US Tourist Visa

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 05:03:59 -0400 Network Partner wrote:

:Binyamin Dissen wrote:

: No, it is simply "why should I pay to enable foreigners to enter the USA?".

:Because they help your country keep a good balance of payments, which makes it
:easier for you to buy stuff because your currency is stronger.

I would assert that those who cannot afford the $100 will not help the US
economy.

As opposed to the cases of tourists from the USA, who in many cases don't
particularly care which country they are going to and to whom a visa charge
may cause them to go to another country, tourists going to the USA want to
specifically go to the USA.

: When the USA
:has trade deficits with many countries, combined with huge national debt, it
:isn't really in a position to refuse money from other countries in the form of
:tourist dollars. Can't wait for the IMF to start dealing with the USA the same
:way it dealt with Argentina. Maybe the IMF will succeed in forcing the USA
:govt to stop subsidies, open its borders for additional tourists etc etc in
:order to save its monetary system.

Wasn't aware that the IMF gave/lent any money to the USA so that they could
make such requests.

: No reason to allow the potential criminals in.

:But back when the USA was a free country without a totalitarian government,
:wasn't it part of the mantra to consider someone innocent until proven guilty
:?

Irrelevant.

I presume you leave the keys in your car and your car out on the street
because you presume everyone innocent? Or, perhaps, are you a hypocrite?

:I guess that the current government has changed this, with thousands sent to
:prison without charge, and hundreds kept in cages for close to 2 years
:without access to lawyers or charged or due legal process. So I guess you
:should extend this treatment to the rest of the world as presume they are all
:terrorists or people wanting to cheat until proven innocent.

Violating their visa terms IS a crime.

:It is time for the Bush-Stalin administration to change the constitution to
:reflect those new government totalitarian rights if Bush Jr wants to make sure
:his legacy continues after he is no longer in office.

A change to the constitution requires the votes of the state legislatures.

If you are in fact an American you are quite uneducated.

:By your logic, all occupants of Gantanamo Bay should have to pay monthly fees
:for their stay in the dog pound ?

They should.

If they receive funds from Saudi Arabia or which ever other cowardly arab
moslem country, the funds should be used to reimburse the US taxpayer.

: Why are you accepting to pay for the
:illegal detention of humans in cages, but refuse to pay for tourists to come
:to the USA to spend money and help the USA economy ?

As your premise is false, your conclusion is silly.

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

the US may charge $1000 a head and still say the same crap u said. **** u.


"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...
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.

:"betelnut" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
: dude, you may reject visa applicants but just don't pocket their hard
:earned
: money, ok? **** u americans. ya going down, boy.
:
:
: "USA" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "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.."
:
: They lost the $100 per visa and were denied issuance based on
:"immigration
: inclination".
: That basis would not exist if the problem of illegal immigration by
: chinese
: nationals
: wasn't a problem with the US, or many other countries for that
matter.
: Chinese emigration itself would not be a problem if China were a
country
: that provided
: a sound economy, population planning and a democratic lifestyle so
that
:so
: many people
: living in China would not want to emmigrate.
: So who do you blame?
:
:
:
:
:
:


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

when chinese do it, it cost nothing. u greedy american jews. **** u.

"mrtravel" wrote in message
m...
betelnut wrote:

dude, you may reject visa applicants but just don't pocket their hard
earned
money, ok? **** u americans. ya going down, boy.


Processing rejections takes money also.

"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:45:35 -0400 Raised Organ
wrote:

:mrtravel wrote:

: But, for the US it wasn't a spitting content, just a need to raise
fees
: to cover costs as required by the law.

:Oh come on. Admit it. It is to reduce the number of visitors to the USA
and
:dissuade people from certain countries form coming. If some countries
don't
:require visas, but others do, who gets to pay for the background checks
that
:the USA want to do to all passengers, whatever country they are coming
from ?

Or, perhaps, those from the exempt countries are less likely to violate
rules
and become a burden on the American tax payer?

:Are you saying that the poor chinese need to pay $100 in order to
subsidize
:the checks done for the rich germans who don't require a visa ?

No.

:If the USA were fair, it would require a visa for everyone. The volumes
would
:require the USA to process requests efficiently and charge just a
minimal
:amount. If Australia was able to do this, why can't the USA ?

A valid suggestion if all people and countries were the same.

They are not.

People from certain countries are statistically more like to violate rules
than others. Those that come from countries that violate the rules should
expect more careful treatment.

yeah just don't exploit such situation by overcharging visa applications.

:(consider the ETA (electronic visas entered by airline/travel agents)
which
:make the process painless, yet provide the desatination country with
sfficient
:information to issue a visa. Combine this with theefficiency when you
check in
:since your visa is alrteady in the computer and can thus be transmitted
:electronically ahead of time to the destination country.

Irrelevant.

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

"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:42:20 +0100 "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.

Perhaps you might suggest to the tourism industry that they pay higher
taxes
so that they fund the charges?

that's still american money. but the point is money has to come from
outside.

I am sure that they would agree if they would make more money, as you
assert.

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

overcharging foreigners is a good source of income for the US, at least for
the US immigrantion department.

the US will lower the application fee once the number of applicants becomes
too low relatively.



"mrtravel" wrote in message
m...


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

here's how to make quick profit for the US immigration. make the
reqirements easier in order to increase the number of applicants. increase
the application fee. of course, still only pass the same number of
applicants as before.

this is exploitation on foreigners cuz there's not much foreigners can do
except they "have a choice" of not applying. but then once they made the
choice, it's already too late cuz they had already spent the money.




"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Enrique A. Muñoz Torres wrote:
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.

I can see problems with this:

1) If these are actually the requirements, then people will quickly figure
out the best ways to fake these particular criteria.

2) If people meet these criteria and are still rejected, they'll be even
mor
upset because it will seem to them that they have met all the requirements
(even if they were described as guidelines or a baseline) and were
nevertheless capriciously rejected.

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.

Binyamin Dissen wrote:
I would assert that those who cannot afford the $100 will not help the US
economy.

There are people who can afford it but would rather not mess around with it.
I help the economy plenty when I visit places, with my big American Dollars,
but if I had to pay $100 for a vague chance of getting a visa, I would just
go spend them somewhere else.

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.

Binyamin Dissen wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
mrtravel wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
Perhaps you might suggest to the tourism industry that they pay higher
taxes so that they fund the charges?

The tourism industry pays higher taxes to fund visa charges? How?

Hotel taxes, rental car taxes, a million and one air-related taxes, etc.

Those are mostly local charges.

No way these pay for visas.

Sure they do. They displace other funding sources. It's all fungible.

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 Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:11:18 GMT (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

:Binyamin Dissen wrote:

: I would assert that those who cannot afford the $100 will not help the US
: economy.

:There are people who can afford it but would rather not mess around with it.

People who wish to visit the USA wish to visit the USA.

There is no real substitute for it.

:I help the economy plenty when I visit places, with my big American Dollars,
:but if I had to pay $100 for a vague chance of getting a visa, I would just
:go spend them somewhere else.

Unless you wanted to go to the USA.

You can compare with: if some far east country tried a high visa fee. Most US
tourists don't really care which "exotic" far east country they tour, and such
a charge may cause the US tourist to visit somewhere else.

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