|
Reciprocity Fee - an interesting angle
I say this post Im copying below on another BBoard that deals with travel to Argentina.... I thought it was an interesting read... :p
Oh (edited)... the eternal discussion. I see your point about the US visa fee covering actual costs for an actual service. But bear in mind that the provided service is homeland security, and it benefits US inhabitants, not the tourists who pay for it. Imagine that the system, instead of the mandatory visa application system, was like this: You are a foreign tourist arriving at an American airport, and you find a very beautiful stand with a very persuading woman asking every tourist: “Good morning Sir. Welcome to America. Would you like to have your background checked for only $ 140? I assure you could not get a better deal!” Let me guess: Your answer would be something similar to: “No thank you. I already know my background and I am pretty sure about my intentions when entering the United States”. When asked outside the airport, to American citizens: “Sir, would you like us to check the background of incoming visitors?”, the answer would probably be yes. Hence, bring your own conclusions about who wants this service provided, and who should pay for it. Instead, the US government decided to charge this homeland security cost on incoming tourists, even if they don’t benefit from that at all. So, in reciprocity, the Argentine government decided to charge some of its costs (presumably, the upgrade of migration systems, but it could be any other cost, it doesn’t matter) on American citizens. And such decision is as legitimate as the one made by the US Government. To sum up, I understand your frustration about not being able to see transparently if something good is being done with the money you pay as a fee. But believe me, even more frustrating is being charged with the costs of a service that I can actually see, or at least imagine, but It´s a mandatory service which I didn’t ask for, I don’t benefit from it, and I don't have the right to vote against it, or its funding sources. |
O.K., I'll bite.
The logic doesn´t quite work for me: "...the US government decided to charge this homeland security cost on incoming tourists, even if they don’t benefit from that at all." The benefit to the tourist is being allowed to visit the U.S. No one is forcing the tourist to go there. No one is forcing them to buy an airplane ticket, hotel room, rental car, or food, either. If a tourist chooses to visit a place, it is reasonable that they should pay for all that the visit entails. Cosidering the huge number of illegal aliens already in the U.S., it seems appropriate to try to make some determination about whether a person is likely to overstay their tourist visa prior to allowing them in. The U.S. is far from the only country doing this, but as the biggest tourist destination, it gets the most attention. There are plenty of other examples of fees with no apparent immediate benefit. How about airport departure fees? Many times you don't find out about it until you get there, there is no choice in the matter, and it is often to fund future improvements, which you may not benefit from. Such is the cost of gallivanting about the globe... |
Does someone have an estimate of what % of illegal aliens in the US are Mexicans coming across the southern border...?? I once heard that this was over two-thirds, but I would be interested in knowing this from a more "scientific" source.
|
Originally Posted by Gaucho100K
(Post 15605787)
Does someone have an estimate of what % of illegal aliens in the US are Mexicans coming across the southern border...?? I once heard that this was over two-thirds, but I would be interested in knowing this from a more "scientific" source.
|
|
Thanks Gaucho100K for the post. Interesting read. As was ULDB65's reply.
Market forces are in play here: I travel to China, say, and have to pay $100 for a sticker in my passport. What does that get me? Well, I get to go to China, I guess. So that's something. What does China actually do with the money? Dunno. Is $100 too much? Not yet for me, as I have paid it. $200? I'd likely look for other travel options. $300? Japan and Korea and Singapore... here I come! I recently had to cancel a trip to Brazil over a Visa hiccup. Had that not happened, I and my $3000 in expected travel expenditures would have made it nicely through passport control into Brazil, but only I would have left, thus making quite a few folks in Brazil pretty happy. Sure, a country can stick it to the US by proving a point with Reciprocity Fees, just as we stick it to travellers with our fees. These fees have consequences in reduced travel and it is up to each nation to decide if the benefits (more cash, better security, warm feelings resulting from giving it back just like you got it) are worth the drawbacks. |
Originally Posted by Alumino
(Post 15612827)
Market forces are in play here: I travel to China, say, and have to pay $100 for a sticker in my passport. What does that get me? Well, I get to go to China, I guess. So that's something. What does China actually do with the money? Dunno. Is $100 too much? Not yet for me, as I have paid it. $200? I'd likely look for other travel options. $300? Japan and Korea and Singapore... here I come!
|
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K
(Post 15612965)
What about when it is conveniently wrapped up in your ticket price v. a separately paid item? No one gets upset with Argentina departure fees anymore even though they about doubled when they became part of the ticket price. And this is paid on every departure (although it doesn't discriminate re: national origin).
--J |
Does anyone know if the reciprocity fee has begun to be charged at AEP for US citizens arriving from Brasil? Aerolineas Argentinas reservations agents say it is not but the Argentinian consulate website seems to imply it is...
|
Originally Posted by asterix881
(Post 15615151)
Does anyone know if the reciprocity fee has begun to be charged at AEP for US citizens arriving from Brasil? Aerolineas Argentinas reservations agents say it is not but the Argentinian consulate website seems to imply it is...
Originally Posted by jcf27
(Post 15613913)
Leaving EZE is easy because everyone is subject to the departure tax and the cost is uniform.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 15615234)
But not all departure taxes are. Many countries have lower fees for locals. --J |
Originally Posted by jcf27
(Post 15613913)
You can't unless you redesign all booking systems to handle the complexity of bookings plus enforcement in immigration. There are multiple moving variables involved in your idea. Leaving EZE is easy because everyone is subject to the departure tax and the cost is uniform.
--J |
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K
(Post 15612965)
What about when it is conveniently wrapped up in your ticket price v. a separately paid item? No one gets upset with Argentina departure fees anymore even though they about doubled when they became part of the ticket price. And this is paid on every departure (although it doesn't discriminate re: national origin).
Just wondering: people might not get upset about Argentina departure fees anymore, but perhaps some people decide not to go to Argentina because the tickets now cost too much. |
Originally Posted by Alumino
(Post 15621180)
Just wondering: people might not get upset about Argentina departure fees anymore, but perhaps some people decide not to go to Argentina because the tickets now cost too much. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:16 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.