US Tourist Visa

Michael Castens wrote:
"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...

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?



Perhaps to prevent jobs being lost in the tourist industries. Just the same
way that many other groups of workers are subsidised by the taxpayer.


Which tourism jobs are being lost because this woman can not visit her
family in the US? How did the increase of the visa fee from $45 a few
years ago to $100 change this?

Sure, blame the government for increasing the fee for a visa, but what
about all of the taxes charged by local govenments to fund sports
stadiums, etc that are used by a minority of tourists. I also resent
the fact that I have to pay a $5 "transportation fee" to rent a car at
SJC even if I don't need the car rental shuttle. What about cities that
charge outrageous taxes for hotel rooms. This seems to have increased
quite a bit. Prices go up. FWIW, the current visa is now multientry

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:24:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:52:39 GMT "DALing" daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com
wrote:

:and you are correct in that IF the app is denied, the money should be
:returned, otherwise it's a revenue souce without justification...

False.

It is a fee to pay for the checks.

Absolutely no reason, AT ALL, that American taxpayers should fund the visa
checks..

: Perhaps a
:(free) "pre-qualification" check to see if the app has a chance of being
:approved? (sort of like pre-qual in a loan - you wouldn't go into the fees
:IF you knew you wouldn't be approved)

The web site is quite clear about conditions that would make a visa unlikely
and is quite clear that the fee is non-refundable.

Nobody is forced to visit the USA.

Nobody is forced to apply for a visa.

It is a choice.


Wow, what an us versus the world mentality. IMHO, the visa process is
supposed to protect US citizens so we should pay for it just like any
police department. Eighty-year old Chinese shouldn't be the ones who
pay.

While Europe is busy increasing the ability of people to cross
borders, in the US, "we are Devo".

Dick Locke wrote:

Wow, what an us versus the world mentality. IMHO, the visa process is
supposed to protect US citizens so we should pay for it just like any
police department. Eighty-year old Chinese shouldn't be the ones who
pay.

While Europe is busy increasing the ability of people to cross
borders, in the US, "we are Devo".

Interesting, but even Mexico charges for tourist visas.
What percentage of European and Asian countries give them away?

Why should US citizens pay for an 80 year old to visit her relatives in
the US?

mrtravel wrote:
Do tourist really visit the US to contribute to our economy??
I thought they had other reasons.

Sure, but I don't fly on a plane with the intention of helping the airline
to be profitable, either. Doesn't mean they shouldn't try hard to figure out
ways to get me to do it.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:53:01 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:


Why should US citizens pay for an 80 year old to visit her relatives in
the US?

Err, did I say that?

Why should there be bureaucratic obstacles that make it difficult for
elderly parents to visit their kids? Why are some people so attracted
to the concept of "borders?"

In article , Limp Tomato
writes:

The issue isn't the decision to refuse the visa, it is the bloody USD $100

Keep in mind the reality that it almost certainly costs multiples of this to
process the application. Its effectively a user tax and I know all taxes are
evil...
edwardseco

In article ,
(Yaofeng) writes:

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


Well maybe that indicates that the Gov't fears were really justified. But, I
have to admit it is pretty stupid when we open the doors for illegal
immigration. California may soon have an illegal as a governor so...
edwardseco

"mrtravel" wrote in message
m...
FWIW, the current visa is now multientry
Yes, the current visa is multientry. However, it's up to the officer that
gives them to determine when it is going to expire. A multientry visa given
for one month is as bad as a simple entry visa.

I believe that every country is entitled to choose its immigration
procedures. As a foreign student, I am grateful to the US for not having
given me any trouble for getting my visa or when coming here.

Having said that, I believe that the US could drastically reduce the
resentment produced by denied visas by making the guidelines to obtain one
clearer. Most denied visas are due to the embassy officer believing that
the applicant's ties with his home country are not strong enough as to
prevent him from being a potential immigrant. That's legitimate, except
that it is never clear for the applicant exactly what will convince the
officer that those ties are strong enough.

If some requirements of the form "You need to make at least US$X, have a
round-trip ticket, etc. before we even consider giving you a visa" were made
clear, many people that don't have a chance would not lose their US$100
(which is a lot of money for them) and avoid the frustration of being
rejected.

Moreover, it would be really nice if an effort were made to explain exactly
what criterion the candidate doesn't meet when his visa is rejected. More
than having their application rejected, many people resent the "arrongant"
(in their view) attitude of not explaining which criterion the applicant
didn't meet. Of course, that leads to all kinds of speculations about
Americans being racist, elitist, etc.

Again, a country can do whatever it wants, but I strongly believe that these
steps would not be hard to implement and would result in less resentment
towards the US. After all, America needs friends.

Best regards,
Enrique
emunoz @ mit . edu

(Yaofeng) wrote in message . com...
(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.

Hate to disagree with you, with a national debt running up to hundreds
of billions of dollars, I don't think the US State Dept is going to
turn any profit on schemes like this.

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.

I think there may be some merit in this, right now suspecion on not
returning is high for Chinese tourist visa applicants
(understandably). I believe Taiwan went thru the same thing few
decades ago, that after normalizing relationship, there were almost no
tourism visa issued, as a flood of applicants tried to move to US.

I think just as then, mainland Chinese probably should seek councel
and come up with evidence that will satisfy the examiner's requirement
as to appear to be attached in China and is willing to return. When my
uncle and aunt visisted last year, only one cusin accompanied them and
she only brought one of her kids (yes, she has more than one child!)
She had to provide evidence of employment, savings deposit, to prove
they have fullest intention to return (and yes, they went back after
couple weeks.)

But the good news is after a while such things will become routine and
as people begin to understand eachother better, unwarrented suspecion
will decrease.

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.

"Herbie Jurvanen" wrote in message
...
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

Here's a very informative article about the subject:

Coming soon: biometric passports
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/956485.asp?0sl=-23

The whole strikes me as the US again ****ing off its allies by throwing its
weight around and demanding that everyone do things their way or else.
Think of tourism we're going to lose because of Europeans not wanting to
spend the time and money to get a visa if their passports aren't up the
State Department's standards.

--
Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/