america travel laws

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Fact Sheets

Frequently Asked Questions: Guidance for Travelers to Enter the U.S.

Updated Date: April 21, 2022

Since January 22, 2022, DHS has required non-U.S. individuals seeking to enter the United States via land ports of entry and ferry terminals at the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 and provide proof of vaccination upon request.  On April 21, 2022, DHS announced that it would extend these requirements. In determining whether and when to rescind this order, DHS anticipates that it will take account of whether the vaccination requirement for non-U.S. air travelers remains in place.

These requirements apply to non-U.S. individuals who are traveling for essential or non-essential reasons. They do not apply to U.S. citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, or U.S. nationals.

Effective November 8, 2021, new air travel requirements applied to many noncitizens who are visiting the United States temporarily. These travelers are also required to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination. All air travelers, including U.S. persons, must test negative for COVID-19 prior to departure. Limited exceptions apply. See  CDC guidance  for more details regarding air travel requirements.

Below is more information about what to know before you go, and answers to Frequently Asked Questions about cross-border travel.

Entering the U.S. Through a Land Port of Entry or Ferry Terminal

Q. what are the requirements for travelers entering the united states through land poes.

A:  Before embarking on a trip to the United States, non-U.S. travelers should be prepared for the following:

• Possess proof of an approved COVID-19 vaccination as outlined on the  CDC  website.
• During border inspection, verbally attest to their COVID-19 vaccination status. 
• Bring a  Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative  compliant border crossing document, such as a valid passport (and visa if required), Trusted Traveler Program card, a Department of State-issued Border Crossing Card, Enhanced Driver’s License or Enhanced Tribal Card when entering the country. Travelers (including U.S. citizens) should be prepared to present the WHTI-compliant document and any other documents requested by the CBP officer.

 Q. What are the requirements to enter the United States for children under the age of 18 who can't be vaccinated?

A:  Children under 18 years of age are excepted from the vaccination requirement at land and ferry POEs.

Q: Which vaccines/combination of vaccines will be accepted?

A:  Per CDC guidelines, all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved and authorized vaccines, as well as all vaccines that have an Emergency Use Listing (EUL) from the World Health Organization (WHO), will be accepted.

Accepted Vaccines:

• More details are available in CDC guidance  here .
• 2 weeks (14 days) after your dose of an accepted single-dose COVID-19 vaccine;
• 2 weeks (14 days) after your second dose of an accepted 2-dose series;
• 2 weeks (14 days) after you received the full series of an accepted COVID-19 vaccine (not placebo) in a clinical trial;
• 2 weeks (14 days) after you received 2 doses of any “mix-and-match” combination of accepted COVID-19 vaccines administered at least 17 days apart.

Q. Is the United States requiring travelers to have a booster dose to be considered fully vaccinated for border entry purposes?

A:  No. The CDC guidance for “full vaccination” can be found here.

Q: Do U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents need proof of vaccination to return to the United States via land POEs and ferry terminals?

A:  No. Vaccination requirements do not apply to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs). Travelers that exhibit signs or symptoms of illness will be referred to CDC for additional medical evaluation.

Q: Is pre- or at-arrival COVID testing required to enter the United States via land POEs or ferry terminals?

A: No, there is no COVID testing requirement to enter the United States via land POE or ferry terminals. In this respect, the requirement for entering by a land POE or ferry terminal differs from arrival via air, where there is a requirement to have a negative test result before departure.

Processing Changes Announced on January 22, 2022 

Q: new changes were recently announced. what changed on january 22.

A:  Since January 22, 2022, non-citizens who are not U.S. nationals or Lawful Permanent Residents have been required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter the United States at land ports of entry and ferry terminals, whether for essential or nonessential purposes. Previously, DHS required that non-U.S. persons be vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter the United States for nonessential purposes.  Effective January 22, all non-U.S. individuals, to include essential travelers, must be prepared to attest to vaccination status and present proof of vaccination to a CBP officer upon request. DHS announced an extension of this policy on April 21, 2022.

Q: Who is affected by the changes announced on January 22?

A: This requirement does not apply to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents. It applies to other noncitizens, such as a citizen of Mexico, Canada, or any other country seeking to enter the United States through a land port of entry or ferry terminal.

Q: Do U.S. citizens need proof of vaccination to return to the United States via land port of entry or ferry terminals?

A: Vaccination requirements do not apply to U.S. Citizens, U.S. nationals or U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents. Travelers that exhibit signs or symptoms of illness will be referred to CDC for additional medical evaluation. 

Q: What is essential travel?

A:  Under the prior policy, there was an exception from temporary travel restrictions for “essential travel.” Essential travel included travel to attend educational institutions, travel to work in the United States, travel for emergency response and public health purposes, and travel for lawful cross-border trade (e.g., commercial truckers). Under current policy, there is no exception for essential travel.

Q: Will there be any exemptions? 

A: While most non-U.S. individuals seeking to enter the United States will need to be vaccinated, there is a narrow list of exemptions consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Order in the air travel context.

• Certain categories of individuals on diplomatic or official foreign government travel as specified in the CDC Order
• Children under 18 years of age;
• Certain participants in certain COVID-19 vaccine trials as specified in the CDC Order;   
• Individuals with medical contraindications to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine as specified in the CDC Order;
• Individuals issued a humanitarian or emergency exception by the Secretary of Homeland Security;
• Individuals with valid nonimmigrant visas (excluding B-1 [business] or B-2 [tourism] visas) who are citizens of a country with limited COVID-19 vaccine availability, as specified in the CDC Order
• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or their spouses or children (under 18 years of age) as specified in the CDC Order; and
• Individuals whose entry would be in the U.S. national interest, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Q: What documentation will be required to show vaccination status?

A:  Non-U.S. individuals are required to be prepared to attest to vaccination status and present proof of vaccination to a CBP officer upon request regardless of the purpose of travel.

The current documentation requirement remains the same and is available on the CDC website . Documentation requirements for entry at land ports of entry and ferry terminals mirror those for entry by air.

Q: What happens if someone doesn’t have proof of vaccine status?

A: If non-U.S. individuals cannot present proof of vaccination upon request, they will not be admitted into the United States and will either be subject to removal or be allowed to withdraw their application for entry.

Q: Will incoming travelers be required to present COVID-19 test results?

A: There is no COVID-19 testing requirement for travelers at land border ports of entry, including ferry terminals.

Q: What does this mean for those who can't be vaccinated, either due to age or other health considerations? 

A: See CDC guidance for additional information on this topic. Note that the vaccine requirement does not apply to children under 18 years of age.

Q: Does this requirement apply to amateur and professional athletes?

A: Yes, unless they qualify for one of the narrow CDC exemptions.

Q: Are commercial truckers required to be vaccinated?

A: Yes, unless they qualify for one of the narrow CDC exemptions. These requirements also apply to bus drivers as well as rail and ferry operators.

Q. Do you expect border wait times to increase?

A:  As travelers navigate these new travel requirements, wait times may increase. Travelers should account for the possibility of longer than normal wait times and lines at U.S. land border crossings when planning their trip and are kindly encouraged to exercise patience.

To help reduce wait times and long lines, travelers can take advantage of innovative technology, such as facial biometrics and the CBP OneTM mobile application, which serves as a single portal for individuals to access CBP mobile applications and services.

Q: How is Customs and Border Protection staffing the ports of entry? 

A: CBP’s current staffing levels at ports of entry throughout the United States are commensurate with pre-pandemic levels. CBP has continued to hire and train new employees throughout the pandemic. CBP expects some travelers to be non-compliant with the proof of vaccination requirements, which may at times lead to an increase in border wait times. Although trade and travel facilitation remain a priority, we cannot compromise national security, which is our primary mission. CBP Office of Field Operations will continue to dedicate its finite resources to the processing of arriving traffic with emphasis on trade facilitation to ensure economic recovery.

Q: What happens if a vaccinated individual is traveling with an unvaccinated individual?  

A:  The unvaccinated individual (if 18 or over) would not be eligible for admission.

Q: If I am traveling for an essential reason but am not vaccinated can I still enter?

A:  No, if you are a non-U.S. individual. The policy announced on January 22, 2022 applies to both essential and non-essential travel by non-U.S. individual travelers. Since January 22, DHS has required that all inbound non-U.S. individuals crossing U.S. land or ferry POEs – whether for essential or non-essential reasons – be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 and provide related proof of vaccination upon request.

Q: Are sea crew members on vessels required to have a COVID vaccine to disembark?

A:  Sea crew members traveling pursuant to a C-1 or D nonimmigrant visa are not excepted from COVID-19 vaccine requirements at the land border. This is a difference from the international air transportation context.

Entering the U.S. via Air Travel

Q: what are the covid vaccination requirements for air passengers to the united states  .

A:  According to CDC requirements [www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/noncitizens-US-air-travel.html | Link no longer valid], most noncitizens who are visiting the United States temporarily must be fully vaccinated prior to boarding a flight to the United States. These travelers are required to show proof of vaccination. A list of covered individuals is available on the CDC website.  

Q: What are the COVID testing requirements for air passengers to the United States?  

A:  Effective Sunday, June 12 at 12:01 a.m. ET, CDC will no longer require pre-departure COVID-19 testing for U.S.-bound air travelers.

• Border Security
• Transportation Security
• Airport Security
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
• Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

From vaccines to testing: What travelers need to know before the new US travel system on Nov. 8

• The U.S. is launching a new travel system on Nov. 8.
• Vaccinated foreign air travelers will need to show proof of full vaccination and test for COVID-19.
• The new travel system also adds more stringent testing requirements for unvaccinated U.S. travelers.

The United States is about to make it much easier for vaccinated international travelers to visit.  

The White House announced that a new air travel system will take effect Nov. 8, allowing entry for fully vaccinated foreign tourists .  The system is set to launch nearly two years after the U.S. began imposing travel restrictions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 . 

The move by the White House will essentially have the U.S. drop its travel ban on dozens of countries while also making entry more challenging for the unvaccinated. The new system will allow entry for foreign nationals only with vaccinations approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization and would add testing requirements for unvaccinated Americans.

Here’s what we know about the new travel requirements:

What are the entry requirements for foreign nationals?

Starting Nov. 8, non-citizen, non-immigrant air travelers   will need to show proof of full vaccination as well as a pre-departure negative coronavirus test taken within three days of travel before they can board a plane to the U.S. 

Learn more: Best travel insurance

Acceptable forms of proof of vaccination include:

• Digital or paper verifiable record, such as a vaccination certificate or a digital pass with a QR code.  
• Nonverifiable paper record, such as a printout of a COVID-19 vaccination record or COVID-19 vaccination certificate.
• Nonverifiable digital record, such as a digital photo of a vaccination card or record, downloaded vaccine record, downloaded vaccination certificate or a mobile phone application without a QR code.  

The U.S. will accept nucleic acid amplification tests, including PCR tests, and antigen tests. The rules will go into effect for passengers on planes leaving for the U.S. at or after 12:01 a.m. ET on Nov. 8.  

Airlines will collect basic personal contact information   from all U.S.-bound travelers for contact tracing. Airlines are required to keep the information on hand so the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   can reach out to travelers who may have been infected or exposed to COVID-19.

Masking will be required, but there will be no quarantine mandate for vaccinated travelers or unvaccinated children .

► US  travel bans: How COVID-19 travel restrictions have impacted families and couples

The change will make entering the U.S. possible for travelers from countries now listed on the U.S. travel ban, which prohibits entry for travelers who have been in any of the regions within the past 14 days. The travel ban  took effect in early 2020 and includes :

• United Kingdom
• Republic of Ireland
• South Africa
• The European Schengen area (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City)

Currently, the U.S. asks international air passengers only to get tested within three days of their flight to the U.S. and show either the negative test result or proof of recovery  from COVID-19 before boarding. 

What about the land borders with Mexico and Canada?

New travel rules will also take effect for foreign nationals arriving by land or passenger ferry.

Starting Nov. 8, fully vaccinated foreign nationals can cross the land borders for nonessential reasons such as tourism or visiting friends and family . These travelers will need to verbally attest to their reason for travel and vaccination status and be prepared to show proof of vaccination  upon request. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will accept both digital and paper records showing proof of vaccination, including documents not in English.   Foreign nationals will also need appropriate travel documentation to enter the country.  

CBP will spot-check travelers' vaccination documents, and those without documented proof of vaccination can be denied entry. Travelers under 18 will be exempt from the vaccination requirement as long as they are traveling with a fully vaccinated adult, according to Matthew Davies, CBP's executive director of admissibility and passenger programs.  

The new travel rules will go into effect as soon as a port of entry opens on Nov. 8, or at midnight for ports that operate 24 hours a day changes will go into effect at midnight on Nov. 8 for ports that operation 24 hours a day.  

U.S. citizens reentering the country should also bring a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative document, such as a valid passport, trusted traveler program card, enhanced driver's license or enhanced tribal card. 

Entry rules along the border will change again in early January, with all travelers – including those traveling for essential purposes – required to show proof of full vaccination. 

► US land borders: Travelers in Mexico and Canada plan their next US visit after new land border policy announced

Which vaccines does the US accept for travel?

The CDC has announced that vaccines approved for emergency use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and World Health Organization will be accepted for air travel. White House officials expect the CDC to approve the same vaccines for travelers entering the U.S. by land or ferry.  

The FDA has authorized three COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use during the pandemic: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer-BioNTech, the last of which has received the FDA's full stamp of approval.

Vaccines with WHO approval for emergency use include:

• Johnson & Johnson
• Pfizer-BioNTech
• Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield 

The CDC confirmed that it would accept a mix-and-match approach to vaccinations. Travelers who have any combination of FDA- or WHO-approved vaccines will be considered fully vaccinated.

The new travel policy does not accept foreign travelers who have had COVID and received just one shot in a two-dose series. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that the administration will "continue to review" its entry requirements.  

► Covaxin gets WHO emergency approval: Travelers vaccinated with Covaxin can enter US   

► 'You feel lonely and left out': These fully vaccinated travelers want to visit the US. They may not be allowed in.

How do the new rules affect kids? 

Foreign nationals under 18 are exempt from the vaccination requirement. Children under two will not need to take a pre-departure COVID test.

Kids 2 and older traveling with a fully vaccinated adult can test three days prior to departure, while children traveling alone or with unvaccinated adults will need to get tested within one day of departure. 

Currently, all air passengers 2 or older, including U.S. citizens and permanent residents, need to show a negative coronavirus test to fly to the U.S.

What are the entry requirements for Americans?

The new travel system adds more stringent testing requirements for unvaccinated U.S. travelers.

Starting Nov. 8, unvaccinated U.S. citizens and permanent residents will need to take a test one day before departure and test again upon arrival in the U.S. 

► New travel rules: What US travelers need to know about the new COVID rules for international flights

Entry requirements will not change for vaccinated Americans. They will still need to show proof of a negative coronavirus test taken no more than three days before departure. 

Americans will not need to be fully vaccinated to board international flights to the U.S.

Are there any exemptions?

There is a limited set of travelers who are exempt from the vaccine requirement for entry.

Children under 18, certain COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial participants and travelers with adverse reactions to the vaccines – such as people who have had severe anaphylactic allergic reactions to a prior COVID-19 vaccine –  will be exempt.

People traveling on non-tourist visas from countries with less than 10% of its population vaccinated who need to enter the U.S. for emergency or humanitarian reasons are also exempt from the vaccine requirement. There are about 50 countries considered to have low vaccine availability at this time.

These exempt travelers will generally need to show that they will comply with public health mandates, including a requirement to be vaccinated in the U.S. if they plan to stay more than 60 days.  

Unless they have recovered from COVID-19 within the last 90 days, unvaccinated travelers  must agree to be tested with a COVID-19 viral test three to five days after their arrival and quarantine for seven days, even if their post-arrival test comes back negative. 

Unvaccinated travelers who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents must also agree to self-isolate if their post-arrival test is positive or if they develop COVID-19 symptoms. 

Unvaccinated children under 18 will not need to quarantine but will still need to take a post-arrival test. 

► Who is exempt?: These select groups of unvaccinated foreign travelers can enter the US

The CDC will not give exemptions  to people who object to the vaccinations due to religious or moral convictions. 

There will also be testing accommodations for travelers who can prove they recently recovered from the coronavirus. These travelers will need to show a positive COVID-19 viral test result on a sample taken no more than 90 days before their flight's departure and a letter from a licensed healthcare provider or public health official saying they are cleared for travel.  

Follow USA TODAY reporter Bailey Schulz on Twitter: @bailey_schulz . 

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• For International Visitors

Know Before You Visit

Almost a million individuals enter the U.S. daily. Everyone arriving at a port of entry to the U.S. is subject to inspection by Customs and Border Protection officers for compliance with immigration, customs and agriculture regulations. The more international travelers know about what to expect, the easier and quicker the process becomes.  

Related Travel Resources

• Money and Other Monetary Instruments  
• Prohibited and Restricted Items

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Fact Sheet: Biden Administration Releases Additional Detail for Implementing a Safer, More Stringent International Air Travel   System

As we continue to work to protect people from COVID-19, today, the Biden Administration is releasing additional detail around implementation of the new international air travel policy requiring foreign national travelers to the United States to be fully vaccinated. This updated policy puts in place an international travel system that is stringent, consistent across the globe, and guided by public health. Starting on November 8, non-citizen, non-immigrant air travelers to the United States will be required to be fully vaccinated and to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination status prior to boarding an airplane to fly to the U.S., with only limited exceptions. The updated travel guidelines also include new protocols around testing. To further strengthen protections, unvaccinated travelers – whether U.S. Citizens, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), or the small number of excepted unvaccinated foreign nationals – will now need to test within one day of departure. Today, the Administration is releasing the following documents to implement these requirements: 1) a Presidential Proclamation to Advance the Safe Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-19 Pandemic; 2) three Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention (CDC) Orders on vaccination, testing, and contact tracing; and 3) technical instructions to provide implementation details to the airlines and their passengers.  With science and public health as our guide, the United States has developed a new international air travel system that both enhances the safety of Americans here at home and enhances the safety of international air travel. The additional detail released today provides airlines and international air travelers with time to prepare for this new policy ahead of the November 8 implementation date. As previously announced, fully vaccinated foreign nationals will also be able to travel across the Northern and Southwest land borders for non-essential reasons, such as tourism, starting on November 8. Additional detail on amendments to restrictions with respect to land borders will be available in the coming days. Travelers can find full details about today’s air travel announcement on the CDC and Department of State websites.  A summary is below: Fully Vaccinated Status:

• Starting on November 8, non-citizen, non-immigrant air travelers to the United States will be required to be fully vaccinated and to provide proof of vaccination status prior to boarding an airplane to fly to the U.S.

Proof of Vaccination:

• For foreign nationals, proof of vaccination will be required – with very limited exceptions – to board the plane.
• Match the name and date of birth to confirm the passenger is the same person reflected on the proof of vaccination;
• Determine that the record was issued by an official source (e.g., public health agency, government agency) in the country where the vaccine was given;
• Review the essential information for determining if the passenger meets CDC’s definition for fully vaccinated such as vaccine product, number of vaccine doses received, date(s) of administration, site (e.g., vaccination clinic, health care facility) of vaccination.
• The Biden Administration will work closely with the airlines to ensure that these new requirements are implemented successfully.

Accepted Vaccines:

• CDC has determined that for purposes of travel to the United States, vaccines accepted will include FDA approved or authorized and World Health Organization (WHO) emergency use listed (EUL) vaccines.
• Individuals can be considered fully vaccinated ≥2 weeks after receipt of the last dose if they have received any single dose of an FDA approved/authorized or WHO EUL approved single-dose series (i.e., Janssen), or any combination of two doses of an FDA approved/authorized or WHO emergency use listed COVID-19 two-dose series (i.e. mixing and matching).
• More details are available in the CDC Annex here .

Enhanced Testing:

• Previously, all travelers were required to produce a negative viral test result within three days of travel to the United States.
• Both nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), such as a PCR test, and antigen tests qualify.
• As announced in September, the new system tightens those requirements, so that unvaccinated U.S. Citizens and LPRs will need to provide a negative test taken within one day of traveling.
• That means that all fully vaccinated U.S. Citizens and LPRs traveling to the United States should be prepared to present documentation of their vaccination status alongside their negative test result.
• For those Americans who can show they are fully vaccinated, the same requirement currently in place will apply – they have to produce a negative test result within three days of travel.
• For anyone traveling to the United States who cannot demonstrate proof of full vaccination, they will have to produce documentation of a negative test within one day of departure.

Requirements for Children:

• Children under 18 are excepted from the vaccination requirement for foreign national travelers, given both the ineligibility of some younger children for vaccination, as well as the global variability in access to vaccination for older children who are eligible to be vaccinated.
• Children between the ages of 2 and 17 are required to take a pre-departure test.
• If traveling with a fully vaccinated adult, an unvaccinated child can test three days prior to departure (consistent with the timeline for fully vaccinated adults). If an unvaccinated child is traveling alone or with unvaccinated adults, they will have to test within one day of departure.

Limited Exceptions from the Vaccination Requirement:

• There are a very limited set of exceptions from the vaccination requirement for foreign nationals. These include exceptions for children under 18, certain COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial participants, those with medical contraindications to the vaccines, those who need to travel for emergency or humanitarian reasons (with a US government-issued letter affirming the urgent need to travel), those who are traveling on non-tourist visas from countries with low-vaccine availability (as determined by the CDC), and other very narrow categories.
• Those who receive an exception will generally be required to attest they will comply with applicable public health requirements, including, with very limited exceptions, a requirement that they be vaccinated in the U.S. if they intend to stay here for more than 60 days.

Contact Tracing:

• The CDC is also issuing a Contact Tracing Order that requires all airlines flying into the United States to keep on hand – and promptly turn over to the CDC, when needed – contact information that will allow public health officials to follow up with inbound air travelers who are potentially infected or have been exposed to someone who is infected.
• This is a critical public health measure both to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of new variants of COVID-19 as well as to add a critical prevention tool to address other public health threats.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Visit the U.S. as a tourist

Learn about travel documents to enter the U.S., including visa waivers and non-immigrant visas.

Visa Waiver Program and ESTA application

The Visa Waiver Program allows citizens of participating countries to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to 90 days without a visa.

How to apply for or renew a U.S. tourist visa

If you visit the U.S. for tourism or business, you may need a visitor visa, also known as a tourist visa. Learn how to get and renew this type of nonimmigrant visa.

How to check the status of your visa application

Find out how to check the status of your visa application online. And to avoid delays, learn how to update your address if you move while waiting for your visa to be approved.

What happens if your visa application is rejected

Find out what to do if your visa is denied, and learn if you are eligible for a waiver of grounds of inadmissibility.

COVID-19 international travel advisories

If you plan to visit the U.S., you do not need to be tested or vaccinated for COVID-19.

Entering the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda

See what travel documents you need to enter the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, or Bermuda.

Form I-94 arrival-departure record for U.S. visitors

Visa Waiver Program forms I-94 and I-94W record the arrival and departure dates of U.S. visitors.

How to extend your stay in the U.S.

You may be able to extend your stay in the U.S. Learn if you qualify and how to file for an extension.

Foreign visitors: what to do if your visa or passport is lost or stolen

If you are in the U.S. and your visa or passport was lost or stolen, learn how to report it and apply for a new one.

Fourteenth Amendment , Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The doctrine of the “right to travel” actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis. 1 Footnote Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) . “For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of ‘free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been ‘conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.’” Id. at 501 (citations omitted). The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state. 2 Footnote Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869) ( “without some provision . . . removing from citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.” ). The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship.

Durational Residency Requirements

Challenges to durational residency requirements have traditionally been made under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . In 1999, however, the Court approved a doctrinal shift, so that state laws that distinguished between their own citizens, based on how long they had been in the state, would be evaluated instead under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . 3 Footnote Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 502–03 (1999) . The Court did not, however, question the continuing efficacy of the earlier cases.

A durational residency requirement creates two classes of persons: those who have been within the state for the prescribed period and those who have not. 4 Footnote Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334 (1972) . Because the right to travel is implicated by state distinctions between residents and nonresidents, the relevant constitutional provision is the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, § 2, cl. 1. But persons who have moved recently, at least from state to state, 5 Footnote Intrastate travel is protected to the extent that the classification fails to meet equal protection standards in some respect. Compare Hadnott v. Amos , 320 F. Supp. 107 (M.D. Ala. 1970) (three-judge court), aff’d. per curiam , 405 U.S. 1035 (1972) , with Arlington County Bd. v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977) . The same principle applies in the commerce clause cases, in which discrimination may run against in-state as well as out-of-state concerns. Cf. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) . have exercised a right protected by the Constitution, and the durational residency classification either deters the exercise of that right or penalizes those who have exercised it. 6 Footnote Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629–31, 638 (1969) ; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 338–42 (1972) ; Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) ; Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 420–21 (1981) . See also Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 236–39 (1970) (Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall), and id. at 285–92 (Justices Stewart and Blackmun and Chief Justice Burger). Any such classification is invalid “unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.” 7 Footnote Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969) (emphasis by Court); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375–76 (1971) . The constitutional right to travel has long been recognized, 8 Footnote Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868) ; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) (both cases in context of direct restrictions on travel). The source of the right to travel and the reasons for reliance on the Equal Protection Clause are questions puzzled over and unresolved by the Court. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758, 759 (1966) , and id. at 763–64 (Justice Harlan concurring and dissenting), id. at 777 n.3 (Justice Brennan concurring and dissenting); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629–31 (1969) , and id. at 671 (Justice Harlan dissenting); San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 31–32 (1973) ; Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 417–19 (1981) ; Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 60 & n.6 (1982) , and id. at 66–68 (Justice Brennan concurring), 78-81 (Justice O’Connor concurring). but it is only relatively recently that the strict standard of equal protection review has been applied to nullify durational residency requirements.

Thus, in Shapiro v. Thompson , 9 Footnote 394 U.S. 618 (1969) . durational residency requirements conditioning eligibility for welfare assistance on one year’s residence in the state 10 Footnote The durational residency provision established by Congress for the District of Columbia was also voided. 394 U.S. at 641–42 . were voided. If the purpose of the requirements was to inhibit migration by needy persons into the state or to bar the entry of those who came from low-paying states to higher-paying ones in order to collect greater benefits, the Court said, the purpose was impermissible. 11 Footnote 394 U.S. at 627–33 . Gaddis v. Wyman , 304 F. Supp. 717 (N.D.N.Y. 1969) , aff’d sub nom. Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U.S. 49 (1970) , struck down a provision construed so as to bar only persons who came into the state solely to obtain welfare assistance. If, on the other hand, the purpose was to serve certain administrative and related governmental objectives—the facilitation of the planning of budgets, the provision of an objective test of residency, minimization of opportunity for fraud, and encouragement of early entry of new residents into the labor force—then the requirements were rationally related to the purpose but they were not compelling enough to justify a classification that infringed a fundamental interest. 12 Footnote 394 U.S. at 633–38 . Shapiro was reaffirmed in Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (striking down durational residency requirements for aliens applying for welfare assistance), and in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (voiding requirement of one year’s residency in county as condition to indigent’s receiving nonemergency hospitalization or medical care at county’s expense). When Connecticut and New York reinstituted the requirements, pleading a financial emergency as the compelling state interest, they were summarily rebuffed. Rivera v. Dunn , 329 F. Supp. 554 (D. Conn. 1971) , aff’d per curiam , 404 U.S. 1054 (1972) ; Lopez v. Wyman , Civ. No. 1971-308 (W.D.N.Y. 1971) , aff’d per curiam , 404 U.S. 1055 (1972) . The source of the funds, state or federal, is irrelevant to application of the principle. Pease v. Hansen, 404 U.S. 70 (1971) . In Dunn v. Blumstein , 13 Footnote 405 U.S. 330 (1972) . But see Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679 (1973) , and Burns v. Fortson, 410 U.S. 686 (1973) . Durational residency requirements of five and seven years respectively for candidates for elective office were sustained in Kanapaux v. Ellisor , 419 U.S. 891 (1974) , and Sununu v. Stark , 420 U.S. 958 (1975) . where the durational residency requirements denied the franchise to newcomers, such administrative justifications were found constitutionally insufficient to justify the classification. 14 Footnote For additional discussion of durational residence as a qualification to vote, see Voter Qualifications, supra . The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was the basis for striking down a California law that limited welfare benefits for California citizens who had resided in the state for less than a year to the level of benefits that they would have received in the state of their prior residence. 15 Footnote Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 505 (1999) .

However, a state one-year durational residency requirement for the initiation of a divorce proceeding was sustained in Sosna v. Iowa . 16 Footnote 419 U.S. 393 (1975) . Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented on the merits. Id. at 418 . Although it is not clear what the precise basis of the ruling is, it appears that the Court found that the state’s interest in requiring that those who seek a divorce from its courts be genuinely attached to the state and its desire to insulate divorce decrees from the likelihood of collateral attack justified the requirement. 17 Footnote 419 U.S. at 409 . But the Court also indicated that the plaintiff was not absolutely barred from the state courts, but merely required to wait for access (which was true in the prior cases as well and there held immaterial), and that possibly the state interests in marriage and divorce were more exclusive and thus more immune from federal constitutional attack than were the matters at issue in the previous cases. The Court also did not indicate whether it was using strict or traditional scrutiny. Similarly, durational residency requirements for lower in-state tuition at public colleges have been held constitutionally justifiable, again, however, without a clear statement of reason. 18 Footnote Starns v. Malkerson , 326 F. Supp. 234 (D. Minn. 1970) , aff’d per curiam , 401 U.S. 985 (1971) . Cf. Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 452 & n.9 (1973) , and id. at 456, 464, 467 (dicta). In Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 256 (1974) , the Court, noting the results, stated that “some waiting periods . . . may not be penalties” and thus would be valid. More recently, the Court has attempted to clarify these cases by distinguishing situations where a state citizen is likely to “consume” benefits within a state’s borders (such as the provision of welfare) from those where citizens of other states are likely to establish residency just long enough to acquire some portable benefit, and then return to their original domicile to enjoy them (such as obtaining a divorce decree or paying the in-state tuition rate for a college education). 19 Footnote Saenz v. Roe , 526 U.S. at 505 .

A state scheme for returning to its residents a portion of the income earned from the vast oil deposits discovered within Alaska foundered upon the formula for allocating the dividends; that is, each adult resident received one unit of return for each year of residency subsequent to 1959, the first year of Alaska’s statehood. The law thus created fixed, permanent distinctions between an ever-increasing number of classes of bona fide residents based on how long they had been in the state. The differences between the durational residency cases previously decided did not alter the bearing of the right to travel principle upon the distribution scheme, but the Court’s decision went off on the absence of any permissible purpose underlying the apportionment classification and it thus failed even the rational basis test. 20 Footnote Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) . Somewhat similar was the Court’s invalidation on equal protection grounds of a veterans preference for state employment limited to persons who were state residents when they entered military service; four Justices also thought the preference penalized the right to travel. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986) .

Still unresolved are issues such as durational residency requirements for occupational licenses and other purposes. 21 Footnote La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919) , upholding a two-year residence requirement to become an insurance broker, must be considered of questionable validity. Durational periods for admission to the practice of law or medicine or other professions have evoked differing responses by lower courts. But this line of cases does not apply to state residency requirements themselves, as distinguished from durational provisions, 22 Footnote E.g. , McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm’n, 424 U.S. 645 (1976) (ordinance requiring city employees to be and to remain city residents upheld). See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255 (1974) . See also Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983) (bona fide residency requirement for free tuition to public schools). and the cases do not inhibit the states when, having reasons for doing so, they bar travel by certain persons. 23 Footnote Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412 (1981) (statute made it a misdemeanor to abandon a dependent child but a felony to commit the offense and then leave the state).

10 New State Laws That US Travelers Need To Know About In 2024

For a problem-free vacation, get up to date on the following latest US state regulations, which comprise new US laws for 2024 that affect travel.

• In 2024, new US state laws that affect travel are being implemented and can disrupt vacations if not planned for accordingly (although, some of these new US state laws are actually beneficial for tourists!).
• California campground penalties for no-show reservations may result in a loss of reservation amount.
• Illinois video chat restrictions prohibit video calls while driving and can result in fines of $75 to $150.

The last thing a traveler wants is to set out on their next adventure only to meet a roadblock, especially when visiting countries with strict laws that tourists should abide by , lest they face serious punishment. Even in a slightly less intimidating country like the USA, though, laws are constantly changing and evolving, particularly those that relate to the travel industry, so it's critical to stay on top of them as vacation planning commences.

For the year 2024, a handful of new travel laws in the US are being enacted that can disrupt vacations if not planned for accordingly. Below are the ten new US regulations and laws that impact tourists as well as residents, and they're crucial to a seamless trip when visiting the United States, whether as a domestic or an international visitor.

10 National Parks That Require Early Reservations For 2024 Visits

10 california campground penalties, be prepared for stiff fines for no-show reservations.

It's known that plans can change at a moment's notice. However, for those intending to camp at one of California's many state campgrounds with beachfront sites , desert sites, and woodland sites (the state's terrain is indeed diverse!), it's best to have plans set in stone or allow enough time for an adequate cancelation.

For those who cancel within a week of their pre-arranged reservation, a credit for the amount paid will be extended . This credit is valid for a period of five years; however, if a camper doesn't show up on the first day of their reservation, the entire amount paid will be lost.

• Law Goes Into Effect: January 1, 2024
• Potential Fines: Loss of reservation amount

9 Stricter Florida Campground Reservations

Those not from floria will have less time to secure a camping spot.

Prior to this year, residents and non-residents of Florida alike were able to reserve campsites 11 months in advance. However, in 2024, this will change in order to benefit in-state residents.

Going forward, those who live in Florida will have the ability to book campsites 11 months in advance, while out-of-state individuals will only be able to do so ten months in advance. This change allows more Floridians to better enjoy their parks that normally see a lot of visitors, such as the popular state parks in Florida with scenic hikes , along with those with gorgeous beaches.

• Potential Fines: None

Those not residing in the Sunshine State will still have access to all of Florida's state parks and campgrounds. However, the change will likely reduce the number of sites available to non-residents for camping.

8 Refunds For California Hotel And Rental Cancelations

Had a change of heart you can now cancel your california hotel booking within 24 hours.

Many people find a great deal for lodging online and book it impulsively. As the hours tick by, there are situations in which the traveler realizes the trip isn't possible, or they can't actually afford to take advantage of the deal. Senate Bill 644 in California is making adjustments to account for such occurrences.

With this new law, all California hotels and rental accommodations, from hostels to California's all-inclusive resorts and all in between, must allow for a full refund within 24 hours of booking, so long as the reservation was made 72 hours before the stay is to commence. Hosts or owners who don't abide by this new rule can be penalized with a fine of up to $10,000.

• Potential Fines: Up to $10,000 (for the accommodation provider)

14 Cheap Places To Travel In The U.S. All Year Round

7 the kansas grocery tax, don't do a double take if your grocery bill is less in kansas; the rate will decrease in 2024.

Those planning a retreat or enjoying scenic road trips in Kansas as they travel through and discover the many beautiful landmarks in the Sunflower State should be prepared to keep more money in their pocket when they stop for a snack or some groceries. In an effort to reduce the tax on food altogether, the state is cutting the rate to 2% in 2024.

However, the good news doesn't end there. As 2025 looms near, the plan is to do away with the tax entirely, taking the amount down to 0%.

6 New Illinois Video Chat Restrictions While Driving

You can no longer facetime with loved ones while driving in illinois.

The state of Illinois has long been hands-free, meaning that drivers are only permitted to take phone calls if the caller is on speaker or Bluetooth. However, the year 2024 will take the regulations further with the restriction of video calls .

Going forward, those driving in the state will be unable to participate in Zoom calls, FaceTime, or any other type of video communication, including streaming videos and recording, while in a car. This move is being made to reduce the occurrences of distracted driving in the state. As such, travelers planning to enjoy a road trip in Illinois or rent a car during their vacation in the state should heed this new law.

• Potential Fines: $75 to $150

5 No More California "Junk Fees"

Expect to see a streamlined bill for services in california due to the elimination of excessive fees.

The significant amount of added fees on services is frustrating to many and can be a strain on financial resources. Today, there are additional costs tacked on in the form of service fees when it comes to everything from food delivery to bank accounts.

However, one of the new laws in the US that affect tourists (as well as residents) is Senate Bill 478 in California , which will eliminate the surcharges that pop up on bills incurred within the state. Companies that don't follow the new state law, which goes into effect in July 2024, could incur a financial penalty for each occurrence.

• Law Goes Into Effect: July 1, 2024
• Potential Fines: Minimum of $1,000 per violation

4 The New Florida Traffic Passing Law

In 2024, you'll need to pull over for more than just emergency vehicles in florida.

Whether taking any of Florida's scenic road trip routes or simply passing through the state, there's a new law in town that affects drivers in the Sunshine State. As part of Florida's "Move Over" law , it has always been necessary for those driving a motorized vehicle to pull over into another lane to account for emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and sanitation drivers.

However, 2024 will expand this law to account for disabled cars on the side of the road, and those looking to visit the Sunshine State will need to be aware of the changes.

Starting at the top of 2024, if a car is pulled to the side of a road and is either not in working order or has its flashers on, drivers are required to move to a further lane to provide a barrier. If this isn't possible, they have to reduce their speed to 20 mph under the speed limit or five mph if the speed is posted at 20 mph or less.

• Potential Fines: Up to $158

This new US state law requires drivers to leave one lane clear between the disabled or emergency vehicle and themselves, and drivers are only allowed to utilize the reduced speed option if they are unable to get into the proper lane.

3 The New California Police Stops Questioning Law

When driving in california, expect this question to be a statement if pulled over..

Another one of the new US state laws in 2024 that affect travel (as well as residents) has to do with law enforcement. If someone is traveling through California and they're stopped by a police officer, the officer is no longer allowed to ask the question known by all.

Instead of inquiring, "Do you know why you've been pulled over?", this new law now requires cops in the Golden State to voice the reason for pulling a driver (or pedestrian) over before anything else.

There are exceptions to the rule, including those of an emergent or possibly dangerous nature. While the exact penalty is unknown, it is likely that the repercussions of going against this new law in California will result in professional discipline and legal ramifications.

• Potential Fines: Unknown

2 Relaxed Illinois Windshield Regulations

Don't worry about that air freshener any longer; it's now allowed in illinois.

The state of Illinois provides yet another one of the newest state laws in the US that travelers should know about, especially road-trippers and those intending to rent a vehicle during their visit.

The state previously ruled that items such as air fresheners or placards could not be hung from a vehicle's rear-view mirror due to possible blockage of a driver's view. However, this new law in 2024 will reverse that decision and allow for those items to be hung up once again.

In order to eliminate any pretextual reasons for pulling individuals over, the governor of Illinois has signed into law that drivers cannot be pulled over due to having such items hanging. While the exact penalty is currently not yet known, the repercussions of officials and law enforcement going against this new law will probably be professional discipline and legal ramifications.

10 Things You Can Only See Along Route 66 In Illinois

1 lifts on california entertainment zone restrictions, visiting your favorite places in california just got a lot easier with the entertainment zone law.

To boost the success of small businesses, a new law in California is aimed at allowing already established restaurants and bars to sell alcoholic beverages outdoors and within a pre-designated "entertainment zone ". This is perhaps good news not only for the state's bars, restaurants, and other businesses operating in the service and hospitality industry but also for tourists, as it should make enjoying a drink outside far easier.

Previously, these sales were only able to happen if temporary sellers set up shop to sell such drinks. This practice took business away from the establishments already in the area. Still, while this law will boost sales, operating outside the entertainment zone boundaries can result in hefty penalties for businesses, including the loss of a liquor license.

• Potential Fines: Loss of Liquor License

50 surprising laws in popular tourist destinations

Posted: December 3, 2023 | Last updated: January 3, 2024

Strange laws to be aware of in the most popular countries for tourists

It's never been easier to travel the world than it is today. The internet has made planning exotic overseas trips a total breeze. Intense competition between airlines means airfares stay low. Airbnb and VRBO have made lodging much more affordable. And the proliferation of travel media means wanderlusters are but a finger tap away from all the travel inspiration they can handle.

While scoring that Instagram-ready Airbnb and finding the family-run, handmade-pasta restaurant certainly merit their respective research, travel planning should also include learning and understanding the laws of your destination because adventuring abroad can quickly turn sour if you run afoul of local customs and laws. Even the best-laid travel plans go awry. In his seminal travelogue, "The Innocents Abroad," Mark Twain mused "The gentle reader will never, never know what a consummate ass he can become, until he goes abroad."

Before you hit the road, hit the guidebooks, CIA World Factbook, Google, and the U.S. Department of State's website to research the dos and don'ts of your destination country. You might be surprised at what you learn. The explosion of international travel has spurred many countries to put tourist-centric laws and regulations on the books. Since ignorance is no excuse, it's incumbent upon you, dear traveler, to stay updated on all the latest rules and laws governing your destination country. Luckily, Stacker is here to help.

Using data released from the World Tourism Organization in 2019, Stacker compiled a list of the 50 most popular tourist destinations in terms of 2018 international tourist arrivals, ranked from least to most visited. Tourist arrivals for Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and the Czech Republic are as of 2017. Below is a list of one peculiar or arbitrary law in each country. If you're planning to travel abroad, read on to see if your destination made the list.

You may also like:  25 must-visit hidden gems from across the US

#50. Norway

- International tourist arrivals: 6.3 million

Should you be challenged to fistfight to the death in Norway , you must either accept or pay four deer in exchange for refusing the challenge. If you're not a qualified pugilist but also aren't sure where to procure four deer, worry not: the law hasn't been enforced in many years.

#49. Dominican Republic

- International tourist arrivals: 6.6 million

The age of sexual consent in the Dominican Republic is 18. There is no close-in-age exemption, which means that an 18-year-old high school senior visiting on spring break could be arrested and prosecuted for a tryst with a 17-year-old high school senior there.

#48. Brazil

Brazil is the fifth-largest country in the world, known for its stunning natural beauty and bounty of exotic wildlife. If you're a hunter planning on pursuing wild game, however, think again. Commercial, recreational, and sport hunting have been outlawed since 1967. The ban, however, may not last as congress submitted a bill in 2019 to open the country to commercial hunting.

#47. Argentina

- International tourist arrivals: 6.9 million

Arguably the greatest soccer player of all time, football superstar Lionel Messi is the pride and joy of his hometown of Rosario, Argentina. When a Rosario resident named his child Messi, however, some residents protested. In 2014, Rosario made it illegal to name a child Messi.

#46. Sweden

- International tourist arrivals: 7.1 million

To discourage public disorder, Swedish authorities issue permits to bars and other hangouts that allow customers to dance. If customers dance spontaneously in an unlicensed venue, the consequences can be serious—not for the reveler, but for the bar owner. While politicians across parties have pledged to revoke the law, as of December 2019 it remains on the books.

#45. Philippines

If you visit the Philippines, be careful who you antagonize. The country's "unjust vexation" law makes it illegal for one person to annoy another.

- International tourist arrivals: 7.3 million

While it may fall under the category "strange" to Westerners, Iran, like other strict Islamic countries, prohibits the sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol. All offers of alcohol should be turned down. Not only do travelers risk going to jail but the bootleg alcohol so prevalent in Iran can also be poisonous .

[Pictured: A beer based on an old Persian recipe produced in UK.]

#43. Tunisia

- International tourist arrivals: 8.3 million

Tunisia has become a hotbed of artifact-smuggling. The government has subsequently made it illegal to take antiques out of the country without declaring them at customs. Before you buy something at a market or shop, make sure you have the proper documentation needed to bring these items home. Failure to do so can result in travel delays, fines, or confiscation.

#42. Belgium

- International tourist arrivals: 9.2 million

Belgians are still bound by an archaic set of rules known collectively as the GAS laws . One of the laws forbids street musicians from playing off-key or in any other manner that disturbs public order.

#41. Australia

Australia has a laundry list of bizarre laws on the books . Among the weirdest: In Victoria, it's illegal to wear pink hot pants on Sunday afternoons. The takeaway here? Limit your pink hot pants to Saturdays.

#40. Bulgaria

- International tourist arrivals: 9.3 million

Bulgaria takes highway safety very seriously. When you're in the country, keep in mind that motorists are required by law to keep a reflective triangle, fire extinguisher, and spare tire in the car at all times.

#39. Ireland

- International tourist arrivals: 10.3 million

Ireland's Defamation Act of 2009 made it illegal to insult religion, either verbally or in writing. The law, which is rife with subjective definitions like "grossly abusive" and "causing outrage," pertains to all religions.

#38. South Africa

- International tourist arrivals: 10.5 million

South Africa is home to some of the world's most beautiful beaches, but you'll have to follow some pretty bizarre rules if you plan to visit. One law requires young people in bathing suits to sit at least 12 inches apart from each other.

#37. Taiwan

- International tourist arrivals: 11.1 million

In Taiwan, morality is often enforced through strict laws and regulations, like one that makes adultery illegal . Adultery laws disappeared in virtually all of Europe and Latin America decades ago, but remains illegal in many Muslim-majority countries, Eastern countries, and more than 20 of America's 50 states.

- International tourist arrivals: 11.3 million

Same-sex relationships are not a crime in Egypt as they are in other majority-Muslim countries. Public displays of affection between two people of the same sex could lead to arrest.

#35. Switzerland

- International tourist arrivals: 11.7 million

Switzerland is all about peace, quiet, and public order, especially on the ski slopes. It's illegal to recite poetry while skiing, so leave the Wordsworth back in the chalet.

#34. Denmark

Pilots run through a maintenance safety checklist before flying a plane, and the same applies to drivers in Denmark. Before starting their cars, drivers are required to test their lights and brakes, honk their horns, and check for children under their vehicles.

#33. Morocco

- International tourist arrivals: 12.3 million

If you visit Morocco, be choosy about who you hang out with. In the North African nation, police can arrest and prosecute people just for being in the company of someone found with drugs, even if the acquaintance didn't know the person was in possession.

#32. Indonesia

- International tourist arrivals: 13.4 million

Be careful if you use a public restroom in Indonesia, a country with a notoriously severe criminal justice system. It's illegal not to flush the toilet after using it, and police do random inspections of public bathrooms. This law is further complicated by the fact that many toilets do not include a traditional flush feature , and must be flushed manually with a bucket of water.

#31. Czechia

- International tourist arrivals: 13.7 million

In the Czech Republic, headlights are not only for driving at night. It's been illegal since 2006 to drive without your headlights turned on at all times during winter.

#30. Ukraine

- International tourist arrivals: 14.2 million

In Ukraine, it is illegal to smoke or drink anywhere in public at any time. That includes smoking and drinking at sporting events and parks.

#29. Singapore

- International tourist arrivals: 14.7 million

Singapore is known for pristine public spaces that are maintained, in part, by severe laws regarding litter, graffiti, and other blight. The country's harsh criminal justice system includes public caning as punishment. Because it's hard to clean up when discarded outside of trash cans, it's been illegal to chew gum in Singapore since 1992.

#28. Saudi Arabia

- International tourist arrivals: 15.3 million

If you're looking for ways to get into trouble in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, you won't have to look far—particularly if you're a woman. Although some women can now drive cars for the first time, women in Saudi Arabia are still forbidden from participating in a long list of everyday activities, including swimming in pools, dressing in a way deemed immodest, or competing in sports, including the Olympic Games.

#27. Republic of Korea

Your body art won't prevent you from going to South Korea, but if you get a tattoo while you're there, chances are high the ink is illegal. Since only licensed medical doctors can legally administer tattoos in South Korea, virtually all tattoo artists there practice their trade illegally.

#26. Vietnam

- International tourist arrivals: 15.5 million

In Vietnam, it's not uncommon to see many people crowded onto one bike. If it's more than two, however, those people are breaking the law. It's illegal in the Southeast Asian country for more than two people to ride one bike at the same time.

#25. United Arab Emirates

- International tourist arrivals: 15.9 million

In the UAE city of Dubai, public image is taken very seriously. The government considers dirty cars to be a blight on the city's reputation. Not only are dirty cars routinely towed and their owners fined, you can even get in trouble for washing your car the wrong way.

#24. Croatia

- International tourist arrivals: 16.6 million

In Croatia, you can be ticketed and fined for sleeping on a public bench . The fine doubles if you're caught snoring as you slumber.

#23. Hungary

- International tourist arrivals: 17.2 million

Tourists in Hungary will want to take extra care when snapping photos. In 2014, the country enacted a law that requires photographers to get permission from everyone who will be depicted in the photo they're about to take.

- International tourist arrivals: 17.4 million

Sending a kite skyward is a time-honored tradition all over the world, nowhere more so than India. You may be surprised to learn, however, that kites have been considered aircraft since 1934 . Irresponsible kite-flying can lead to persecution. That means you need a license if you want to get in on the fun.

- International tourist arrivals: 18.5 million

Called the "Vegas of the East," Macao (or Macau) is a casino haven that attracts massive crowds of Eastern gamblers looking to skirt China's strict laws. In many ways, it resembles a Western casino strip—with one glaring omission. Unlike Atlantic City and Las Vegas casinos that ply gamblers with all the booze they can drink, casinos in Macao offer unlimited free tea, milk, soda, and coffee, but no alcohol.

#20. Netherlands

- International tourist arrivals: 19 million

If you're visiting the Netherlands as a tourist, great—but don't plan a destination wedding there . It's illegal to get married in the Netherlands unless one of the two people exchanging vows is Dutch.

#19. Poland

- International tourist arrivals: 19.6 million

If you're traveling in a country occupied by the Nazis during World War II, it's probably best to avoid mentioning the era altogether, particularly in Poland. Although the government is considering softening this controversial law, it is currently illegal to accuse Poland of complicity in the Holocaust . Doing so could land you in prison for three years.

#18. Canada

- International tourist arrivals: 21.1 million

If you're nursing a scrape in Canada you think may be almost healed, make sure you check before heading out for the day. It is illegal in Canada to remove a bandage in public .

#17. Portugal

- International tourist arrivals: 22.8 million

In Portugal, it is against the law to urinate in the ocean . It is unclear, however, how authorities go about enforcing this mandate.

#16. Russia

- International tourist arrivals: 24.6 million

Russia is teeming with archaic and peculiar laws. One of the weirdest: It's illegal to brush your teeth more than twice a day . Again, enforcing this law sounds tricky.

#15. Malaysia

- International tourist arrivals: 25.8 million

The conservative, Muslim-majority country of Malaysia has strict laws regarding public exposure . So strict, in fact, that several local governments have banned bikinis altogether. In 2016, a group of Australian tourists was arrested and detained, eventually pleading guilty to indecency for attending a racing event wearing bathing suits adorned with the Malaysian flag.

#14. Hong Kong

- International tourist arrivals: 29.3 million

Hong Kong's strangest laws are leftovers from British colonial rule. Case in point: Firing of cannons is forbidden within 200 meters of another house. In this population-dense city, it's probably best to shoot cannons elsewhere.

#13. Greece

- International tourist arrivals: 30.1 million

Visitors to Greece's myriad archaeological sites should note two regulations: High-heel shoes are banned and chewing gum is forbidden. These laws help to conserve the fragile sites: In 2006, authorities removed over 60 pounds of discarded chewing gum at the Odeon theater.

#12. Austria

- International tourist arrivals: 30.8 million

According to civil code BGBLA 2004 I 118 § 16 Abs (5), Austrians may not restrict animals in their mobility "to the point of pain.". It is expressly prohibited to chain up a dog, even temporarily.

- International tourist arrivals: 31.2 million

It's hard to imagine why you'd want to put ice cream in a mailbox in Japan, but if you're considering it, you'd better think twice. Thanks to a rogue postman in 2006, Article 78 of Japan's postal law makes the act illegal.

#10. United Kingdom

- International tourist arrivals: 36.3 million

If you're in the United Kingdom and looking to purchase a television, you'll need more than a ride to the electronics store. You're required to get a license before buying a TV , installing any program receiving equipment, or recording television programs.

#9. Thailand

- International tourist arrivals: 38.3 million

Thailand's strict lèse majesté laws prohibit anyone from defaming, insulting, or threatening the king. And authorities are serious about its enforcement: There have been over 100 prosecutions since the 2014 coup .

#8. Germany

- International tourist arrivals: 38.9 million

Germany is famous worldwide for the Autobahn, a pristine superhighway that does not impose speed limits on its drivers. That doesn't mean that there aren't any rules, though. It is illegal to stop on the Autobahn for any reason, even running out of gas.

- International tourist arrivals: 41.4 million

In the Mexican state of Sonora, it's illegal to give your newborn any of the 61 names on a baby name blacklist . Among the forbidden names are Harry Potter, Facebook, and James Bond.

- International tourist arrivals: 45.8 million

Turkey, known for its strict censorship laws, has blocked more than 100,000 web pages from reaching its citizens. The most controversial online ban is the complete blacklisting of Wikipedia. After the information site refused to alter content the Turkish government found objectionable, authorities outlawed the entire site in a ban The Verge calls "the most comprehensive in the world."

You may also like: Most popular museums in America

- International tourist arrivals: 62.1 million

Because of overtoursim, many Italian destinations have enacted laws to manage the tourist onslaught. Rome sits at the forefront of these new regulations , enacting laws prohibiting eating in public, sitting on the Spanish Steps, and sightseeing while shirtless.

- International tourist arrivals: 62.9 million

China is known for its strict rules and harsh justice system. One of its odder regulations has to do with health care. To see a doctor, you first have to get a state hospital-issued ticket , which can take two weeks. If you have the cash to pay an illegal scalper, you may be able to get medical attention in as little as two days.

#3. United States

- International tourist arrivals: 79.6 million

Americans are subject to a maze of often vague and inconsistently applied federal laws. Author Harvey Silverglate argues the average American unwittingly commits three felonies a day . Americans also must contend with a patchwork of inconsistent and archaic state laws, many of which are cartoonishly arbitrary. In Boulder, Colorado, for example, it's illegal to keep a couch on your porch . In Indiana, it's illegal to ride a horse faster than 10 miles per hour.

- International tourist arrivals: 82.8 million

From the Ibizan hound to the Spanish greyhound, Spain is home to some of the most unique and elegant dog breeds in the world. Spanish authorities, however, don't want to see you with too many at any given time. It's illegal in Madrid to walk more than eight dogs at once.

- International tourist arrivals: 89.4 million

Bargain hunters beware: In France, the government controls when retail establishments can hold clearance sales. Two official periods, known as "les soldes," occur once a summer and winter, usually January and July. Even internet retailers must abide by these rules and keep their items at full price until the sale period kicks in.

More for You

Tiger Woods Finishes Last At 2024 Masters Following Highest Total Score Of Pro Career

KFC Is Changing Its Menu—Here’s What to Expect

Harvard-trained psychologist: If you use any of these 9 phrases every day, ‘you're more emotionally secure than most'

Top 10 Times Bill Hader Broke The SNL Cast

Tech trick: How to tell who’s calling when you don’t recognize the phone number

Workers Stunned as California Minimum Wage Increase Results in Restaurant Closure

I quit digital nomad life after experiencing 4 downsides that no one talks about

Country announces major plans to ban of gas-powered vehicles in sweeping new law: 'The evidence ... is clear'

What It Means If Your Costco Rotisserie Chicken Is Green

78 Riddles for Adults That Will Test Your Smarts

19 Common Behaviors of Highly Intelligent People

Keanu Reeves' Ballerina Cameo as John Wick Revealed at CinemaCon Screening

The Coolest Car From the Year You Were Born (1945-1995)

"He basically bought out everybody else; he wouldn't buy me out" - Nelly on being Bobcats co-owner with Michael Jordan

Founder of Toms shoes went on a men’s retreat with other entrepreneurs to combat his loneliness and depression: ‘I lost a lot of my clear meaning and purpose’

Watch: Caitlin Clark makes audience roar in 'Saturday Night Live' appearance

15 Boxed Cake Flavors That Are Probably Gone Forever

New 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice' Footage Introduces Jenna Ortega's New Character

14 Best New Aldi Products That Are Worth Every Penny

18 Ways to Tell if Someone Has a High IQ

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.

Public Health

How florida and arizona supreme court rulings change the abortion access map.

Selena Simmons-Duffin

Hilary Fung

In a few weeks, Florida and Arizona are set to join most states in the southern U.S. in banning abortion. It's a significant shake up to the abortion legal landscape, and data shared exclusively with NPR maps and quantifies what the changes will mean for millions of Americans.

On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court cleared the way for an 1864 law to be enforced. That law completely bans abortion except when someone's life is in danger. Last week, the Florida Supreme Court made its decision to allow a ban on abortions after six weeks gestation to take effect on May 1.

Caitlin Myers , an economics professor at Middlebury College in Vermont, has been tracking abortion facilities and travel distances since 2009. She analyzed how these latest rulings will affect the access map.

"Because of these bans, it's about 6 million women of reproductive age who are experiencing an increase in distance of more than 200 miles," she says.

She points out that Floridians who are seeking abortions after six weeks will have to travel nearly 600 miles to North Carolina, which has a 72-hour waiting period. "So we're talking about a day's drive to a state that requires you to engage in this multi-day process," Myers says. "A lot of people might end up going several hundred miles further to Virginia."

For people in Arizona, after the 1864 law takes effect, "their nearest destinations are pretty long drives. They're going to be facing hundreds of miles to reach southern California, New Mexico, Colorado," Myers says. "I think Arizona spillover is likely to affect California in a way that California hasn't yet been affected by bans."

Myers helms the Myers Abortion Facility Database . She has gathered data about facilities – including clinics, doctors, and hospitals that publicly indicated that they provide abortions – going back more than a decade, using data licensure databases, directories, and Wayback Machine captures of websites from years past. She uses a team of undergraduate research assistants to periodically call facilities and make sure the information is up to date.

Numbers of abortions rise in Florida, decline in Arizona

Although Florida and Arizona have historically both been politically purple states and both have had 15-week abortion bans since 2022, the states have been on different trajectories when it comes to abortion and play very different roles in their regions.

There were about 12,000 abortions in Arizona in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute , a research organization that supports abortion rights. Out-of-state travel accounted for 3% of abortions in the state, and the overall number of abortions has been declining there in recent years, Guttmacher finds.

By contrast, there were nearly 85,000 abortions in Florida in 2023, according to state data , just a few thousand fewer than Illinois, which has positioned itself as a haven for people seeking abortions in the post- Roe era. And the number of abortions happening in the state has been on the rise. "The majority of the increase has been driven by out-of-state travel into Florida because of bans in surrounding states," explains Isaac Maddow-Zimet , a Guttmacher data scientist. "That really speaks to the role that Florida has played in the region where there really aren't many other options."

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the case in Arizona, frames those affected by the new laws in a different way. "We celebrate the Arizona Supreme Court's decision that allows the state's pro-life law to again protect the lives of countless, innocent unborn children," the organization wrote in a statement this week .

Even with new bans in place, there are a few ways residents of Florida and Arizona will be able to access abortion without driving hundreds of miles. People with means will be able to fly to states where abortion access is protected. Others will be able to use telehealth to connect with providers in those states and receive abortion medication in the mail – a practice that has been growing in popularity in recent months. Telehealth medication abortions, though, could be curtailed by a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court. (A decision in that case is expected this summer.)

In Florida, some will be able to get abortions before the six-week gestational limit, which is about two weeks after a missed period. "Folks have a really narrow window in order to meet that gestational duration limit if they even know about their pregnancy in time," Maddow-Zimet of Guttmacher explains. "And that's something that's particularly difficult in Florida because Florida requires an in-person counseling visit 24 hours before the abortion."

'A substantial barrier'

Many thousands of people in Florida and Arizona will be unable to navigate those options and will carry their pregnancies instead, Myers says.

"It's easy to think – if an abortion is so important to somebody, they will find a way, they will figure it out," she says, but research on people seeking abortions illustrates why that's not always possible. "[Many] are low income. They're in very difficult life circumstances. They're experiencing disruptive life events like the loss of a job or breaking up with a partner or threatened eviction. Many of them are parenting and have difficulty obtaining child care." One large study showed about 80% of people seeking abortions had subprime credit scores.

"If you think about all that, it is perhaps not so surprising that the results of my research and other people's research shows very strongly and unequivocally that distance is a substantial barrier to people who are seeking abortions," Myers says.

Mary Ziegler , a law professor and historian of reproductive rights at the University of California - Davis, says it's worth noting how these states both came to have new bans. "The common denominator is conservative state supreme courts reaching decisions contrary to what voters would want, interestingly, in an election year when those judges are facing retention elections," she says.

Voters in Florida will have a chance to weigh in on abortion access in November, when an amendment to their state constitution will be on the ballot. An effort to put an abortion amendment on the ballot in Arizona is also underway. Abortions rights opponents in both states have pledged to fight the measures.

• abortion access
• Abortion rights

America is divided over major efforts to rewrite child labor laws

At least 16 states have one or more bills to weaken their child labor laws, while 13 are seeking to strengthen them.

As child labor violations soar across the country , dozens of states are ramping up efforts to update child labor laws — with widespread efforts to weaken laws, but some to bolster them as well.

The push for changes to those laws arrives as employers — particularly in restaurants and other service-providing industries — have grappled with labor shortages since the beginning of the pandemic, and hired more teenagers , whose wages are typically lower than adults’.

Labor experts attribute the spike in child labor violations — which, a Post analysis shows, have tripled in 10 years — to a tight labor market that has prompted employers to hire more teens, as well as migrant children arriving from Latin America. In 2023, teens ages 16 to 19 were working or looking for work at the highest annual rate since 2009, according to Labor Department data.

That has led to the largest effort in years to change the patchwork of state laws that regulate child labor, with major implications for the country’s youths and the labor market. At least 16 states have one or more bills that would weaken their child labor laws and at least 13 are seeking to strengthen them, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute and other sources. Among these states, there are 43 bill proposals.

Since 2022, 14 states have passed or enacted new child labor laws.

Federal law forbids all minors from working in jobs deemed hazardous, including those in manufacturing, roofing, meatpacking and demolition. Fourteen- and 15-year-olds are not allowed to work past 7 p.m. on school nights or 9 p.m. on weekends.

Most states have laws that are tougher than federal rules, although an effort is underway, led by Republican lawmakers, to undo those restrictions, which is supported by restaurant associations, liquor associations and home builders associations.

A Florida-based lobbying group, the Foundation for Government Accountability, which has fought to promote conservative interests such as restricting access to anti-poverty programs, drafted or lobbied for recent bills to strip child labor protections in at least six states.

Among them is Indiana’s new law enacted in March, repealing all work-hour restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, who previously couldn’t work past 10 p.m. or before 6 a.m. on school days. The law also extends legal work hours for 14- and 15-year-olds.

Indiana legislators sparred over the bill, with state Sen. Mike Gaskill (R) saying at a hearing in March, “Do not for a second think that this is about the evil employers trying to manipulate and take advantage of kids.” But state Sen. Andrea Hunley (D) called the bill an “irresponsible and dystopian” way of “responding to our workforce shortage.”

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law changes that allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work seven days in a row . It also removes all hour restrictions for teens in online school or home-school, effectively permitting them to work overnight shifts.

Some states have reported soaring numbers of child-labor violations over the past year, with investigators uncovering violations in fast-food restaurants , but also in dangerous jobs in meatpacking , manufacturing and construction, where federal law prohibits minors from working. The Labor Department alleged in a lawsuit in February that a sanitation company, Fayette Janitorial Service, employed children as young as 13 to clean head splitters and other kill-floor equipment at slaughterhouses on overnight shifts in Virginia and Iowa.

Despite such findings, an Iowa law signed last year by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) allows minors in that state to work in jobs previously deemed too hazardous, including in industrial laundries, light manufacturing, demolition, roofing and excavation, but not slaughterhouses. Separately, West Virginia enacted a law this month that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to work some roofing jobs as part of an apprenticeship program.

Six more states are evaluating bills to lift restrictions preventing minors from working jobs considered dangerous. A Georgia bill would allow 14-year-olds to work in landscaping on factory grounds and other prohibited work sites. Florida’s legislature has passed a law, drafted by the state’s construction industry association, that would allow teens to work certain jobs in residential construction. It is awaiting approval from DeSantis.

Carol Bowen, chief lobbyist for the Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida, testified in February that the state “has one of the largest skilled-work shortages in recent history” and that the construction industry needs to identify the “next generation.”

Bowen said the bill limits work for 16- and 17-year-olds to home construction projects, adding that teens wouldn’t be able to work on anything higher than six feet.

In Kentucky, the House has passed a bill that prevents the state from having child labor laws that are stricter than federal protections, in effect removing all limitations on when 16- and 17-year-olds can work.

Meanwhile, Alabama, West Virginia, Missouri and Georgia are considering bills this year that would eliminate work permit requirements for minors, verifying age or parental or school permission to work. Most states require these permits. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed a similar bill into law last year.

Republican lawmakers often say they are trying to increase opportunities or bring requirements in line with federal standards when they push to loosen child labor laws. They say that lowering restrictions helps employers fill labor shortages, while improving teenagers’ work ethic and reducing their screen time. Another common refrain is that permitting later work hours allows high school students opportunities similar to those for varsity athletes whose games often go later than state law allows teens to work.

“These are youth workers that are driving automobiles. They are not children,” said state Rep. Linda Chaney (R), sponsor of the Florida bill expanding work hours for 16- and 17-year-olds, during a hearing in December.

Indiana state Sen. Andy Zay (R), who supported the state’s new law extending work hours for 14- and 15-year-olds, told The Washington Post that as a father of five children, including a son who plays high school basketball, he felt saddened by criticism that teens could be exploited into working later hours under this law.

“I don’t see that, and I don’t feel that. And certainly they would have the freedom to move on,” Zay said.

But the spike in child labor violations and the recent deaths of minors illegally employed in dangerous jobs have also prompted a push by labor advocates to strengthen state laws.

The Virginia legislature unanimously approved a bill in recent weeks that would increase employer penalties for child labor violations from $1,000 to $2,500 for routine violations. Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) approved the measure Wednesday.

The bill’s sponsor, Del. Holly M. Seibold (D-Fairfax), told The Post that she was “shocked and horrified” to read recently about poultry plants in Virginia illegally employing migrant children and wrote legislation to raise the penalties.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nebraska and Colorado also are pushing to raise employer penalties for child labor violations, with lawmakers calling them outdated and not substantial enough to deter employers from breaking the law. For example, Iowa fines employers $2,500 for a serious but nonfatal injury of a minor illegally working in a hazardous industry and $500 if there is no serious injury. The new bill proposes an additional $5,000 penalty for an injury that leads to a workers’ compensation case.

Terri Gerstein, director of the Wagner Labor Initiative at New York University, said that the focus on increasing penalties is “good, but, alone, is not good enough,” given that many states have very minimal resources dedicated to enforcing laws.

This year, Colorado legislators have introduced the strongest package to crack down on employers that break child labor laws. The legislation would raise fines for violations and deposit them into a fund for enforcement. Lawmakers are also seeking to make information on companies that violate child labor laws publicly available; in many states, such information is off-limits to the public. Colorado would also legally protect parents of minors who are employed illegally, as some have faced criminal charges for child abuse.

Colorado state Rep. Sheila Lieder (D), who introduced the bill, told The Post that Colorado’s child labor laws aren’t punitive enough to dissuade employers from violating the laws, with just a $20 penalty per offense.

“The fine in Colorado is like a couple cups of coffee at a brand-name coffee store,” Lieder said. “I was just, like, there’s something more that has to be done.”

Jacqueline Aguilar, a 21-year-old college student in Alamosa, Colo., who supports the bill, worked in the lettuce and potato fields on Colorado’s Eastern Plains from the time she was 13, alongside her immigrant parents, to buy school clothes.

“Laws have to be stricter because a lot of people don’t report” violations, said Aguilar, who worked 12-hour shifts in the fields starting at 4:30 a.m. growing up. She said she had no knowledge of her labor rights at the time. “Once I started getting older and my mom became disabled because of the job, it changed my perspective on children working.”

In Kentucky, the House-passed bill that prevents the state from enacting child labor laws stricter than federal protections but does not also repeal requirements for meal and rest breaks for minors. A previous version said that the bill would repeal breaks for minors.

Advertisement

Supported by

The History Behind Arizona’s 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban

The state’s Supreme Court ruled that the 1864 law is enforceable today. Here is what led to its enactment.

• Share full article

By Pam Belluck

Pam Belluck has covered reproductive health for more than a decade.

The 160-year-old Arizona abortion ban that was upheld on Tuesday by the state’s highest court was among a wave of anti-abortion laws propelled by some historical twists and turns that might seem surprising.

For decades after the United States became a nation, abortion was legal until fetal movement could be felt, usually well into the second trimester. Movement, known as quickening, was the threshold because, in a time before pregnancy tests or ultrasounds, it was the clearest sign that a woman was pregnant.

Before that point, “women could try to obtain an abortion without having to fear that it was illegal,” said Johanna Schoen, a professor of history at Rutgers University. After quickening, abortion providers could be charged with a misdemeanor.

“I don’t think it was particularly stigmatized,” Dr. Schoen said. “I think what was stigmatized was maybe this idea that you were having sex outside of marriage, but of course, married women also ended their pregnancies.”

Women would terminate pregnancies in several different ways, such as ingesting herbs or medicinal potions that were thought to induce a miscarriage, Dr. Schoen said. The herbs commonly used included pennyroyal and tansy. Another method involved inserting an object in the cervix to try to interrupt a pregnancy or terminate it by causing an infection, Dr. Schoen said.

Since tools to determine early pregnancy did not yet exist, many women could honestly say that they were not sure if they were pregnant and were simply taking herbs to restore their menstrual period.

Abortion providers described their services in discreet but widely understood terms.

“It was open, but sort of in code words,” said Mary Fissell, a professor of the history of medicine at Johns Hopkins University. Abortion medications or herbs were called “female lunar pills” or “French renovating pills,” she said.

Newspaper advertisements made clear these abortion services were available.

“Abortion is commercializing in the mid-19th century, up to the Civil War,” Dr. Fissell said. “You couldn’t pretend that abortion wasn’t happening.”

In the 1820s, some states began to pass laws restricting abortion and establishing some penalties for providers, according to historians.

By the 1840s, there were some high-profile trials in cases where women who had or sought abortions became very ill or died. Some cases involved a British-born midwife, Ann Trow Summers Lohman, known as Madame Restell, who provided herbal pills and other abortion services in New York , which passed a law under which providers could be charged with manslaughter for abortions after quickening and providers and patients could be charged with misdemeanors for abortions before quickening.

But strikingly, a major catalyst of abortion bans being enacted across the country was the emergence of organized and professionalized medicine, historians say.

After the American Medical Association, which would eventually become the largest doctors’ organization in the country, formed in 1847, its members — all male and white at that time — sought to curtail medical activities by midwives and other nondoctors, most of whom were women. Pregnancy termination methods were often provided by people in those vocations, and historians say that was one reason for the association’s desire to ban abortion.

A campaign that became known as the Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion began in 1857 to urge states to pass anti-abortion laws. Its leader, Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer , wrote a paper against abortion that was officially adopted by the A.M.A. and later published as a book titled “ On Criminal Abortion in America. ”

Later, the association published “ Why Not? A Book for Every Woman ,” also written by Dr. Storer, which said that abortion was immoral and criminal and argued that married women had a moral and societal obligation to have children.

Dr. Storer promoted an argument that life began at conception.

“He creates a kind of moral high ground bandwagon, and he does that for a bunch of reasons that make it appealing,” Dr. Fissell said. In one sense, the argument coincided with the emerging medical understanding of embryology that characterized pregnancy as a continuum of development and did not consider quickening to be its defining stage.

There were also social and cultural forces and prejudices at play. Women were beginning to press for more independence, and the male-dominated medical establishment believed “women need to be home having babies,” Dr. Fissell said.

Racism and anti-immigrant attitudes in the second half of the 19th century began fueling support of eugenics. Several historians have said that these undercurrents were partially behind the anti-abortion campaign that Dr. Storer led.

“People like Storer were very worried that the wrong Americans were reproducing, and that the nice white Anglo-Saxon ones were having abortions and not having enough children,” Dr. Fissell said.

A moralistic streak was also gaining prominence, including with the passage of the Comstock Act in 1873, which outlawed the mailing of pornographic materials and anything related to contraception or abortion.

By 1880, about 40 states had banned abortion. Arizona enacted its ban in 1864 as part of a legal code it adopted soon after it became a territory.

The law, ARS 13-3603, states: “A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.”

“It was an early one,” Dr. Schoen said, “but it is part of that whole wave of legislation that gets passed between the 1860s and the 1880s.”

Pam Belluck is a health and science reporter, covering a range of subjects, including reproductive health, long Covid, brain science, neurological disorders, mental health and genetics. More about Pam Belluck

Situation in Haiti April 13, 2024

U.s. citizens in haiti, update april 12, 2024, information for u.s. citizens in the middle east.

• Travel Advisories |
• Contact Us |
• MyTravelGov |

Find U.S. Embassies & Consulates

Travel.state.gov, congressional liaison, special issuance agency, u.s. passports, international travel, intercountry adoption, international parental child abduction, records and authentications, popular links, travel advisories, mytravelgov, stay connected, legal resources, legal information, info for u.s. law enforcement, replace or certify documents.

U.S. Visa Law & Policy

Judicial Assistance Country Information

Share this page:

U.S. Citizenship Laws and Policy

Information on DNA Testing

Relinquishing U.S. Nationality Abroad

• Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship at Birth by a Child Born Abroad

Oath of Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship - INA 349(a)(5)

• Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality

Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and Surrogacy Abroad

• Administrative Review of Loss of Nationality Determination

FAQ: Child Citizenship Act of 2000

International Judicial Assistance

Service of Process

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

FSIA Checklist

Inter-American Service Convention and Additional Protocol

Obtaining Evidence

Preparation of Letters Rogatory

Retaining A Foreign Attorney

Foreign Attorneys

Enforcement of Judgments

International Treaties & Agreements

Bilateral Consular Conventions

Albanian Treaty

Algerian Treaty

United Kingdom Treaty

Confederated Independent States Treaty

Belgian Treaty

Bulgarian Treaty

Chinese Treaty

Costa Rican Treaty

Czech and Slovak Treaty

Hong Kong Treaty

Hungarian Treaty

Philippines Treaty

Polish Treaty

Romanian Treaty

Tunisian Treaty

Tuvalu Supplemental

Mexican Treaty

International Child Support Enforcement

International Prisoner Transfer Program

Information for Lawyers and Judges

Relinquishing U.S. Nationality

• Dual Nationality

The information below provides general guidance about how a person may acquire or lose U.S. citizenship. Please scroll down for additional information.

Acquisition of Citizenship

U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth.  Persons born outside of the U.S. may acquire U.S. citizenship under certain circumstances.

• Important Information for U.S. Citizens Considering the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Abroad
• Information for Parents on U.S. Citizenship and DNA Testing
• N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship Frequently Asked Questions
• N-565, Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document
• Naturalization
• Child Citizenship Act of 2000 - Frequently Asked Questions

Loss of Citizenship and Nationality

A U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization INA 301 ( 8 U.S.C. 1401) , INA 310 ( 8 U.S.C. 1421)  or a U.S. noncitizen national INA 308 ( 8 U.S.C. 1408) , INA 101(29) ( 8 U.S.C. 1101(29))  may relinquish U.S. nationality by performing a potentially expatriating act as defined in INA 349 ( 8 U.S.C. 1481) , or predecessor statute, but only if the act is performed (1) voluntarily and (2) with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.  The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken ( Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and  Vance v. Terrazas , 444 U.S. 252 (1980)):  a person cannot lose U.S. nationality unless he or she voluntarily relinquishes that status. 

• Renunciation of U.S. Nationality
• Renunciation of U.S. Nationality by Persons Claiming a Right of Residence in the U.S.
• Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality and Dual Nationality
• Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality and Foreign Military Service
• Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality and Seeking Public Office in a Foreign State

Other Citizenship and Nationality Links

Enroll in step.

Subscribe to get up-to-date safety and security information and help us reach you in an emergency abroad.

Recommended Web Browsers: Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

External Link

You are about to leave travel.state.gov for an external website that is not maintained by the U.S. Department of State.

Links to external websites are provided as a convenience and should not be construed as an endorsement by the U.S. Department of State of the views or products contained therein. If you wish to remain on travel.state.gov, click the "cancel" message.

You are about to visit: