8 ms·
Haven't these guys heard of the "reciprocity principle"? When I went to Brazil a few years ago, the basic price for a tourist visa was like $25 and could be do
by gwd 1y ago
Haven't these guys heard of the "reciprocity principle"?
When I went to Brazil a few years ago, the basic price for a tourist visa was like $25 and could be done online. But, if you were a US citizen, it cost $150 and you had to schedule an attend an interview in person -- because, those were the costs and burdens placed on Brazilian citizens to apply for a US visa.
Does the US want other countries inspecting our citizens' social media posts for the last five years?
ED: Fix spelling mistake
- bpoyner 1y agoBolivia also has a reciprocity visa charge of $160 for US citizens. Many years ago we were very close to the Bolivian border but the visa cost for a day trip just didn't make it worth it.
- chii 1y agoto play the devil's advocate, if more people wanted to visit the US than the other way around, then it's not "disadvantageous" for the US to do this.
- littlestymaar 1y agoUntil you realize that tourism industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and the US used to be one of the biggest tourist destination of the world (only behind France and Spain).
- zczc 1y agoLooks like the new requirement is only for F, M, and J student and exchange visas that already need more paperwork, not for B-1/B-2 tourism and business visas.
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoWhy's that? Doesn't tourism and business coming into the US benefit the country? Take student visas. Sure, you could have a student come to the US, finish their education, and go back to their home country, "stealing" knowledge from the US to benefit their own country. Or they could find a job in the US and/or start the next trillion dollar company since the opportunities in the US are better. Satya Nadella traveled to the US for a university degree and ended up at Microsoft, where he led business units bringing in tens of billions, and under his CEO-ness he increased the value of the MS stock from around $40 when he became CEO in 2014 to $477 today, making it one of the first trillion dollar companies in the US. But that wouldn't have happened if he didn't get a visa. Neither would Tesla (Elon Musk, migrated from South Africa on a student visa), netiher would Google (Sergey Brin migrated in from Russia, Sundar Pichai migrated on a student visa from India), etc. I just don't understand it.
- wizzwizz4 1y agoStocks going up doesn't actually improve things for anyone. To use Microsoft as a specific example: that stock price increase corresponds directly to a reduction in quality of life for many people. This is, of course, immaterial to your main point: we can point to many actual contributions from migrants, such as maintaining infrastructure, providing food and education, and technological advancements.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Stocks going up doesn't actually improve things for anyone Yes, it does, it’s called the wealth effect. This is beyond firm effects that stem from lower costs of capital.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago> to play the devil's advocate, if more people wanted to visit the US than the other way around, then it's not "disadvantageous" for the US to do this. That would only be true if the per capita advantage to the US of doing it is at least as large as the per capita disadvantage of having it done to US citizens. Which it isn't. The value of doing it is negligible and the cost of having it done to you is significant.
- throwawayffffas 1y agoThis kind of adversarial nonsensical thinking is the problem. It's disadvantageous for the US if their citizens have to go through more bullshit whenever they are visiting another country. Regardless of how much they subject people going to the US, or how many people travel either way. It's a lose lose pissing contest. The reason reciprocity is exercised is to discourage this kind of thing in the first place.
- ghusto 1y agoI don't think the people in support of such things are travelling very much.
- jjcob 1y agoI don't understand what these things are good for. If you want to enter the country illegally, overstay your visa, or perform some sort of attack, then it's trivial to lie on the forms. It's just making it inconvenient for honest, harmless travellers. Is that the goal?
- regularfry 1y agoNot exactly - they're guaranteeing that if you do lie on the form then they've got a nailed-on route to expel you even if nothing else sticks, because lying on an immigration form is an offence.
- crote 1y agoThe goal is to provide an excuse. Very few people will be able to provide a list of 100% of the accounts they used. This means every visitor will technically be lying on their forms. You're more than happy to visit - until you do something the regime doesn't like, like criticizing the recent attack on Iran, or making fun of the military parade. Then they have a ready-made reason to deport and ban you.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- soco 1y agoYou can call yourself lucky if you're "just" deported, and not sent to (and forgotten in) some unnamed prison abroad in a random exotic country.
- ethbr1 1y agoAre there any instances where the US has refused to repatriate a foreign citizen whose government was willing to take them back? In the interest of truthfulness, I believe all(?) of the CECOT deportations weren't accepted by their own country. Which doesn't make it right, but does change the situation.
- 1y ago
- sebtron 1y agoI don't think the current US administration cares about this. Most people who voted for it probably don't care about travelling abroad either.
- diggan 1y ago> Does the US want other countries inspecting our citizens' social media posts for the last five years? Do you really think the US government cares that much about how Americans are treated outside of the US, or even considers that when setting up these policies? Based on some quick searching and skimming, it seems like only half the population even have passports in the first place.
- hypeatei 1y ago> Haven't these guys heard of the "reprocity principle"? Did you see the trade war started recently with every country in the world? I don't think anything is being thoroughly planned or thought out in this administration. They're all about power and not governance.
- neallindsay 1y agoThe xenophobes making these decisions don't care if they create problems for US citizens traveling abroad.
- SauciestGNU 1y agoThey probably also don't want Americans abroad and able to see how much better things are in so many places.
- derriz 1y agoIn this case, what has Ireland done to US citizens that this reciprocates? Ireland has a special deal for US citizens - no visa is required for visits up to 90 days - you just turn up and show your passport. I'm not convinced that this is truly about actually protecting the US from terrorism or foreign attack since all major terrorist acts that I can recall over the last few decades were perpetrated by native-born US citizens and not by visitors on visas. It seems more about catching people who might have, for example, expressed an opinion that doesn't align with "they deserve it" with respect to Palestinians in Gaza - which currently seems sufficient to be branded "a threat to the US" and grounds for detention and expulsion.
- monkeyfun 1y agoYou don't seem to have understood their post at all by asking what Ireland did that this is reciprocating. They're saying other countries should reciprocate this upon Americans. The point you make about the purpose from the American pov is valid and correct + clearly meant to be expanded upon or abused in the future, but not their point.
- derriz 1y agoSorry. Yes you’re correct - I misread the parent comment.
- HWR_14 1y ago9/11, which most people would put in the past few decades and a major terrorist act, was exclusively done by people on visas. Meanwhile, I think the post you are responding to was pointing out that other countries are likely to reciprocate similar rules for US visitors to their countries.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoI’d guess this administration draws its power from voters who don’t have a passport and power brokers whose staff handle visas. (Or at least it operates as if it believes it does.)
- ethbr1 1y agoThat any US citizen doesn't have a passport is mind blowing, sad, and also indicative. $18/yr for access to most of the world. Yet people say "No thanks. I'm sure the US is great."
- ryandrake 1y agoFewer than half of Americans have passports. Many have probably never left their home state, and there are probably a significant number who have never left a 100 mile radius around their homes. People who regularly travel internationally are not a large or powerful voter base. They can be shit on without hurting a politician's career.
- account42 1y agoVoter base share isn't all that matters - most richer Americans will have passports and want to travel internationally.
- monkeyfun 1y agoAccess that costs thousands of dollars for a short trip that most people simply don't have the spare money for. The median US income is <40k/year, and healthcare + housing costs dominate most workers' lives. Also, it's not $18/year like a subscription, it's $165 upfront -- money that could be spent on gas, food, medical bills, desperately saved up for emergencies, etc. and won't provide any benefit whatsoever to their lives unless they're taking a vacation they probably don't feel they can afford financially or in their <2 weeks of vacation time.
- account42 1y ago
- android521 1y agoWell, other countries want US tourists money.US doens't need it as much.
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoUS isn’t nearly as important to world tourism as it thinks it is. Maybe Mexico or Canada since they are so close, but otherwise Chinese tourist dollars are sought after more than American. Reciprocation is going to be more of the norm than not.
- bitshiftfaced 1y agoFrom what I can see, China, Germany, and USA are the big three. So it's probably pretty important to make it easy for citizens of these countries to get a visa if you care about tourism. Also, there are places in China where it's very hard to get a visa to travel.
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoChina opened up no visa needed for western European and many Asian countries, so…they have the right idea. No one is really interested in catering to the US tourist market right now. It’s not even clear if Americans are welcome in many countries, or if they have to pretend being Canadians again.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago> No one is really interested in catering to the US tourist market right now. I don't think this is true, at least where I live (Ireland). I'm pretty sure that the economy of half the coastal towns would collapse without US tourists.
- bitshiftfaced 1y ago> China opened up no visa needed for western European and many Asian countries, so…they have the right idea. Here are a couple of examples of the challenges in traveling to certain parts of China: https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycletouring/comments/1bdbsh5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycletouring/comments/1bdbsh5/ https://www.the-sun.com/travel/14418546/little-known-law-china-visa-changes-nightmare-traveling/ https://www.the-sun.com/travel/14418546/little-known-law-chi...
- Yizahi 1y agoI wish it happened more in different countries. Your country demands that you are forbidden to bring any items, regardless of how dangerous they are, in the embassy? Apply the same rule to the citizens of that country and only for them. I'm sure they will appreciate being openly discriminated in front of the applicants from the other parts of the world. Your country demands 150-200 dollars for a shitty single time entry tourist visa (yes, I'm looking at you UK)? Charge the citizens of that country the same sum for their visas. Etc. And in reverse - if they are easing or removing absurd restrictions, then reciprocate and ease restrictions in return.
- zeven7 1y agoThey don't want people in the US to travel outside the US so they probably see it as a positive if other countries put up more deterrents.