The Off Topic Topic

[Jacob]

How is that kind of reciprocity bullshit? It seems pretty fair to me.

I'm sure it does seem fair to you.  But one would think Argentina would want to encourage, not discourage, travel from the US.  And it's not like there is a flood of Americans trying to settle in Argentina.

FWIW they do the same think to Canadians.

And maybe they don't care about the US (and Canadian) tourist dollars particularly.

I mean, I'd prefer not having to pay high visa fees when going places (I'm paying around $150 for the visa to China soon), but the idea that it's okay that "they" pay, but "we" shouldn't have to is bullshit.

[Barrister]

Hmm, yeah, tourist visa for Americans back in 2010-11 was one (1) US $20 bill upon arrival.  Not change for a $50, not two $10 bills, not two $10s and two $5s, just one Andreas Cakçon $20 bill.

I had to pay a "Reciprocity Fee" of $250 to get into Argentina last time I went there.  Looks like they recently lowered it to $160 and it covers five years' worth of travel, but it's still bullshit.  It's basically a retaliation against the US requiring a visa from Argies.

How is that kind of reciprocity bullshit? It seems pretty fair to me.

Because Argentina has no security concerns about US visitors, and indeed if anything should want to promote more US visitors.  But instead they put in a tit-for-tat visa requirement because the US imposed one on Argentine citizens.

"bullshit" is kind of strong, but I remember being rather irked at the Brazillian visa requirement which was imposed for a similar reason.

So what if there are "security concerns"? You make us pay $100 to visit, we make you pay $100 to visit. Seems perfectly fair. You can address "security concerns" without making the people apply for visas paying for them.

That sounds like petty tit-for-tat to me.

Canada/US requires a visa for much of latin america because of a legitimate concern that those nationals may overstay their visit and become illegal immigrants.  So we require documentation from such visitors to prove that they will be returning to their country of origin.  As far as I can tell, latin america does not have a similar concern.  Yet they still require similar paperwork and fees.

[alfred russel]

I mean, I'd prefer not having to pay high visa fees when going places (I'm paying around $150 for the visa to China soon), but the idea that it's okay that "they" pay, but "we" shouldn't have to is bullshit.

It is a question of why we are paying.

There are visa processes in place with a lot of latin america because illegal immigration from those countries is an issue. The visa processes cost money, and so that gets charged to the applicant. I really doubt that is a profit center for the US.

In parts of Latin America, an American getting a visa is nothing more than swiping a credit card upon arrival. Chile does that, but because I arrived through an airport not set up to take money from gringos (I think Santiago is the only place they process payments), I didn't get a visa and was cool to be in the country without one. To them, it is a source of profit, not migration control.

[Jacob]

That sounds like petty tit-for-tat to me.

You say that as if that's an argument against it? Tit-for-tat is the foundation of international relations. Sometimes it's called reciprocity.

Blame your government for not managing relations with the country in question according to your desires if you don't want to pay the visa processing fees.

Canada/US requires a visa for much of latin america because of a legitimate concern that those nationals may overstay their visit and become illegal immigrants.  So we require documentation from such visitors to prove that they will be returning to their country of origin.  As far as I can tell, latin america does not have a similar concern.  Yet they still require similar paperwork and fees.

So, "we charging you money for the paperwork we require of you" is legitimate and based on logical reasons while "you charging us money for the paperwork you require of us" is illogical and wrong? I can't agree to that.

First off, there's nothing that requires a particular fee to be associated with a particular visa application. You want to have a visa process that to help mitigate against illegal immigration and visa overstays? Sure, go ahead. There's nothing that says you have to charge the applicant $100 or $250 or $5 or any other amount. You could make it free, or you could charge $1000. So arguments that "we have good reasons for visas, and you don't" - however reasonable they may or may not be - have no bearing on the amount charged for the process.

Secondly, saying "our visa requirements are logical and based on real concerns" while claiming "yours are clearly based on nothing" is pretty silly. Maybe the other country is concerned about political activities, maybe they're concerned about smuggling, maybe they're concerned about possible environmental damage... there are plenty of reasons to require visas other than being concerned about "illegal immigration" (which Argentina, for example, has concerns about of their own).

In fact, requiring visas is the default state of international travel with visa exemptions being the result of specific agreements - usually based on tit-for-tat a.k.a. reciprocity.

[Jacob]

It is a question of why we are paying.

There are visa processes in place with a lot of latin america because illegal immigration from those countries is an issue. The visa processes cost money, and so that gets charged to the applicant. I really doubt that is a profit center for the US.

In parts of Latin America, an American getting a visa is nothing more than swiping a credit card upon arrival. Chile does that, but because I arrived through an airport not set up to take money from gringos (I think Santiago is the only place they process payments), I didn't get a visa and was cool to be in the country without one. To them, it is a source of profit, not migration control.

And visa processing fees in the US and Canada are not a source of revenue? Of course they are, they're there to make the visa processing revenue-neutral or profitable by extracting money from people with no political recourse. No one who votes care if you make the foreigners pay for the hoops you make them jump through, so make them pay - they should be grateful we even allow them to jump the hoops.

[alfred russel]

And visa processing fees in the US and Canada are not a source of revenue? Of course they are, they're there to make the visa processing revenue-neutral or profitable by extracting money from people with no political recourse. No one who votes care if you make the foreigners pay for the hoops you make them jump through, so make them pay - they should be grateful we even allow them to jump the hoops.

They can do what they want and so can we, but the visa regime we have in place is needed to control migration.

The regime they have in place is just to stick it to the gringos.

[Jacob]

They can do what they want and so can we, but the visa regime we have in place is needed to control migration.

The regime they have in place is just to stick it to the gringos.

Nah, the regime they have in place is to maintain the principle of reciprocity; or as BB puts it "tit-for-tat".

It would likely go away if there was enough of a constituency to have your government negotiate a different arrangement, but it seems that that constituency isn't worth catering to

[garbon]

The real awful place is how much gets charged to get a worker's visa. I very much doubt that in real costs it should have amounted to nearly 2k for me to come to the UK.

[Jacob]

The real awful place is how much gets charged to get a worker's visa. I very much doubt that in real costs it should have amounted to nearly 2k for me to come to the UK.

There's a lot of that going around. There's not much of a constituency for keeping those prices down, so if you need to balance your budget for that department/ ministry there are few repercussions for taking a bit more money from the applicants.

[LaCroix]

They can do what they want and so can we, but the visa regime we have in place is needed to control migration.

The regime they have in place is just to stick it to the gringos.

could also be seen as the wealthier countries exerting control over the weaker countries. like, is the risk of a few extra illegals truly that great to impose a blanket requirement on an entire nation? I'm not saying it's right/wrong, but only a little bitch accepts that without taking a potshot back.

[alfred russel]

They can do what they want and so can we, but the visa regime we have in place is needed to control migration.

The regime they have in place is just to stick it to the gringos.

Nah, the regime they have in place is to maintain the principle of reciprocity; or as BB puts it "tit-for-tat".

It would likely go away if there was enough of a constituency to have your government negotiate a different arrangement, but it seems that that constituency isn't worth catering to

At least in Argentina there is a separate line specifically for Canadians, Americans, and one other nationality (I don't remember which one) to pay the entry fee. Considering the anti american sentiment in the country, which is quite palpable, and considering that I highly doubt just 3 countries have a visa regime for Argentina, I'm quite skeptical that sticking it to gringos isn't a factor in the fee.

[alfred russel]

could also be seen as the wealthier countries exerting control over the weaker countries. like, is the risk of a few extra illegals truly that great to impose a blanket requirement on an entire nation? I'm not saying it's right/wrong, but only a little bitch accepts that without taking a potshot back.

Are you calling the EU a "little bitch"? There are Schengen states that don't have visa free travel to the US, but Americans can visit all of them without a visa.

[LaCroix]

Are you calling the EU a "little bitch"? There are Schengen states that don't have visa free travel to the US, but Americans can visit all of them without a visa.

do you know which ones?

I'm calling those schengen states little bitches, yes. brazil might be a world power some day; it's no croatia

[alfred russel]

Are you calling the EU a "little bitch"? There are Schengen states that don't have visa free travel to the US, but Americans can visit all of them without a visa.

do you know which ones?

I'm calling those schengen states little bitches, yes. brazil might be a world power some day; it's no croatia

I'm not an expert in the countries that require a visa to get inot the US, but until recently poland was one. They wanted to change that and maybe we did.

So maybe poland, and I'd guess all the countries worse than poland.

[The Larch]

That sounds like petty tit-for-tat to me.

Petty tit-for-tat is the cornerstone of visa diplomacy.

A few years ago Brazil got mad at Spain because some Brazilian tourists were turned back in the airport in Madrid because the police suspected that they were trying to inmigrate illegally when they were actually some preppy well-off kids doing some tourism. Brazil's answer? Demanding exactly the same assurances to Spanish tourists wanting to enter Brazil than what Spain was demanding to Brazilian tourists.