Unfortunately many countries pull stunts like this.
For most people, it'll be returned as they leave.
For people who really shouldn't be there, it serves as a filter; If they can't afford to loan the US $250, it is unlikely they will be able to afford theirlife necessities once in the US. Such a person should solve their issues BEFORE traveling to the US.
For visa overstayers, it funds their deportation.
So, family of four saves up to visit NYC for vacation, now they need to find an extra $1000 to take the trip. And it's unclear when they get that money back (is DHS going to post somebody at international departure terminals to issue them - unlikely).
US student visas, after all fees are roughly $500 (USD.)
UK skilled worker visas are about $1660. The H1B is about $1700.
The U.K. multi entry visitor visa for 10 year validity is about $1200.
The U.S. version: $185
I understand it’s popular to post articles that sensationalize how “bad” the U.S. is, but reasonable people probably should have some perspective.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australias-ruling...
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/electronic-travel-author...
This visa integrity fee seems to be a much blunter instrument.
This may be due to the difficulties with border crossings.
It’s no harder getting out than it was getting in.
At least in IT/tech I would expect an opposite effect - with number of skilled immigrants reduced there will be risk that multinational companies will close development offices in the UK, startups will have one more reasons to choose another country too. With number of available jobs going down workforce reduction will not prop salaries up IMHO.
Where's the time for us citizens to be informed? And the time to write our senators and representatives so they know what their constituents think? Of course that's idyllic, and we haven't had that in decades. At least things like the (anti-) "PATRIOT" act were bipartisan, despite selling out the people. But the sheer speed this barge of incoherent trash was wholesale rammed through really shows how utterly feckless Congress as a whole has become.
It seems like they need to watch more of those 90's "Just say no" ads.
People everywhere know their voice hardly counts when lobbying, big business and money are involved.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/p...
I get how the ACA is this reactionary touchstone about big scary de jure government daring to regulate the corpo-created death panels, and as a libertarian I would have vastly preferred a much different type of healthcare reform. But from a perspective of individual liberty, a national implementation of Romneycare couldn't possibly have fucked the country nearly as hard as handing more unchecked reins of power to an autocrat running on dementia fumes of ideas that might have worked in the 90's.
So no, it is not "nothing changes". Rather it is a continual escalation. Your both-sidesing is itself based on that exact partisan interpretation whereby you care less about these specific topics, making you ignore that the overall problem is increasing - with this particular step being drastic.
the affordable care act was one of the single largest transfers of wealth into private industry in the last few decades, and a massive failing by both major political parties to actually provide affordable, high quality healthcare that we're capable of shouldering as a society. you won't catch me defending any part of it, or anybody who kneecapped it during the legislative process.
can you stop acting like politics is a team sport that can be won, and start recognizing that both parties are Bad, Actually, and do absolutely nothing for the vast majority of americans with net worths under a billion dollars?
It was a generalization of hyper-partisanism and how maybe if people don’t want something ahitty to happen to them later, they shouldn’t ignore it when they believe it is in their favor.
See stacking the court, ending the filibuster, lowering the voting age to 16, etc.
That seems like a lot of hassle if so, and will cause people to think twice about visiting the US.
> The fee applies to all visitors who need nonimmigrant visas to enter, and cannot be waived.
Which sounds like the opposite of "no fee"?
With an ESTA in hand, an eligible visitor must get an I-94 visa waiver at the border for $6. Even with a valid ESTA this can be denied.
Source: at this point I’ve had 4 dozen of them over the last two decades.
There doesn't seem to be an intent to implement reimbursement of the fee from the time it is implemented, and clear incentive to be as slow with it as possible.
> On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period
So, just another way to discourage the "wrong" sorts of people, who may visit for any number of valid (and profitable) reasons. White European vacationer? Great, welcome to the USA. Everybody else? Get fucked.
Many "desirable" countries have visa-waiver programs where I would assume they would be unaffected.
They must believe that the long term effects will change slowly enough, or the effects will be concentrated on the poorest, and so they can just ignored as they won't be electorally punished for them.
I disagree with the policies personally but politically I don't know if their calculation is wrong.
Well, now you get to look back upon those policies and actions fondly.
The US responded with a wine boycott, renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries on the congresesional cafe menu, and some WW2-related insults on TV.
At the time, a lot of people would say GWB was one of the worst ever US presidents, that cutting taxes while spending a bunch on a costly war was irresponsible, etc.
But looking back? That guy had no signs of dementia, no major convictions, hadn’t been credibly accused of rape, and nobody was heiling hitler at his inauguration. I for one now look back on his presidency fondly.
US desire for oil, troops being stationed abroad, supply-side economics, "lack of culture", gun politics.
Those are off the top of my head.
I gave a talk in Montana last week and I could hear a pin drop when I said my wife got 18 months maternity leave so we travelled the world with our little one.
With 100% of salary, 50%?
I know some countries 'hold' your place of employment up to 5 years, although one gets only symbolic money during all that time, think like 10% of the salary.
We could have shared that too, but chose not to.
By law they must hold her position.
US adults have the shortest life span among the richest countries so it sucks even more, even your high salary and zero medical issue still means you are living inferior life.
Edit: I’m a Democrat but for each downvote to this post I’m donating $1 to the Republican Party. Y’all are crazy if you think other countries aren’t doing this.
Current tally: $2 for downvotes $5 for a comment made without any knowledge of the situation $7 total
That's an absurd amount of butthurtdeness coupled with pettiness, lol. Sucks for your wife, she could've chosen to not drive drunk though.
As stated a few times in the article, most of this money isn’t getting back to the people who paid it.
xhkkffbf•3h ago
avs733•2h ago
As it stands it isn't an incentive, its just a disruptive and opportunistic approach to take money from a politically disfavored group. THe CBO, as quoted, is clear that until they figure out the reimbursement process they are still just going to colelct the fee and keep the money:
>, “CBO expects that the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period.”
Moomoomoo309•36m ago