US Tourist Visa

Philip George wrote:

I'm not sure that the US charging $100 for visas is going to hurt tourism
that much as most of the big money comes from citizens of states on the
Visa Waiver Program. However what will damage tourism is the US's insistence
on biometric passports from next year. (No biometric passport = have to
apply for a visa = pay $100). This will apply to all countries, and of
course nowhere in the world has biometric passports yet. The EU are about
to start issuing them, but as people's passports only expire once every 10
years there will be a lot of people who put off their visits to the US...

I thought that the new visa regulation applied to _machine readable_
passports, rather than biometric?

Starched Underwear wrote:

mrtravel wrote:
The goal is for US Taxpayers not to bear the cost of administration for
the Visa program. The State Department doesn't give passports away,
does it?

When you leave your country, it doesn't do your country any economic good
because you will be spending your money abroad. When a foreigner comes to the
USA, it generates lots of economic activity in the USA. Giving the visas
should be seen as a wise investment.

That "economic good" goes principally to the states, not the federal government,
which is who would pay for the visa program.

Some countries spend a lot of money to attract tourists. The USA is spending
lots to repell tourists.

Many countries around the world charge for visas, some much more than USA and have
done for decades or longer. Should I whine about the money that I have spent on
visas when visiting foreign lands or ask for that money back?



Should they charge $100 to all those mexicans illegally crossing the borders
into the USA ? Are mexicans allowed to visit the USA ? Or are they such a high
risk of wanting to stay in USA that the USA refuses all but a few requests to
enter the USA ?

The US also has higher standards for entry than most countries.

You can have whatever standards you want for immigration. But for tourists you
are stupid to block so many simple tourists.

How can you claim to have "higher standards" when your country doesn't even
control its exit points to be able to know who is in or out ? If you want to
know which tourist has overstayed their visit, you should have official exit
control points at airports and land border crossings. Many countries do this.
The current system is so flawed that you have, since 9-11 illegally arrested
and detained a great number of legitimate visitors simply because some piece
of paper had not been processed years ago leading officials to conclude the
tourist had stayed in the USA all this time).

If people from these countries didn't abuse the system, then there would
be no need to make it more difficult for people from these countries to
visit.

Perhaps the USA should start checking ships before blocking legitimate
visitors who seek an official visa. The illegal immigrants from china tend to
enter through illegal means (containers, boats, forged papers etc).

Neither of those is a prerequisite for the other. All means should be checked.

That's why Chile, Brasil and Turkey charge U.S. citizens USD
100 to enter/get a visa. I do hope more follow their example.

Many countries already have done so, including Russia. dubya
seems to like trade wars, and this is yet another version of a trade
war. Remember that dubya either never left the USA before
becoming president or visited pitifully few countries (probably
only Mexico). dubya has no clue concerning the motivations of
tourists and therefore does not think tourism is important.


Casey

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message . ..
Yaofeng wrote:
Not the Karl Orff wrote:
That's why Chile, Brasil and Turkey charge U.S. citizens USD 100 to
enter/get a visa. I do hope more follow their example.

They should if they havn't already. I wonder if anyone calculated the
economic impact on affected countries because of declining tourism due
to this added bureaucracy.

You're contradicting yourself. And spite is not a valid basis for
policymaking.

If raising visa fees costs the US, or anyone else, net money because of lost
tourism dollars, then it's a dumb and shortsighted thing to do. It's dumb
for the US and it's dumber still for countries that do it as a retaliatory
measure.

miguel

I am just being realistic. Do you know there is a government on earth
that would turn the other cheek?

"Yaofeng" wrote in message
om...
Many of us know that after 9/11, the US State department raised Visa
processing fees for citizens of those countries that need a Visa to
enter the US across the board to $100, citing additional costs due to
security and background checks. Naturally many of those countries
reciprocated the favor by charging the same amount to US citizens
applying Visas to visit them.

Recently over a casual conversation with a friend from China, I was
outraged by the action of the Visa section of US Consulate in Beijing.
The parents of this young man, who live in Shang-Dong, probably a few
hundred miles from Beijing, wanted to come see him. So they travel by
train to Beijing to apply for Visa. AFAIK, there are only 5 or 6 US
Consulate offices across all of China. Shang-Dong is under the
Beijing Consulate Office jurisdiction. His parents paid $100 each to
get Visa and was denied. The reason was they were suspect of
immigration incliniation. Naturally the $200 was pocketed by the US
Consulate. If they want to apply again, they risk another $200 loss
not knowing if the Visas will be granted.

Is the State Department in the business of making money? When we paid
$100 to get Visa to go to any God forsaken country, we don't like it
but one thing we know is we will get the Visa. Plus $100 is just a
nuisance, not a big deal. But $100 to folks in many other countries
is a big deal. It may be several months salary. And to get their
money then deny entry. That's robbery.

How much we have changed from "give me you tired, your poor..." to
"give me you affluent, your brightest.."

Well, yeah.
Next time have 'em fly to Mexico, then just walk across the US border, just
like the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants are doing around the clock.

Miguel Cruz wrote:


If raising visa fees costs the US, or anyone else, net money because of lost
tourism dollars, then it's a dumb and shortsighted thing to do.

Maybe there are more important things than making more money on tourists.

In , Philip George wrote:

... However what will damage tourism is the US's insistence on biometric
passports from next year. (No biometric passport = have to apply for a
visa = pay $100).

The biometric requirement has a grandfather clause: a non-biometric passport
issued before Oct 26, 2004 will be fine.

cf http://travel.state.gov/state093239.html


--
Herbie J.
Famous Curator

(Philip George) wrote in message ...
I'm not sure that the US charging $100 for visas is going to hurt tourism
that much as most of the big money comes from citizens of states on the
Visa Waiver Program.

As at least one poster noted, the State Department got it all wrong
denying entry to those who made the effort to pay the fee and applied
for Visas. If one bothers to apply, in this particular case older
folks in their 60's, maybe even 70's, he will likely come and go back.
These folks may not be big spenders as tourists from other more
affluent areas you pointed out. I am quite sure the business
activities generated far out pace the $100 imposed. Plane ticket
costs $700 to $900 alone.

Those who came in illegally did so through variuos other means. They
enter the US most likely by not going through customs. How? I don't
know. I may be guilty of finger pointing many of those people from
central and south America in my neighborhood doing yard work, in
restaurant or other businesses performing menial labor as illegal
immigrants, I know our borders are far from impervious.

I hate to say it, though, but US citizens going somewhere bring a lot of
economic influence (read that as "money") with them and spend it and GO
HOME. Visitors to the US from poorer (as in "underdevloped") nations tend
to "just stay". The gummint is trying to stop "defacto" immigration.

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Yaofeng) wrote:

Many of us know that after 9/11, the US State department raised Visa
processing fees for citizens of those countries that need a Visa to
enter the US across the board to $100, citing additional costs due to
security and background checks. Naturally many of those countries
reciprocated the favor by charging the same amount to US citizens
applying Visas to visit them.

Recently over a casual conversation with a friend from China, I was
outraged by the action of the Visa section of US Consulate in Beijing.
The parents of this young man, who live in Shang-Dong, probably a few
hundred miles from Beijing, wanted to come see him. So they travel by
train to Beijing to apply for Visa. AFAIK, there are only 5 or 6 US
Consulate offices across all of China. Shang-Dong is under the
Beijing Consulate Office jurisdiction. His parents paid $100 each to
get Visa and was denied. The reason was they were suspect of
immigration incliniation. Naturally the $200 was pocketed by the US
Consulate. If they want to apply again, they risk another $200 loss
not knowing if the Visas will be granted.

That's why Chile, Brasil and Turkey charge U.S. citizens USD 100 to
enter/get a visa. I do hope more follow their example.

On 28 Sep 2003 08:47:39 -0700 (Yaofeng) wrote:

:Many of us know that after 9/11, the US State department raised Visa
:processing fees for citizens of those countries that need a Visa to
:enter the US across the board to $100, citing additional costs due to
:security and background checks.

Exactly.

Why should US taxpayers have to fund it?

: Naturally many of those countries
:reciprocated the favor by charging the same amount to US citizens
:applying Visas to visit them.

Their choice.

If it makes more money than the amount lost to tourism it is a good idea.

:Recently over a casual conversation with a friend from China, I was
:outraged by the action of the Visa section of US Consulate in Beijing.
: The parents of this young man, who live in Shang-Dong, probably a few
:hundred miles from Beijing, wanted to come see him. So they travel by
:train to Beijing to apply for Visa. AFAIK, there are only 5 or 6 US
:Consulate offices across all of China.

I am sure that if the people in China desiring visas wished more offices, all
they have to do is pay for them.

No reason that the American taxpayer should pay for such services.

: Shang-Dong is under the
:Beijing Consulate Office jurisdiction. His parents paid $100 each to
:get Visa and was denied.

The $100 is not for the visa (or at least the vast majority is not).

It is for the checking.

The fee is clearly documented as non-refundable.

: The reason was they were suspect of
:immigration incliniation.

Sounds reasonable.

Perhaps they didn't have anything holding them back to China.

Also, if their son is legal - why didn't he do the work to get the visa?
Certainly would not be that difficult for a US citizen to get a visa for his
parents.

: Naturally the $200 was pocketed by the US
:Consulate. If they want to apply again, they risk another $200 loss
:not knowing if the Visas will be granted.

Yes, the fee is for the checking.

:Is the State Department in the business of making money?

It certainly should not be losing US taxpayer money, especially for services
provided to non-citizens.

: When we paid
:$100 to get Visa to go to any God forsaken country, we don't like it
:but one thing we know is we will get the Visa.

I don't know if that is true in all cases.

: Plus $100 is just a
:nuisance, not a big deal.

Perhaps to you.

Some people may consider it real money.

If you consider it such a big deal, why not use your own money and get them a
visa? I would think that a USD$200K bond would do it. And, as you use $100
bills to light your cigarettes, it doesn't sound too much.

: But $100 to folks in many other countries
:is a big deal. It may be several months salary. And to get their
:money then deny entry. That's robbery.

How is it robbery?

The fee is clearly non-refundable.

No guarantee at all is made that a visa will be issued..

:How much we have changed from "give me you tired, your poor..." to
:"give me you affluent, your brightest.."

Yet you are insisting that they were not coming for "immigration
incliniation[sic]". Which is it?


From: http://travel.state.gov/visa;ineligible.html

Aliens who are ineligible for a visa under one of the classes enumerated above
may be eligible for a waiver of ineligibility under one of the following
provisions of the Act.

Section 212(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, provider that:
The Attorney General may waive the application of--
(1) subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) in the case of any alien who--
(A) is the spouse or the unmarried son or daughter, or the minor unmarried
lawfully adopted child, or a United States citizen, or of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, or of an alien who has been issued an
immigrant visa, or
(B) has a son or daughter who is a United States citizen, or of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or an alien who has been issued an
immigrant visa, or
(2) subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii) in the case of any alien , in accordance with
such terms, conditions, and controls, if any, including the giving of bond, as
the Attorney General, in his discretion after consultation with the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, may by regulation prescribe.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com