Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Para entrar en ese país necesitamos pasaporte y visado, según nos dijeron en la recepción del hotel. - To enter that country we need a passport and a visa, according to what they told us at the hotel reception.

Entrar en ese país necesitamos… would sound wrong; you need para to express the idea of a requirement for the purpose of entering.
So the structure is: Para + [infinitive action] + [main clause]
→ Para entrar en ese país necesitamos pasaporte y visado.
= In order to enter that country, we need a passport and a visa.

Why is it entrar en ese país and not entrar a ese país or entrar ese país?

With the verb entrar, standard European Spanish usually uses en:

entrar en un país / en una casa / en el museo

In many parts of Latin America you’ll also hear entrar a, but in Spain entrar en is more common and considered the “neutral” choice.

You must use a preposition; entrar ese país (without en or a) is incorrect.

Why is it ese país and not este país or aquel país?

The demonstratives roughly match distance (either physical, mental, or in the conversation):

este país – this country (very close, or the one we’re in now)
ese país – that country (somewhat distant, or previously mentioned, but not extremely far in tone)
aquel país – that country over there (farther away or more “distant” in context, often a bit more formal or literary)

In many everyday situations, ese país is the default for “that country (we’re talking about), not this one here,” which fits a requirement to travel there.

Why is necesitamos in the present tense if this is about a future trip?

Spanish often uses the present tense to talk about:

general rules or requirements
→ Para entrar en ese país necesitamos pasaporte y visado.
(As a rule, you need a passport and a visa to enter that country.)
planned / scheduled future actions (in some contexts)

So, even though the action (entering the country) is in the future, the requirement is expressed as a present fact. You could use something like necesitaremos (future), but necesitamos sounds more natural here.

Why is there no un before pasaporte and visado? Why not un pasaporte y un visado?

In Spanish, with verbs like necesitar, when you are listing kinds of things required in a general way, it is normal to omit the indefinite article:

Necesitamos pasaporte y visado.
= We need a passport and a visa (in general; that type of document).

You can say un pasaporte y un visado, but:

Necesitamos pasaporte y visado. → slightly more abstract, “You need passport and visa (as documents).”
Necesitamos un pasaporte y un visado. → focuses more on “one passport and one visa” as individual items.

Both are grammatically correct; the original sentence uses the more typical, generic form.

Why are pasaporte and visado singular in Spanish, when in English we’d usually say “passports and visas”?

In Spanish, when you state requirements per person, it’s common to use the singular uncountably:

Para abrir una cuenta, necesitas pasaporte.
(To open an account, you need a passport.)
Para entrar en ese país necesitamos pasaporte y visado.

It’s understood that each person needs a passport and a visa.
You could say pasaportes y visados, but that would emphasize the actual count of documents (for a group) more than the general rule.

What exactly does visado mean, and how is it different from visa?

Both refer to the visa you need to enter a country.

In Spain, visado is the more common and traditional term.
In much of Latin America, visa is more frequent.

You can hear both in many places. In European Spanish, for this sentence, visado sounds very standard and natural:

Necesitamos pasaporte y visado.
= We need a passport and a visa.

What does según mean here, and does the word order según nos dijeron matter?

Here según means “according to”:

según nos dijeron = according to what they told us / according to what we were told.

About word order:

… necesitamos pasaporte y visado, según nos dijeron en la recepción del hotel.
Según nos dijeron en la recepción del hotel, necesitamos pasaporte y visado.

Both orders are correct. Moving según nos dijeron… to the front just changes emphasis slightly; the meaning is the same: this information comes from what they told us at the hotel reception.

Who is the subject of dijeron, and why is there no subject pronoun like ellos?

Dijeron is the 3rd person plural preterite of decir (“to say/tell”).

Subject: they (the people at the reception desk).
Spanish often omits subject pronouns when the verb ending already shows the subject:
- (Ellos) dijeron… → Dijeron…
- (Nosotros) necesitamos… → Necesitamos…

Context (en la recepción del hotel) tells you who “they” are. You don’t need ellos unless you want to emphasize they specifically.

What is the role of nos in según nos dijeron?

Nos is an indirect object pronoun meaning “to us”:

dijeron = they said / they told
nos dijeron = they told us

So según nos dijeron = according to what they told us.
Without nos, it would just be according to what they said (without specifying the listener):

según dijeron – according to what they said
según nos dijeron – according to what they told us

Why is it dijeron (preterite) and not decían, han dicho, or decían?

Each tense has a different nuance:

dijeron (simple preterite) – a completed action in the past:
→ they told us (once, at that moment).
decían (imperfect) – a repeated / ongoing action or background:
→ they used to say / they were saying…
han dicho (present perfect) – connects past to present:
→ they have told us (and it’s relevant now).

Here, the idea is that at some specific moment, at reception, they informed us. So nos dijeron (preterite) is the most natural choice: a single, completed act of telling.

Does en la recepción del hotel describe where they told us, or where we need the passport and visa?

It describes where they told us the information, not where the documents are needed.

Structure-wise, you can group it as:

según [nos dijeron en la recepción del hotel]

So:

The requirement applies to entering the country.
The place mentioned (hotel reception) is where we received that information.

In context: According to what they told us at the hotel reception, we need a passport and a visa to enter that country.

Why is it del hotel and not de el hotel? What’s happening there?

In Spanish, de + el contracts to del:

de + el = del
- la recepción del hotel (not de el hotel)
- la puerta del coche (not de el coche)

This only happens with de + el and a + el:

a + el = al (e.g. voy al hotel)

With other articles (la, los, las), there is no contraction:

de la recepción, de los hoteles, de las habitaciones

Are there other natural ways to say this sentence in Spain, like using hace falta instead of necesitamos?

Yes, there are several natural alternatives. For example:

Para entrar en ese país hace falta pasaporte y visado.
(You need a passport and a visa to enter that country.)
Para entrar en ese país es necesario pasaporte y visado.
Para entrar en ese país se necesita pasaporte y visado.

All are acceptable in Spain. Nuances:

necesitamos… – more personal: we need.
hace falta / es necesario / se necesita… – more impersonal, focusing on the requirement itself rather than on “us”.