the fact that only foreign journalists need special visas. The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists is about to launch a global campaign against the absurd and repressive rule that casts suspicion on working journalists who come to this country on business as valid as any other traveler’s. A U.S. embassy official in Vienna said visas have always been required. If that requirement existed, it was more honored in its breach and ought to be rescinded. It should not take a world media outcry to address this problem. It’s a policy that puts these United States in the ranks of Third World dictatorships. Members of Congress, regardless of party, who understand the absurdity of it all, even in these troubled times, should demand an end to this repressive embarrassment. It’s not likely President Bush ever will. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031213/OPINIO…
Response:
> > As far as the australian journalist, she should have just said "I am meeting a > friend and going shopping in New York".. > That would be fraud and subject her to a lifetime ban.
Not if she was smart enough to hide her activities. I will say once AGAIN that you can hide your activities on the Internet. All she would had to have done was set up her computer at home for remote access. Unlike a lot of US cities, a lot of the homes in Melbourne have some kind of always-on broadband access available. When it came time to send her story back to paper, she could have just simply connected to PC at home, and then used that to connect to the computer at her paper. Anyone in the USA monitoring the traffic would know she connected to her home PC, but there is no POSSIBLE way they could find out what she was doing on her home PC, or where she went BEYOND her home PC, because the logs on the USA side of the connection would only show the connection to her home PC. The connection beyond that to the computers at her paper would not show up, and being that her home computer is in Australia, the US Government would be unable to subpoena any information on where she went beyond her home PC. As I have said before, Mexico has the same repressive rule on journalists that I have NEVER complied with and NEVER will. I just simply LIE to Mexican Customs about the purpose of my visit. Being that I am a USA/Australia dual, I just show my US Passport and get the standard 180-day tourist visa that all American visitors can get at any port of entry in Mexico. Then, all I have to do is connect to my PC back home in Australia to send my story, and anyone on the Mexican side of the connection monitoring what is going on has no CLUE to what is happening. THEY see the address of my PC at home in Australia, but that is ALL they see. They cannot find out what where I am going beyond my PC. Becuase my PC is home in Australia, both it, and its contents are beyond the reach of Mexican law. if always-on broadband is not available where you are, there are PLENTY of open proxy servers you can use to mask your activities. The two main lists are at AtomIntertSoft (http://www.atomintersoft.com) and Stay Invisible (http://www.stayinvisible.com). What happens is that the address of the proxy you use shows up in the logs, instead of the address of where you are really going. For example, if you use Hotmail to Email stuff back home, they will not know it, as the address of the proxy will show in the logs, instead of Hotmail’s address. If your paper has a VPN for remote access, you can use the list of Socks5 proxy servers, pick a server outside the country and connect through that. The logs will show the address of the proxy you use, but not the VPN you are going to.
Response:
> As I have said before, Mexico has the same repressive rule on journalists > that I have NEVER complied with and NEVER will.
Why is it that you think requiring a visa for the purpose of "working" is repressive?
Response:
> > As I have said before, Mexico has the same repressive rule on journalists > that I have NEVER complied with and NEVER will. > Why is it that you think requiring a visa for the purpose of "working" > is repressive?
If you were going to be in the country long-term, I could see making someone get a journalist visa. But someone who is only going to be in the country for a few days, and then go home again, they should have not have to get a journalist visa, that is where I have my beef with the law. Requiring journalists who are going to only be in the country for a few days to have a special journalist visa is repressive. That is why if I am going to be in a country for a few days, and it is one of the 53 countries where you can enter on either a US or Australian, as a tourist, without a visa, I do not bother to get any special journalist visas, if I am only going to be in the country for a few days. I see no sense in going through all the mess of getting a journalist visa, if I am only going to be in a given country for a few days. News reporting is very time sensitive, and there is often no TIME to get the proper journalist visas. That is why, if I am only going to one of the 53 countries where either a US or Australian passport holder can enter visa-free as a tourist, and I am only going to be there for a few days, I do not bother to comply with the journalist visa requirements. I just leave it off my Customs form (if the country I am entering has one) that I am entering for journalistic reasons, and I have no problem getting into any one of these 53 countries.
Response:
> to be there for a few days, I do not bother to comply with the > journalist visa requirements. I just leave it off my Customs form
That is a bit harder if you have a camera crew with all their equipment. At which point, you can not only not hide the fact that you’re a journalist, but the visa is probably going to help with respect to equipment "import" into the USA.
Response:
> Why is it that you think requiring a visa for the purpose of "working" > is repressive?
a special visa for journalists *is* repressive. it’s also unconsititutional. see the first amendment.
Response:
:>> Why is it that you think requiring a visa for the purpose of "working" :>> is repressive? :>a special visa for journalists *is* repressive. it’s also :>unconsititutional. see the first amendment. Not at all. Of course, if you are so sure, feel free to ask the US courts for an opinion. — http://www.dissensoftware.com
Response:
>>Why is it that you think requiring a visa for the purpose of "working" >is repressive? > a special visa for journalists *is* repressive. it’s also > unconsititutional. see the first amendment.
Why unconstitutional? There is no constutional right to enter the US AND work without a visa. It it any less constitutional than taxing newspapers? The first ammendment doesn’t deal with the press BEFORE they enter the country. It protects people once they are in the country. Until you clear Immigration, you are not in the country.
Response:
> If you are meeting a (potential) US supplier for a sales pitch, > then there is no reason the immigration folks should stop you.
Dpending on what exactly the commodity is, I’ve got to think that this is pretty rare. More likely, if a US company is pitching a product, the purchaser isin’t going to travel to the vendor – the vendor is going to travel to the client. In other words, it’s going to be a foreign salesman that’s going to be the one travelling to the US to make the pitch to a US client. > However, if you plan on knocking on US doors to seek sales > opportunities for foreign products, or worse, seek employment, > then you can expect rough treatment, unless you have the right > paperwork.
To seek employment, yes, I have heard that customs frowns on finding copies of resumes in the bags of "tourists". Regarding on business travel to "knocking on US doors" there is no such paperwork (at least if you’re CDN). Look. No saleman is going to spend a thousand bucks to fly to some US destination, crack open a phone book and go door-to-door. They’re flying to see a specific person for a pre-arranged meeting. And they don’t need no visa to do it. > FTA/NAFTA didn’t remove the need for paperwork, it only make > it easier to obtain.
No visa paperwork for a CDN sales guy to enter the US (and presumably vice-versa). > The trick is to send a clear message that you are just an > employee doing what your employer has told you what to do, > and that you have no idea of the contract issues between your > company and the company you are visiting.
Um – sometimes it’s a good thing to have this contract in hand (as proof that you are NOT being paid by the person or entity you are visiting). But yes, you are always asked by immigration who you work for, and even if it’s not true you should not tell them you’re being paid directly by a US client.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I don’t get it. Where / who posted the (original) message being > quoted? > Would be nice to see the entire article. Why exactly was it wrong for > an Australian journalist to tell US immigration that she was in the US > to interview a fellow Australian? What did US immigration do to her > after that? >Nothing wrong with that as long as you have an "I" visa. >Tourists aren’t permitted tow work. The journalist was entering on a >tourist visa and planned to work.
Australians can enter the US for up to 90 days without a visa, on both tourism and business purposes, so shw was fine in this case. Dave ===== NSW Rural Fire Service – become a volunteer today. http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
Response:
>> If you are meeting a (potential) US supplier for a sales pitch, > then there is no reason the immigration folks should stop you. > Dpending on what exactly the commodity is, I’ve got to think that this > is pretty rare. More likely, if a US company is pitching a product, > the purchaser isin’t going to travel to the vendor – the vendor is > going to travel to the client.
Plant tours… vendor-arranged meetings with satisfied customers… products too large to ship overseas… design-team meetings… miguel — Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/
Response:
> Australians can enter the US for up to 90 days without a visa, on both > tourism and business purposes, so shw was fine in this case.
Journalists are excepted from this. miguel — Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/
Response:
Monika 
. There is PLENTY of hanging out to do in Wein ! Oh also, don’t waste time on a trip to Saltzburg. It deserves a couple of days all by itself. Nancy 