4 ms·

In practice, it's necessary that it be sufficient for the vast majority of the cases. It's not worth it for most to risk the substantial financial/time outlay t

by ericd 10y ago

In practice, it's necessary that it be sufficient for the vast majority of the cases. It's not worth it for most to risk the substantial financial/time outlay to travel/move halfway around the world to visit a country that has a good chance of not letting you in once you arrive on its doorstep.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
In practice, it's necessary that it be sufficient for the vast majority of the cases. And in the vast majority of the cases, it is. Immigrants from the 7 countries that Obama designated in the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 [1], and authorized suspension of entry for, make up a tiny fraction of visas. [1] https://www.niacaction.org/update-frequently-asked-questions-on-the-visa-waiver-restrictions-may-12/ https://www.niacaction.org/update-frequently-asked-questions... https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m...
- ericd 10y ago
  Right, it's still the vast majority, but it's not virtually certain like it was. But I was speaking in the abstract, I wasn't trying to make it seem like a bigger thing than it is. That said, would you agree that the way this is being handled shakes confidence for visitors from other countries that haven't been banned? For green card holders who've moved their lives to the US?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I agree that the massive amount of (often clueless) media attention being given to this does shake confidence. The actual action, if given "we love Obama" levels of media attention rather than "we hate Trump" levels (c.f. how little attention the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was given), would have shaken confidence to a much lesser (but still nonzero) extent. I think this whole thing is pretty dumb. I'm just critiquing misconceptions about how visas work.
  - masonic 10y ago
    would you agree that the way this is being handled shakes confidence for visitors I (for one) would agree that the way this is being reported in the mainstream media can shake confidence for visitors.
uncoder0 10y ago
You think there is a 'good chance' most visa holders will not be allowed entry into the United States this year? The US Issued ~10,000,000 Total Visas in 2015[1] while the current temporary ban on entry only effects at worst ~90,000[2] outstanding visas. Which means roughly ~1% of visas were effected. While a large number of people I don't think this represents a good chance that the US won't honor the VISAs it has issued. [1]https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2016AnnualReport/FY16AnnualReport-TableI.pdf https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/30/the-number-of-people-affected-by-trumps-travel-ban-about-90000/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > While a large number of people I don't think this represents a good chance that the US won't honor the VISAs it has issued. You are lumping all of them in the same basket, the chance when you're in the group of 90,000 is about 100%. Statistics are fun and games as long as you're not in the affected group.
- ericd 10y ago
  jacquessm explained what I meant with more clarity. Obviously I don't think a majority of visas are going to go unhonored, I was commenting on the effects of making it seem uncertain to people.
- waqf 10y ago
  The worry isn't the last order, it's the next one. The US set a precedent that they're willing to suddenly, indiscriminately cancel thousands of visas by executive order. And at NO notice, which means that your worst case isn't just having nothing to show for the thousands of dollars and possibly years of your life you invested in your travel and visa, it's that plus being detained indefinitely with no rights at the US border.

by ericd 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

In practice, it's necessary that it be sufficient for the vast majority of the cases. And in the vast majority of the cases, it is. Immigrants from the 7 countries that Obama designated in the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 [1], and authorized suspension of entry for, make up a tiny fraction of visas. [1] https://www.niacaction.org/update-frequently-asked-questions-on-the-visa-waiver-restrictions-may-12/ https://www.niacaction.org/update-frequently-asked-questions... https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m...

ericd 10y ago
Right, it's still the vast majority, but it's not virtually certain like it was. But I was speaking in the abstract, I wasn't trying to make it seem like a bigger thing than it is. That said, would you agree that the way this is being handled shakes confidence for visitors from other countries that haven't been banned? For green card holders who've moved their lives to the US?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I agree that the massive amount of (often clueless) media attention being given to this does shake confidence. The actual action, if given "we love Obama" levels of media attention rather than "we hate Trump" levels (c.f. how little attention the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was given), would have shaken confidence to a much lesser (but still nonzero) extent. I think this whole thing is pretty dumb. I'm just critiquing misconceptions about how visas work.
- masonic 10y ago
  would you agree that the way this is being handled shakes confidence for visitors I (for one) would agree that the way this is being reported in the mainstream media can shake confidence for visitors.

uncoder0 10y ago

You think there is a 'good chance' most visa holders will not be allowed entry into the United States this year? The US Issued ~10,000,000 Total Visas in 2015[1] while the current temporary ban on entry only effects at worst ~90,000[2] outstanding visas. Which means roughly ~1% of visas were effected. While a large number of people I don't think this represents a good chance that the US won't honor the VISAs it has issued. [1]https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2016AnnualReport/FY16AnnualReport-TableI.pdf https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/30/the-number-of-people-affected-by-trumps-travel-ban-about-90000/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...

jacquesm 10y ago
> While a large number of people I don't think this represents a good chance that the US won't honor the VISAs it has issued. You are lumping all of them in the same basket, the chance when you're in the group of 90,000 is about 100%. Statistics are fun and games as long as you're not in the affected group.
ericd 10y ago
jacquessm explained what I meant with more clarity. Obviously I don't think a majority of visas are going to go unhonored, I was commenting on the effects of making it seem uncertain to people.
waqf 10y ago
The worry isn't the last order, it's the next one. The US set a precedent that they're willing to suddenly, indiscriminately cancel thousands of visas by executive order. And at NO notice, which means that your worst case isn't just having nothing to show for the thousands of dollars and possibly years of your life you invested in your travel and visa, it's that plus being detained indefinitely with no rights at the US border.