hfly

Landscaper, there are some measures that governments can take, but they are generally frowned upon by other countries. It was more of a figurative/rhetorical thing, and links into what Catocony speaks about just below your post.

If a country is doing better, then generally its citizens will be better off, have better documentation (with which to get their visas) and more reason to return and not violate their visas.

Brazil is a mess in this regard and even drags other countries down. There are cities that you have probably never heard of like Governador Valadares, in Minas Gerais state that have half their population in the United States, mostly illegally, however as they tend to be in places like Framingham Mass and Bridgeport, and "hide" among other Portuguese based commiunities, namely Azorian Americans who are all citizens and have been in teh US forever they blend in easily.

The relatively high numbers of Portuguese and Italians who violate their 90 day stays in the US (i.e. above the 2% mark) are for the most parts "Portuguese" and "Italian" citizens who may have never seen Portugal or Italy, but are in fact Brazilians who through grandparents get these passports, travel to the US (without visas) and then overstay. If these people were included, then the numbers would have been twice as bad even at the best of times.

Landscaper

let's just keep this under the radar in case you-know-who gets bored?

catocony

If the Schengen and/or CTA countries wanted an ESTA-style system, they would have put one in place when the US did. Doing it years later doesn't mean much, unless they see it as more of a tax than an immigration process.

GUWonder

I disagree with both of the sentences above.

Circumstances change over time, and the governments of the EU countries (plus Iceland/Liechtenstein/Norway/Switzerland) don't move in unison all that quickly.

What they may hope to yield now from a change in approach -- a change toward reciprocity -- isn't necessarily all that which they may have hoped for earlier.

catocony

We've discussed reciprocity, but again, if that was the concern, wouldn't they have implemented it back in 2010 when the US started charging for them?

I think the ESTA is complete BS, but for this discussion, it's fairly old news.

:D!

So why did the US only implement ESTA 9 years after Australia started its ETA?

GUWonder

It's not about just reciprocity -- it wasn't before and it still isn't, even if it is a move toward reciprocity in part.

A de facto electronic visa (that includes things like ESTA) for US passport users is far more likely to be realized than the scare stories about physical visas in US passports. No less so after an EP voting majority stands for a change aimed against US passport users.

The circumstances applicable in yesteryears aren't a perfect image of the circumstances applicable in the European/Schengen scene today. I expect that many of my fellow Americans will end up having to pay for a Schengen version of our ESTAs if wanting to visit the Schengen area. It won't happen this year, but this vote is yet another sign that we are getting closer to that point. My bet is that this is in place in part before November 2020.

I am no fan of moves toward reciprocity that end up being but two sides undermining the mobility of the law abiding to go between the two parts. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean it won't happen. My bet is it (EU version of ESTA) is coming, and it's just a matter of when. The physical visa thing ends up being the backstop for the ESTA-equivalent rejects -- and that will happen too at some point for US citizens.

catocony

Who knows, but it wasn't targeted at Australians, who are a very small part of the overall VWP visitors. ESTA is more of a tax than anything else, sort of like the 9/11 fee on US tickets. It pays for the bureaucracy.

bbtrvl

The executive and legislative history of ESTA is very well attributed, we do not have to guess why they did such things.

ESTA came almost 100% from the findings of the 9/11 commission and other reports that VWP passport holders had received very little vetting against domestic and foreign watchlists.

The fee came later, once there is a mechanism for requiring an e-visa, someone will always want to collect revenue from it.

GUWonder

THE 9/11 terrorists had traditional visas; and ESTA would have done nothing to stop those attacks even if there was an ESTA in 2001, which there wasn't as ESTA didn't go live until 2008 and wasn't mandatory for VWP use until 2009. It wasn't even mandated into law until 2007 or 2008. Even after 2009, US VWP country passport users have been able to legally enter the US without ESTAs, when coming in by land.

The 9/11 Commission really wasn't 100% of why the US decided to implement an ESTA requirement, with ESTA implementation being a de facto means to gut the US VWP without eliminating it. The 9/11 Commission report was finalized in 2004.

The ESTA fee was implemented to supposedly in large part promote US tourism, but it was really just a way to try to pretend that the government was going to kiss up to the relevant industries and their lobbyists. The government wanted ESTA and ESTA money because some in Congress wanted to attack the US VWP and gut it. In much the same way, the EU/Schengen countries will eventually put in place their own version of ESTA and hit US passport holders with the same kind of approach too.

ESTA is a child of the 2006 transatlantic aircraff "liquid bomb" "plot" involving British citizens.

cdn1

a european-style of eta/esta etc would be good revenue for the EU countries.
Imagine how much revenue it would generate for europe. I'm fine with it as Europeans also face same when they wanna come to north america.

Slap it as soon as possible. Imagine how many americans would just show up and then get the shock at airport, lol.

hfly

There are 12-13 million US tourists who visit Europe each year. That is ALL of Europe. 2-4 million visit the UK and Ireland, while some also enter the EU, some don't. These numbers also probably count Europeans who visit non-Schengen countries other than the UK and Ireland, but some might also visit a Schengen country. SO maybe we are talking about 10 million people. I have not even gotten into the fcat that many of these people visit multiple times over a year or two year period, so also would drop the number of ESTA's, for that matter a few might even have dual nationality or could get it and avoid having to do such an ESTA.

So we're talking about perhaps a 140 million Euro windfall that equates to perhaps 70 million Euros per year, split among 26 countries? Under 3 million Euros per year per country, not including the costs of implementing and administering the program, nor the lost business of people who will put off their trips, perhaps forever because of it? All for 5 countries, that are violators, and are NOT prime EU tourism destinations? And four of which have been on the "road map" already, the largest of which the US bent over backwards for several times and could still not convince its people to be serial violators?

cdn1, you do realize that being for Britain, this whole think has little or nothing to do with the UK or Ireland, right?

catocony

The airlines check for ESTAs. If you don't have one, you don't get on the plane at your origin airport.

GUWonder

I think that is what cdn1 was saying:

"Imagine how many americans would just show up and then get the shock at airport, lol."

This kind of situation hits Europeans, perhaps because some naively buy too much into the headline language of the US "Visa Waiver Program" being a visa waiver when there really isn't as much of a waiver in it when you are in the category of persons having to apply for a de facto electronic visa prior to being able to fly on common carriers to the US.

That said, airlines check for ESTAs, but sometimes VWP passport users manage fly to the US without ESTAs; and then it gets interesting on arrival. Even after the updates made a year or so ago, this still happens from time to time.

Someone should FOIA for just the data from APC kiosks for those who got kicked out in some way by the APC process due to missing required ESTAs. While I'm pretty sure this has dropped in incidence counts, I'd be surprised if the count this year is zero -- even if speaking just of those who have not applied for a ESTA within 2 years of the arrival date at a US airport of entry.

The EU/Schengen area pursuing an ESTA-like regime wouldn't be about trying to make a whole lot of money out of it. Rather, between ESTA-type application rejects and the cost of system development, roll-out training/implementation, maintenance and general operation, it's unlikely to be a profitable enterprise except for those getting the contracts and/or employment because of such a system. But that doesn't mean there isn't the will, ability and likelihood of the EU/Schengen area putting in place such a system. I would be very surprised if within ten years the EU/Schengen hadn't fully implemented an ESTA-like system to also flag down US passport users; rather I expect it to be in line much sooner than that.

WilcoRoger

To put it into perspective - Greece alone had 22 million tourists in 2014. 12 million tourist is the same volume as Hungary had in 2014. So while 12 million might sound like a lot, in fact it's a rather small number on the EU level.

In the same year the UK had 32 million visitors - again, just to put things into perspective