91 days in the US

ian, give up. They've moved well away from "don't understand" and into "refuse to understand."

Btw, Canadians don't use the VWP. They have their own agreement.

Perhaps you're right ...

BTW we're picking up my SIL in Maryland (a US Citizen) and the three of us are tootling up to Canada. As Australians in the US under an ESTA/VWP entry, we're fine (we don't need anything but our passport) - but does my SIL require anything more than her passport to wander into Canada for a month or so?

but does my SIL require anything more than her passport to wander into Canada for a month or so?

Not unless there's some extraordinary circumstance (drunk driving charge, etc.).
And technically, she needs the passport to return to the US. Canada still allows Americans in with alternative documentation.

Seems there is a little confusion caused by my personal example. Let's keep some clarity. I have Canadian citizenship, so comments about the VW referred only to my wife who only had UK citizenship at the time. Canadian citizens of course do not need a VW or anything other than a passport.

Re your SIL ianw, assuming she is a US citizen she just needs her passport to enter Canada provided there are no other reasons as bzookaj notes, why she would be refused entry. A DUI conviction is such a reason. A lot of US citizens don't realize Canada won't let them in with a DUI charge on their record. They see it as a minor thing while Canada sees it as a felony. Nor do they ask 'do you have any criminal convictions', they ask, 'do you have any arrests'. An arrest even without a conviction can stop her entering.

Here's the point ianw and bzookaj. There are rules and we know what they are. But then there are common practices and we know they differ from the rules in many cases. You still haven't said what your nationality is bzookaj and your experience of entering the US on a VW is. It is not difficult to find people who have been allowed entry in situations that appear to contravene the rules. The question of 'don't understand vs. 'refuse to understand' applies to you bzookaj, not to me. You are simply arguing from a 'position', rather than looking for actual evidence that supports or refutes what you are saying. I am refuting what you say. The rules are flexible and I know that from personal experience. Not just from entering the US but from travel to many countries.

In my experience, the rules can be written using whatever words/terms the lawyers tell them to use. But when you get to Immigration, what the officer will accept and has the authority to accept are not necessarily the same thing. As I keep trying to tell you, if you can SATISFY the officer of your intent, you will probably get in. There are many circumstances under which someone may not have a return or onward ticket. US Immigration does not insist that they do.

The airlines are a separate issue. They follow their own rules, not Immigration's rules. Generally speaking, the airlines interpret the Immigration rules as absolutes and err on the side of caution. So for example Canadian Immigration rules do not say 'return ticket' they say 'satisfy Immigration' and yet if you look at the IATA website (which the airlines use to make their decisions re their policies) you will see that according to IATA, a return/onward ticket is required for entry to Canada.

The IATA Timatic site says this: "Visitors are required to hold proof of sufficient funds to cover their stay and documents required for their next destination."

Certain Visa regulations apply as follows:
Visitors not holding return/onward ticket could be refused entry."+

The airlines interpret that as an onward/return ticket is required.

Meanwhile the Canadian Immigration site says this:
"+•have a valid travel document, such as a passport;
•be in good health;
•satisfy an immigration officer that you have ties, such as a job, home, financial assets and family, that will take you back to your country of origin;
•satisfy an immigration officer that you will leave Canada at the end of your visit; and
•have enough money for your stay. "+

NO WHERE does it say anything about onward travel or return travel. So why does the Timatic site say differently? Because they are about telling the airline how to cover their butt. So they put in that line about 'could be refused entry'.

Not sure you have all the oars in the water here TIS46.

•satisfy an immigration officer that you have ties, such as a job, home, financial assets and family, that will take you back to your country of origin;
•satisfy an immigration officer that you will leave Canada at the end of your visit;

How on earth does a busy, bored, and possibly over-worked immigration officer reach satisfaction on these two issues? Here's a thought - does the traveller carry a ticket out of the country? Brilliant indeed ... and that has become the de facto (and virtually de jure) requirement for the airlines as well, since the airlines get into trouble if they carry people to the US who cannot or will not be allowed entry.

Solution? Make sure all travellers have outbound tickets before we let them on the plane.

Hey, ian, instead of continuing this farce of the thread, which degrades to base insults the more they attempt to prove the rules are wrong, read this.

And that's the last thing I post here. Hopefully the mods will take control soon.

No ianw, a ticket proves nothing other than you have a ticket.

What is the problem that you and bzookaj cannot separate the airline from Immigration? There is a connection between what the airline insists on the Immigration regulations but it is not a 100% accurate connection in many cases.

I've just given you a perfect example. In simple words, the Canadian Immigration regulations say NOTHING about having a ticket of any kind. Yet the airlines often insist you have one. So OBVIOUSLY, the airline is not following the regulation, they are following their own policy which insures they don't get fined or stuck flying someone back who hasn't paid for a ticket.

The busy, bored and over-worked Immigration officer does NOT always accept a ticket as proof you will leave the country.

Here is what you need to think about. For 99% of visitors to Canada, the questions they get asked are, 'what is the purpose of your visit to Canada?' Answer, vacation/tourism. 'How long will you stay in Canada?' Answer, 2 weeks. Often those are the ONLY questions they get asked.

Now, why do some people get asked more questions? Answer, because the Immigration Officer is suspicious or is simply making a random check. So they may get asked, 'where are you going? Where will you be staying. Do you have a return ticket? etc.' They may have their luggage checked. They may then get asked, 'why do you have this CV in your luggage? Do you intend to look for work in Canada?'

People NEVER get refused entry simply because they do not have a ticket and they NEVER get granted entry simply because they do have a ticket. Either through a random check or suspicion they are asked more questions that the norm and their answers to those questions lead to their being allowed to enter or being refused entry.

Only the airline relies SOLELY on a ticket to cover their butt. So yes, that is the solution for the airline but it is not the solution for Immigration or the passenger.

This has been done to death now. If you can't or won't see the logic and illogic of this I can't see that any further attempts to explain it to you are going to help. So I'm done with the thread. Apparently on that other thread Max referenced, bzookaj kept up his inability to understand for 22 pages. I'm not about to waste that much time here.

Bottom line. A return ticket is not required by Immigration and having one proves nothing other than you have one.

Canadian residents can enter the US by land, sea, or air under the VWP if they don't stay in the US longer than 90 days continuously ... each time our example returned to Canada the VWP 90 days are stopped/reset. No?

What do you count as a Canadian resident then? Wouldn't this hold for European students who go to Canada for exchange studies or a working holiday visa? Then why have we had all these discussions in the past whether these folks need a US visa or not for transiting/visiting the US? Or are you referring to a permanent resident of Canada? A source would be nice. In my view, from what I've gathered from researching this topic extensively and talking to many many people who have been in this situation, is that there really is no set rule. Many seem to consider 30 days as a safe number of days to spend outside of the US to be let back in, although several official sources have stated that there is no such number, you just have to satisfy the CBP officer that you're not abusing the rules and you'll be let in. Travelinstyle's stories are perfectly aligned with my previous research.

And technically, she needs the passport to return to the US.

No. We have discussed this too in the past. An American citizen is never denied entry to his or her own country. They will just be given a slip that looks like this and told to bring a passport next time.

How on earth does a busy, bored, and possibly over-worked immigration officer reach satisfaction on these two issues? Here's a thought - does the traveller carry a ticket out of the country? Brilliant indeed ...

The officer deals with hundreds of people every day, they have a pretty good sense of reading people and pick up who might have questionable motives. If there is any doubt, the traveler is sent to secondary screening which, at least in Canada, is INTENSE. I have written about this before. I flew from San Francisco to Calgary to have lunch with a return back to SF 6h later. The Canadian immigration officer refused to believe this and was convinced I was trying to either circumvent US immigration ("reset" my status somehow) or smuggle something into the country. They confiscated my smartphone, read through my emails and started interrogating me on specific emails (who is this person? which birthday party did you go to two days ago? where did you fly last weekend?). Yes, seriously! Trust me, they will keep digging until they're satisfied. If a valid return ticket was all that was needed to prove that your visit is legit, anyone with bad motives would just make sure they had one, so that wouldn't be such a good proof I think.

I note how you continue to avoid saying what personal experience you have of trying to enter the USA on a VW bzookaj. One can only assume the answer is no experience at all.

I agree bzookaj ... the guy is just a flipper who needs a stage for glory-hunting, Goodbye 46.