2 ms·
> People flying in from abroad won't have cars available as collateral, and most likely won't be allowed to fly before they put up the bond. This seems moot if
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago
> People flying in from abroad won't have cars available as collateral, and most likely won't be allowed to fly before they put up the bond.
This seems moot if such a bond agency would be allowed to set up offices in the origin countries.
- jacquesm 10mo agoSure, regardless of availability it is still going to be a massive increase in expenses effectively amounting to collective punishment. If 10% of your countrymen don't return after visiting the USA then the bonds providers are going to charge you at least 10% and probably substantially more.
- mothballed 10mo agoThe entire US immigration schema has always been based on collective punishment. USA requires visa from countries where people have been less likely to return. They have the most onerous scrutiny in places with the lowest compliance rates. If a foreign leader does something we don't like, we might punish their entire population by even banning any of them from easily coming. I don't agree with the bond personally, nor the idea of collective punishment, I'll just note it follows a principle that is generally followed on the world stage with a few notable exceptions like Svalbard.