Originally Posted by
AsiaFlyer2014
As I said, our study is still ongoing, so I do not claim to have all the answers at this time.
However, my comments are not wild speculation either. They are based on observations from our research, which is informed by various official sources.
The framework was designed for fully participating members, which the U.S. has not become yet. The "transitional" category was a later add-on that doesn't quite match up with the framework.
As to why there would be ill feelings with a one-way flow of pre-clearance requests, just imagine the U.S. starts sending "Economy A" 10,000 pre-clearance requests annually for U.S. cardholders to conduct visa-free travel to that economy. This would create a lot of additional work for Economy A's ABTC staff, and at the same time reduce visa revenue. It doesn't seem unreasonable that Economy A would expect the U.S. to first agree to extend the same visa-free access to Economy A's cardholders.
No. The framework was modified to add the transitional category. All the members agreed to it. The current framework is the framework and the transitional category is integral to it.
"Observations from our research"? Could you let us know what observations?
"informed by various official sources." And what does this mean? That you read all the of official documents on the web that the rest of us have also read? Or did you talk to actual people? In which countries?
"It doesn't seem unreasonable that Economy A would expect the U.S. to first agree to extend the same visa-free access to Economy A's cardholders."
Whey then did they agree to it?
Also did it ever occur to you that by allowing more business people and investors to easily enter the country, a country might be a net beneficiary because of the increased growth and employment. Maybe some of these countries are actually smart enough to realize that the more pre-clearance requests they process the better off they are. Maybe that's why they created the scheme in the first place?