Update: Virgin Islands Customs requirements

[Bullshooter]

Originally Posted by imiloa

We just did this…
Checked into BVI from St Martin, you need to have a rapid test no more than 48 hrs old. We checked in at Road Town, the health check was quick and easy but the customs/immigration dance was ridiculously complicated and slow. You should pre clear in using eseaclear. Everyone was friendly enough but the system is not efficient, took an hours and a half!
You need a rapid test to clear into usvi from Bvi. You also need to upload your vax card and rest results to the usvi travel portal, they will then email you a QR code which you have to present when clearing in. Cpb Roam is not working in the usvi because of the testing requirements.

It seems that eseaclear is only for Antigua and Barbuda. From their website:

"eSeaClear® is a fast and easy way to clear in and out of port in Antigua. "

[imiloa]

Sorry my mistake, BVI uses Sailclear not eseaclear.
Wish everyone would use the same portal!

[Zanshin]

Sailclear is currently not being used in the BVI.

[imiloa]

I was required to use sailclear to check in and out of the Bvi last month. They have a kiosk at customs in road town where you can log your entry, the customs officer would not process my clearance without it

[Zanshin]

@imiloa - in that case I retract my statement as being incorrect and outdated! Things have evidently changed recently! This is good news, in the past there were signs in the BVI and announcements on the web regarding the electronic clearance system but it was never implemented in any of the ports of entry.

[Bullshooter]

Thanks guys for the info.

[Cwens]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

“ No later then 48 hours before “ means within 48 hours.

How does it mean that?



Let's say you're arriving at noon on Wednesday. "48 hours before arrival" is noon on Monday. "No later than noon on Monday" means that Sunday evening is fine, but Tuesday is not ok.

[Cwens]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

It's not the way that most Americans would phrase it, but then they're not Americans. So, yeah, it means within 48 hours.

Could someone please explain to me how, in any part of the English speaking world, "No later than X" would be interpreted to mean "No earlier than X"?

[Bullshooter]

Chris,

It didn't make sense to me either.

But then again, Brits and Aussies have their own style of speaking. For example, when they mean to indicate that they are teasing or pulling a prank on someone, it is called Taking the Piss. What's up with that?

[Cwens]

Originally Posted by Bullshooter

Chris,

It didn't make sense to me either.

But then again, Brits and Aussies have their own style of speaking. For example, when they mean to indicate that they are teasing or pulling a prank on someone, it is called Taking the Piss. What's up with that?

The US and the UK being "two great nations divided by a common language" is variously attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and a bunch of other famous people who maybe did or didn't say it. All of us, as English-speaking nations, have our quirky expressions, One that is strikingly different is the word "billion", which in the USA means 1,000,000,000 and in the UK historically meant 1,000,000,000,000, although the UK is now standardizing to it meaning the same thing that it does in the USA.

One that means opposite things in two places is to 'table' some matter at a meeting -- which in the UK means to start discussing it, i.e. to lay it out on the table and start looking it over and talking about it, while in the US it means to stop discussing it, i.e. to lay it down on the table and move on to other business.

But I've never encountered "no later than" to mean anything other than the obvious "not after." and I'm surprised to hear that there is an English-speaking place where "no later than 48 hours before arrival" means anything other than "at least 48 hours before arrival."

[Bullshooter]

I tend to think it is either a typo or misleading governmen-speak, although others say it is correct for British parlance. I brought it up because I could just imagine facing a stern-faced customs agent refusing to accept the valid test result over this, and refusing to admit it was stated wrong. "I'm sorry sir, I don't make the rules..."

[hlprmnky]

I believe the confusion about the rule wording arises because you can read “48 hours before arrival” in two ways: as denoting a duration or as denoting a specific moment in time.

Replacing the phrase with a different one that performs the same grammatical function makes it clear that the first reading is internally inconsistent, while the second one is consistent:

Duration: No later than <thirty minutes> - what does this mean?
Specific moment in time: No later than <last Tuesday> - this makes perfect sense

The confusion arises because the specific moment, the “last Tuesday”, is relative to the unknown time of the reader’s arrival, so you end up with this duration-flavored way of denoting a fixed, specific moment.

Never forget the words of our old friend William S. Burroughs: “Language is a virus from outer space.”

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by ChrisOwens

How does it mean that?



Let's say you're arriving at noon on Wednesday. "48 hours before arrival" is noon on Monday. "No later than noon on Monday" means that Sunday evening is fine, but Tuesday is not ok.

Hmm not sure how you get there from the start but if you arrive at noon on we’d the your test must be done between noon on Monday and noon on Wednesday
11 on Monday is over 48 hours

[Cwens]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Hmm not sure how you get there from the start but if you arrive at noon on wed then your test must be done between noon on Monday and noon on Wednesday
11 on Monday is over 48 hours

Obviously they want a fresh test and not an old one, but their rule says exactly the opposite. Which is why this curious thread started in the first place.



Monday noon is 48 hours before arrival. Tuesday is later than Monday. A test taken on Tuesday is "later than 48 hours before arrival," which by their published rule is not acceptable, since they say they want a test taken "not later than 48 hours before arrival".


They could have said "no more than 48 hours before arrival," or "no earlier than 48 hours before arrival," or "within 48 hours prior to arrival," but they didn't say any of those things.

I'm just astounded that someone who had the job of drafting and publishing a rule could get it so backwards.

[AKA-None]

I don’t know but it sounds clear to me but then I’m not an English teacher