European Impressions of Cruising the US

[john61ct]

Just think about the mentality required to take up being a government employee, or bureaucrat of any sort.

Now add those traits that would cause you to become a LEO or border guard.

Common sense dictates, revealing that you are a non-mainstream, outside the box alternative thinker of any sort is not a great idea. Certainly not anti-establishment!

Conventional middle-class suburban values and to the right of average is the presentation to strive for.

Taking a year-long sabbatical from decades of on the job 9-5 maybe.

Definitely not a wandering full-time nomad!

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Yes, you are correct. I was using an obsolete term - the Canada/US relationship used to be referred to as a 'visa waiver', but there is now a separate program with a whole bunch of other countries that is specifically called "visa waiver program." Canada and a couple other countries fall under unique circumstances. As you said, the B2 tourist visa is not applicable to Canadians, so comes down to the individual CBP officer and their interpretation of the rules as to whether or not you can stay over 6 months. So you end up with interpretations like Mike's that Cdns can only spend 181 days total within a 365-day period. Or in a calendar year. Or whatever - the rules aren't clear. Out of one of your links, there's this little snippet:



Which seems to indicate one can spend more than 6 months in the US, at the officer's discretion. It is not so easy finding an officer that knows this.

Lodesman - you can get a 12 month entry permit - at the officers descretion. Most do not realize this - you simply have to tell them that they should ask their supervisor who definitely ahs the authority to do this.


RE: the thread drift - interesting conversation as all conversation should be

by the by - I've seen wolves before a number of times so I do know what one looks like - we saw wolves

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by evm1024

For example when Pearl Harbor was attacked, Canada declared war.

I agree, but for this one error. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, Canada was already at war - and had been for the better part of three years.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Lodesman - you can get a 12 month entry permit - at the officers descretion. Most do not realize this - you simply have to tell them that they should ask their supervisor who definitely ahs the authority to do this.

That's what I've been saying. But how many people know to ask for the supervisor when the officer at the gate says you can't come in? And I don't think you have any guarantee the supervisor knows what he or she can permit - it comes down to plain good luck that you get one that will let you in. Again, if anyone could point to an actual regulation that spells it out in black and white, that would be a blessing. And please don't point to CBP website which is full of contradictions.
Add to that all the misinformation coming from the Snowbirds assn, CBC, et al, that keep telling us that Canadians can only spend 180 days in the US - you can see where it would be frustrating.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I agree, but for this one error. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, Canada was already at war - and had been for the better part of three years.

Ah, with an object of not singling out any country directly I left off the country that Canada declared war on. My error as that lead to this misunderstanding.

Canada had declared war on Germany in 1939, Italy in 1940 and ...

On December 7th, 1941 Canada declared War on Japan as a response to the attack on Pearl harbor. (And Hong Kong and Malay)

Canada was clearly early in defending freedom in World War 2.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by evm1024

On December 7th, 1941 Canada declared War on Japan as a response to the attack on Pearl harbor. (And Hong Kong and Malay)

See you added Hong Kong/Malay - it was likely a response to the attacks on the British Empire more so than Pearl Harbor, but I honestly don't know King's motivation at the time.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

See you added Hong Kong/Malay - it was likely a response to the attacks on the British Empire more so than Pearl Harbor, but I honestly don't know King's motivation at the time.

I did add those in as you noted. The timing may show that Pearl Harbor was the last straw or the hit too close to home.

But as you note the King's motivation is key.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

That's what I've been saying. But how many people know to ask for the supervisor when the officer at the gate says you can't come in? And I don't think you have any guarantee the supervisor knows what he or she can permit - it comes down to plain good luck that you get one that will let you in. Again, if anyone could point to an actual regulation that spells it out in black and white, that would be a blessing.
…
you can see where it would be frustrating.

It is purposefully left to the discretion of the individual officers. Based on nothing but their judgment and intuition.

Yes luck of the draw, no way around that.

But having the right sort of appearance, backstory and documentation to "prove" you're not planning on staying, does improve your chances.

[TrentePieds]

@ #153

In the interests of greater accuracy :-):

Canada, having since the Statute of Westminster of 1931 been responsible for her own foreign policy, rather than having it subsumed under the FP of the UK, declared war on Germany on 10 September 1939, i.e. 2 years prior to Pearl Harbour, and she kept, by her Royal Canadian Navy, the Atlantic sea lanes open, thus making possible the flow of Lend/Lease materiel from the US in support of Blighty.

On 8 December 1941, the very day after the bother at Pearl Harbour, Canada's Prime Minister McKenzie King obtained Cabinet's approval to request of King George VI that he announce, as King of Canada, that Canada had, as of 07 December considered herself at war with Japan. The declaration was ratified by Parliament in early January 1942. KGVI's announcement was, of course, concurrent with the US's declaration of war on Japan.

McKenzie King's action was not, principally, in support of the US. McKK clearly didn't have a choice, since the relationship twixt Churchill and Brooke in Britain and Stimson and Marshall in the US was already strained and Lend/Lease was in direst jeopardy due to the difficulty Stimson and Marshall had in understanding the European mind. McKK understood full well that a simulacrum of solidarity with the US was essential in order to save Lend/Lease and thereby Blighty. It was decided at the highest level that the Commonwealth (meaning the UK and Canada) would see to the conflict in the Atlantic and that the US would see to that in the Pacific.

Nevertheless, it required Churchill's deviousness and the sacrifice of five thousand Canadian troops in the Dieppe Raid, a sacrificial "Special Means Operation" intended to assuage Stimson and Marshall, as it did, to avert the cessation of Lend/Lease, and to make the Empire able to "hang in there" long enough for Hitler to lose the war in its entirety by virtue of his defeat at Stalingrad in early '42. From there on it was just a nasty "mopping-up" operation.

TP

[hellosailor]

Carsten, you are right about anchor balls. Dayshapes on recreational/private vessels are "never" used here, that's just the way it is. Of course, we also don't let eight year olds buy a beer, their parents simply have to get up and buy it themselves. Crazy, huh?(G)

I think the fog in NY Harbor may have confused you. That's the Verrazano Bridge at the south end of the harbor (and there used to be forts defending both ends, there are remains of extensive harbor fortifications that the casual traveler will never notice) by the time you have reached the George Washington Bridge (originally built with only the top level, later the lower level was added and it is locally called "Martha") you are up the Hudson and well clear of the harbor.

I think "wing on ground" refers to ground-effect aircraft? I haven't seen them around yet, but IIRC there used to be seaplane traffic on the East River (which isn't a river) mainly for the 34th Street Marina. I'm not sure if that's even allowed any more, with all the heliports in operation, seaplanes are probably obsoleted here now.

Americans are probably so unusually welcoming toward you simply because we're such a young nation, we've never heard "RUN! The Vikings are coming!" from our parents. Unlike so much else of the world.(G)

[TrentePieds]

@ #159

Correction: "Early '43". Not "early '42", obviously :-)

TP

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Carsten, you are right about anchor balls. Dayshapes on recreational/private vessels are "never" used here, that's just the way it is. Of course, we also don't let eight year olds buy a beer, their parents simply have to get up and buy it themselves. Crazy, huh?(G)

I think the fog in NY Harbor may have confused you. That's the Verrazano Bridge at the south end of the harbor (and there used to be forts defending both ends, there are remains of extensive harbor fortifications that the casual traveler will never notice) by the time you have reached the George Washington Bridge (originally built with only the top level, later the lower level was added and it is locally called "Martha") you are up the Hudson and well clear of the harbor.

I think "wing on ground" refers to ground-effect aircraft? I haven't seen them around yet, but IIRC there used to be seaplane traffic on the East River (which isn't a river) mainly for the 34th Street Marina. I'm not sure if that's even allowed any more, with all the heliports in operation, seaplanes are probably obsoleted here now.

Americans are probably so unusually welcoming toward you simply because we're such a young nation, we've never heard "RUN! The Vikings are coming!" from our parents. Unlike so much else of the world.(G)

I don't know if there still are seaplanes landing in NY harobour - but we had one land on the Hudson up at the CAtskills -

no I wasn't confused - from the time you pass under the Verrazano Narrows bridge - the harbour is filled with most anything you can imagine- going in every crazy direction. I noted that by the time you got to the GW bridge you'd be a wreck. which is true. Things slow down a bit after you pass Liberty Landing, but there's still lots to keep you eye on.

If any of you are bored and want to go to sleep, then you can read our website description of coming into NYC harbour - since not all of you are going to want to spend the time reading - here's the video that is in it. It is in both English and Danish - you'll have to live with that - Vinni's section starts at about minute 3 - well worth listening to

https://svcapri.com/2017/06/28/new-y...-helluva-town/

here's the video

https://youtu.be/3VTegvbUeNs


or you can read about us and our sailing at

svcapri.com

[cyan]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

@ #153

In the interests of greater accuracy :-):

Canada, having since the Statute of Westminster of 1931 been responsible for her own foreign policy, rather than having it subsumed under the FP of the UK, declared war on Germany on 10 September 1939, i.e. 2 years prior to Pearl Harbour, and she kept, by her Royal Canadian Navy, the Atlantic sea lanes open, thus making possible the flow of Lend/Lease materiel from the US in support of Blighty.

On 8 December 1941, the very day after the bother at Pearl Harbour, Canada's Prime Minister McKenzie King obtained Cabinet's approval to request of King George VI that he announce, as King of Canada, that Canada had, as of 07 December considered herself at war with Japan. The declaration was ratified by Parliament in early January 1942. KGVI's announcement was, of course, concurrent with the US's declaration of war on Japan.

McKenzie King's action was not, principally, in support of the US. McKK clearly didn't have a choice, since the relationship twixt Churchill and Brooke in Britain and Stimson and Marshall in the US was already strained and Lend/Lease was in direst jeopardy due to the difficulty Stimson and Marshall had in understanding the European mind. McKK understood full well that a simulacrum of solidarity with the US was essential in order to save Lend/Lease and thereby Blighty. It was decided at the highest level that the Commonwealth (meaning the UK and Canada) would see to the conflict in the Atlantic and that the US would see to that in the Pacific.

Nevertheless, it required Churchill's deviousness and the sacrifice of five thousand Canadian troops in the Dieppe Raid, a sacrificial "Special Means Operation" intended to assuage Stimson and Marshall, as it did, to avert the cessation of Lend/Lease, and to make the Empire able to "hang in there" long enough for Hitler to lose the war in its entirety by virtue of his defeat at Stalingrad in early '42. From there on it was just a nasty "mopping-up" operation.

TP

If the greatest invasion (with the largest armada) in the history of the world is merely listed among events of a "nasty mopping-up operation" .... well the best advice would be to search for that history book receipt. Hopefully it was Amazon. They are pretty easy to deal with.

[sailorcherry]

Hi Carsten and Vinni,

Welcome to the US! You all sound like lovely people. I have read your posts before and always liked them. This one though has got to be one of the best I have ever read on CF. What an excellent, well organized, informative and written review! I encourage you to write in to, and of course read if you aren't already, Latitude 38 sometime as I think you make an excellent submission.

You two are just the types I look forward to meeting when cruising or traveling to a new marina. We have made great sailing/powerboat even friends over the years from this lifestyle and it's why the sailing community is such a great one.

Happy sailing!
Sailor Cherry

Originally Posted by carstenb

Vinni (my wife) and I have been cruising the US for 9 months. It is rare to see foreigners impressions of the US here on CF. This post may encourage other non-americans to spend time there.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Again, if anyone could point to an actual regulation that spells it out in black and white, that would be a blessing.

You're not going to get it in Black and White, because there will always be a clause saying that the final decision is up to them.
But you got me curious ... and I found this:
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/...0-0-17437.html

(1) General. Any B-1 visitor for business or B-2 visitor for pleasure may be admitted for not more than one year and may be granted extensions of temporary stay in increments of not more than six months each ...

(2) Minimum six month admissions. Any B-2 visitor who is found otherwise admissible and is issued a Form I-94, will be admitted for a minimum period of six months ... Exceptions to the minimum six month admission may be made only in individual cases upon the specific approval of the district director for good cause.

Even though you have no visa, you are still entering as a B2 visitor and will be issued an (electronic) I-94, which is your immigration document.

This seems to say that: They will give you six months without asking many questions ... If you ask, they can give you up to one year if they feel like it ... you can also ask for (but may not get) more later.

However ... going back to what was said on the CBP website ... if you're going to ask for more than six months in a year you will probably be asked to prove that you are just a temporary visitor to the USA and still a genuine Canadian resident ... and that will be up to the CBP officer to assess. This, and the fact that you may have to file a US tax return if you stay more than six months, is probably why the general wisdom is "keep it less than six months".

And while I'm here ... I'll add my thanks to Carsten for his excellent report on cruising the east-coast.