U.S. travelers banned from entering The Philippines - Must Read AlaskaQ
Connect with:
Saturday, February 27, 2021
HomeThe SocialU.S. travelers banned from entering The Philippines

U.S. travelers banned from entering The Philippines

bronsonformayor

 The Philippines is banning the entry of travelers from the United States starting Sunday, through Jan. 15, in response to a more infectious variant of the COVID-19 coronavirus showing up in California, Colorado, and Florida.

Alaska’s Filipino population is more than 26,000, making it one of the state’s largest ethnic groups, with many intermarriages with Alaska Natives and other Alaskans. Alaska Filipino families often travel to and from The Philippines to visit family and vacation. Alaska ranks fourth in the nation for percentage of Filipinos, following Hawaii, California, and Nevada.

Filipinos who are citizens of The Philippines are not included in the ban, but must still quarantine for 14 days once arriving in Manila. Any traveler to The Philippines who arrives before Jan. 3 must also quarantine for 14 days, even if they have a negative COVID-19 test.

The Philippine government has a mandate that all persons to wear full-coverage face shields together with face masks while in public places. Local governments have additional requirements to slow the virus’ spread.

Two days earlier to the order, the country had issued a similar ban on travelers from Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Australia, Israel, The Netherlands, Hong Kong, Switzerland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Lebanon, Singapore, Sweden, South Korea, South Africa, Canada, and Spain, due to the more contagious variant of the virus.

Donations Welcome

Share

Written by

Suzanne Downing had careers in business and journalism before serving as the Director of Faith and Community-based Initiatives for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and returning to Alaska to serve as speechwriter for Gov. Sean Parnell. Born on the Oregon coast, she moved to Alaska in 1969.

Latest comments

  • Sounds like CCP19-2.0. More contagious, but more or less deadly?

  • Another irrational, disproportionate, emotion-driven kneejerk example of “safetyism” run amok.

  • There are better uses for spending their travel money than go to a country that cares very little for its people. Wasteful spending unless its all for flaunting their new rich american appearence to their poorer relatives.

  • This could save the State of Alaska a lot of money if it is extended. One time an Alaska Department of Revenue Commissioner, who had been municipal finance officer, asked me, “Do you know why in Hell every police officer just before he retires goes to the Philippines to get a 20 year-old wife?” I didn’t realize the question was rhetorical so said I didn’t know. It applies equally to Alaska PERS, and maybe to TRS (not sure if teachers tend to have this practice). The defined benefit tiers, which people can still re-join if they had service prior to 6/30/06 according to the courts, allow adding a spouse prior to retirement. There is no haircut to the prime beneficiary so far as health care (and that 20 year-old may live a long time), but if there is a living former spouse that has to be worked out prior to retirement; and there is a healthy Alaska industry to helps work that out, for a fee. There is a haircut that varies by dependent age if the beneficiary chooses survivor financial benefits, but the haircut is very light from an NPV standpoint (compared with the cost of adding, for example, a 75% of the monthly check commitment for the rest of this rhetorical 20 year-old’s life). On the other hand, maybe there is a potential business in flying a bunch of 20 year-olds from there to Alaska to keep this practice going – Alaska PERS Brides LLC.

%d bloggers like this: