It's pesos (since it's a reciprocal fee that Argentines would pay to the Canadian Embassy in BsAs):

La embajada de Canadá tiene otro sistema: se pagan 245 pesos argentinos por una sola entrada en ese país, $ 485 por entradas múltiples y $ 1295 por ingreso de un grupo familiar. Australia cobra 100 dólares la visa.

John

As an Argentinean I agree with the reciprocity fee.

If USA citizens would like to pay less, they can easily write to their house and senate representatives.

Cheap tourists do not really count towards the economy and if you consider $131 a show-stopper, it's because you fall in this category.

On the other side, if we want to atract more tourism, we must invest in infrastructure, hotels, security and in a gang to incinerate Global Exchange and every other company that robes visitors.

LR

"Cheap tourists" do really count towards economic contribution. First they do spend money. Second they encourage others to visit too and to spend money there. The Bhutan approach to tourism is inappropriate for Argentina.

Perhaps Argentine tourists in the US would also be happy to pay twice the price for internal flights compared to US residents?

Tit-for-tat is a poor way to encourage tourism.

John

If this is technically "not a visa" what is it. For example if like some of us we have the resident visa but are U.S. citizens do we pay an entry fee each time we enter or continue with the visa we have... TO make it more complicated what if you are dual citizen of U.S. and european country but your Argentina visa is in your U.S. passport. THe easy answer is that you can enter with euro passport but will not have stamp or entry on Argentine visa so you will have hard time renewing it and proving that you were there for renewal and other reasons

Assuming that Argentina implements the fee as Chile has done, then this is a reciprocity fee, pure and simple: the Argentine authorities charge citizens of countries that require Argentines to obtain visas to visit, the same amount that Argentines are charged for those visas. This is NOT a visa; that is granted on entry, independently of the reciprocity fee. End of story.

If you have two passports one of which is from a country whose citizens are not charged the reciprocity fee and who are granted a visa on entry to Argentina, then use that passport to avoid paying the reciprocity fee.

There has been strong internal criticism following yesterday's official announcement of the impending tax. Leaders in the tourist industry are strongly condemning the proposed legislation as harmful to the tourist industry.

An Interior Ministry spokesperson also said that all the details hadn't been decided yet (referencing the US in particular):

Sin embargo, hay países que otorgan la visa a discreción, esto es, en función de los requisitos que reúne el solicitante, como los Estados Unidos. "Aún no se decidió cómo será el procedimiento en esos casos", dijeron voceros del Ministerio del Interior.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1057553

John

I'm glad I will miss this (I head to Argentina in two weeks). Obviously I'm not in dire straits, since I'm taking a vacation in Argentina, but I used miles because ticket prices are so high and I've had to keep planned activities within a budget. The fee would probably not prevent me from going to Argentina, but it definitely would leave me with $131 less to spend on a trip to an estancia, or shoes at Comme il Faut, or a few pricier meals, or wine at Gaucho100K's store.

I agree that Argentina has every right to institute a reciprocal fee and I wish the U.S. would eliminate the one it charges Argentines, but the timing of this seems utterly bizarre.

I don't agree with the differential price policy, however that specific policy is not directed only to US residents, but to every visitor. So that's a different story.

Even more, I cannot get how we can charge USD600 for a flight that in Europe would be EUR100 at most. We cannot be that inneficient; or some companies are making a lot of money.

LR

Tit for tat is a reasonable response: I approve. If you don't like it, I suggest you contact your representatives in Congress.

As Ive tried to make clear in my posts before... I think that we are mixing apples with organges. Nobody can reasonably argue that this reciprocity fee is not justified... however, its also hard to agree that in the current market situation, its plain stupid to levy such a fee. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that the added revenue this fee generates will be a lot less than the actual tourist revenue lost.... and on top of that, there is the intangible portion that has to be added on top of that (first time visitor effects, word-of-mouth, etc.).

Will the visa fee be only applicable to those arriving by air, as in Chile?

Nothing is set in stone yet. See post #12 of this thread.

Wirelessly posted (Palm TX: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D050; Blazer/4.3) 16;320x448)

When this is implemented, it will begin at EZE and AEP. I doubt this will ever be implemented for land entry.

I have no problem with the US reciprocity fee either (especially since I won’t be subject to it ). However there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what this fee represents. Contacting congressional representatives to have the US fee lowered or abolished would be pointless.

The problem with respect to Argentina is a result of that country being removed from the VWP in 2002 after the financial crisis. The US Department of State specifically revoked Argentina’s eligibility as outlined below.

From the CRS Report for Congress RL32221 (updated January 31, 2008):

Beginning in December 2001, Argentina experienced a serious economic crisis, including defaulting on loans by foreign creditors, devaluation of its currency, and increased levels of unemployment and poverty. For more information on the financial collapse in Argentina see CRS Report RS21072, The Financial Crisis in Argentina, by J. F. Hornbeck.
In addition, many Argentine nationals were trying to use the VWP to obtain entry to the United States solely for the purpose of proceeding to the Canadian border and pursuing an asylum claim in Canada. According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, between 1999 and 2001, more than 2,500 Argentines filed refugee claims in Canada after transiting the United States under the VWP. Federal Register, February 21, 2002, vol. 67, no. 35, p. 7944.
While the number of Argentine nonimmigrant travelers to the United States declined between 1998 and 2000, the number of Argentines denied admission at the border and the number of interior apprehensions increased. The Department of Justice in consultation with DOS determined that Argentina’s participation in the VWP was inconsistent with the United
States’ interest in enforcing it’s immigration laws. The Department of Homeland Security did not exist in February 2002, and authority for the VWP resided with the Attorney General in the Department of Justice. Federal Register, February 21, 2002, vol. 67, no. 35, pp. 7943-7945.

The $131 is a visa application and issuance fee that most everyone has to pay for nonimmigrant visas, and represents the current government philosophy of “user pays”, to cover the cost of the service.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/re...city_3272.html
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/re...city_3500.html

Just as a US citizen has to pay the Department of State for a passport, or for an apostille, or a resident for a permanent resident renewal, if you desire to enter the US (other than as a tourist (and some limited business visits) from a VW country), you will have to pay the $131.