Feb 8, 2008
We are about to advertise the delights of visiting the U.S.A. while at the same time adopting constant measures to keep foreigners out
In Washington, D.C. this past week, I heard a lot of talk about the probability that the new session of Congress will set up a public-private organization spending $200 million dollars a year to promote and market incoming travel to the United States. According to various estimates, the United States has lost as much as 20% of the foreign tourists that were visiting our country each year prior to September 11.
That decline has cost us tens of billions of dollars in economic income, nearly similar amounts in taxes, and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
And how would such advertising increase our incoming tourism? Surely, foreigners are already aware of our nation's attractions and of how cheap it is for them to enjoy a stay; the weak U.S. dollar has made us into a staggering bargain. The reason they are not coming here is not a lack of marketing but because we have made the visit into a procedural nightmare.
To visit the U.S.A., most foreign citizens must apply for a visa, in person, at a U.S. consulate in their country, undergoing an interview by a consular official and sometimes traveling hundreds of miles to the consulate. Just to apply for such an interview often takes two months and the payment of $131 per visa, to be paid whether or not the visa is issued. If it is denied, you are out the $131.
In conducting the interview, some consular officials are more concerned with heading off illegal immigration than with thwarting terrorism. In Panama two months ago, I met an educated, English-speaking woman who has a fine job in a Latin American corporation. She has never been able to obtain a visa to visit her sister in California because she fits the profile -- young, single -- of a possible illegal immigrant.
Every month, one or another department in our government erects another barrier to incoming tourism, without consulting any other department having broader responsibilities. The recent increase in the visa fee to $131 was a typical misguided decision by someone in the State Department, who should have been reducing the fee rather than raising it. Not a single terrorist will be deterred by the extra $31 added to the former $100 fee.
This month, the Department of Homeland Security has confronted millions of Canadian motorists with the need to show a birth certificate in order to drive over the U.S./Canada border to go shopping. Not a single terrorist will be thwarted from entering by this need to obtain an easily forged document -- but millions of Canadians will decide that they can put off that shopping trip.
Recently, the Department of Homeland Security has required that even those foreigners who need not obtain visas (because they are in a "visa waiver" country) must provide the Department, 72 hours in advance of arrival, with a proposed itinerary for that trip. What will be done with that itinerary has never been explained, nor has anyone suggested that we have the manpower to check on whether foreigners adhere to their itineraries. After the foreigner provides this wholly absurd piece of paper, they then must be fingerprinted -- all ten digits -- upon clearing U.S. immigration at their arrival airport. Imagine how you would feel if you faced such procedures on a trip to London or Rome.
And I could go on and on. What's needed is not additional marketing dollars, but a dynamic official in our government appointed to a prominent position and given the responsibility of representing our touristic interests with respect to the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. We need someone constantly questioning whether these random acts of nuisance by State Department and Homeland Security bureaucrats are unnecessarily harming our economic interests while creating no tools at all for combating terrorism.
No one in our government is presently performing that role as a champion of tourism. Instead, we are about to appropriate money to encourage foreigners to visit a country that is working hard to keep them out.
Write and read comments about this post.
That decline has cost us tens of billions of dollars in economic income, nearly similar amounts in taxes, and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
And how would such advertising increase our incoming tourism? Surely, foreigners are already aware of our nation's attractions and of how cheap it is for them to enjoy a stay; the weak U.S. dollar has made us into a staggering bargain. The reason they are not coming here is not a lack of marketing but because we have made the visit into a procedural nightmare.
To visit the U.S.A., most foreign citizens must apply for a visa, in person, at a U.S. consulate in their country, undergoing an interview by a consular official and sometimes traveling hundreds of miles to the consulate. Just to apply for such an interview often takes two months and the payment of $131 per visa, to be paid whether or not the visa is issued. If it is denied, you are out the $131.
In conducting the interview, some consular officials are more concerned with heading off illegal immigration than with thwarting terrorism. In Panama two months ago, I met an educated, English-speaking woman who has a fine job in a Latin American corporation. She has never been able to obtain a visa to visit her sister in California because she fits the profile -- young, single -- of a possible illegal immigrant.
Every month, one or another department in our government erects another barrier to incoming tourism, without consulting any other department having broader responsibilities. The recent increase in the visa fee to $131 was a typical misguided decision by someone in the State Department, who should have been reducing the fee rather than raising it. Not a single terrorist will be deterred by the extra $31 added to the former $100 fee.
This month, the Department of Homeland Security has confronted millions of Canadian motorists with the need to show a birth certificate in order to drive over the U.S./Canada border to go shopping. Not a single terrorist will be thwarted from entering by this need to obtain an easily forged document -- but millions of Canadians will decide that they can put off that shopping trip.
Recently, the Department of Homeland Security has required that even those foreigners who need not obtain visas (because they are in a "visa waiver" country) must provide the Department, 72 hours in advance of arrival, with a proposed itinerary for that trip. What will be done with that itinerary has never been explained, nor has anyone suggested that we have the manpower to check on whether foreigners adhere to their itineraries. After the foreigner provides this wholly absurd piece of paper, they then must be fingerprinted -- all ten digits -- upon clearing U.S. immigration at their arrival airport. Imagine how you would feel if you faced such procedures on a trip to London or Rome.
And I could go on and on. What's needed is not additional marketing dollars, but a dynamic official in our government appointed to a prominent position and given the responsibility of representing our touristic interests with respect to the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. We need someone constantly questioning whether these random acts of nuisance by State Department and Homeland Security bureaucrats are unnecessarily harming our economic interests while creating no tools at all for combating terrorism.
No one in our government is presently performing that role as a champion of tourism. Instead, we are about to appropriate money to encourage foreigners to visit a country that is working hard to keep them out.
Write and read comments about this post.
Dec 17, 2007
At a time when foreign tourism to the U.S. is heavily down, the State Department has just raised the incoming visa fee to $131
From those super-capable folks who gave us back-logged passports, here's an incomprehensible increase in the fee for incoming visas. While other branches of the U.S. government are frantically attempting to attract more foreign tourists to the United States, the Department of State has just raised the fee for a U.S. visa to $131 from its former level of $100. A couple traveling to New York from, let's say, India or Panama, will now have to pay $262 just for visas enabling them to come here. And multitudes of foreign tourists may just decide to go to Australia or Argentina rather than the U.S.
As you may recall from my earlier posts, tourism to the United States is down by about 20% from the levels it enjoyed prior to September 11. (By contrast, most other western nations are reporting greatly increased tourism.) The loss to our economy from such lesser tourist numbers amounts to tens of billions of dollars each year, with billions of dollars in lost taxes, and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.
Yet on December 13, the State Department announced that it will increase the application fee for non-immigrant visas by more than 30%, from $100 to $131, to "pay for increased processing costs." Because of State's desire for, say, ten million dollars more in visa fees, the United States economy may lose tens of billions of dollars. Obviously, no one is coordinating these decisions with those of other branches of government or pursuing a consistent policy to encourage incoming tourism.
Note that the State Department's action has nothing to do with security issues. Terrorists will have no problem paying another $31 dollars for their visas. But hundreds of thousands of potential visitors facing a burdensome charge, may decide not to come here.
And since many other foreign nations charge an exactly equal, tit-for-tat fee to our citizens wanting visas to visit their countries, our travelers will now need to pay an additional $31 to visit such countries as Brazil, Turkey, or Russia. Countries that formerly extracted a fee of $100 from an American tourist, will now charge $131.
It's another example of an unfocused Executive Branch, with no one tending the store.
Write and read comments about this post.
As you may recall from my earlier posts, tourism to the United States is down by about 20% from the levels it enjoyed prior to September 11. (By contrast, most other western nations are reporting greatly increased tourism.) The loss to our economy from such lesser tourist numbers amounts to tens of billions of dollars each year, with billions of dollars in lost taxes, and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.
Yet on December 13, the State Department announced that it will increase the application fee for non-immigrant visas by more than 30%, from $100 to $131, to "pay for increased processing costs." Because of State's desire for, say, ten million dollars more in visa fees, the United States economy may lose tens of billions of dollars. Obviously, no one is coordinating these decisions with those of other branches of government or pursuing a consistent policy to encourage incoming tourism.
Note that the State Department's action has nothing to do with security issues. Terrorists will have no problem paying another $31 dollars for their visas. But hundreds of thousands of potential visitors facing a burdensome charge, may decide not to come here.
And since many other foreign nations charge an exactly equal, tit-for-tat fee to our citizens wanting visas to visit their countries, our travelers will now need to pay an additional $31 to visit such countries as Brazil, Turkey, or Russia. Countries that formerly extracted a fee of $100 from an American tourist, will now charge $131.
It's another example of an unfocused Executive Branch, with no one tending the store.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: passports, red tape, visas
May 23, 2007
Three things you may not have heard about travel
New travel tools, or old ones that haven't received much public attention in the past, are constantly emerging in travel -- and can often be of great value. For instance:
1) Wikitravel: Just as Wikipedia tries to create a universal encyclopedia written by its readers, www.wikitravel.com tries to create a universal travel guide written by its readers, a storehouse of information on every travel destination however minor. So far, this free-of-charge electronic travel guide doesn't come close to competing with the infinitely-better Frommer's guidebooks or website ("wiki" suffers from skimpy hotel selections, deadly writing style, and major pricing errors), but it occasionally contains historical or geographical information that might assist the planning of your trip. It's something to watch.
2) The Duke Diet & Fitness Center: Among all the weight-reducing spas of the United States, this university-associated weight-loss facility in Durham, North Carolina, is surely the most serious and effective of all. Unlike health spas that promote trendy and exotic diets of the sort that you can't possibly maintain once you've returned home, Duke serves a tasty and familiar assortment of traditional American foods, but in extremely small portions, and participants learn how to conduct life on 1100 calories a day, losing weight and later keeping it off. Don't confuse Duke's Diet and Fitness Center ("DFC") with the more extreme (and totally separate) "Rice House" meant for seriously obese people who need to lose a hundred and more pounds quickly for various medical purposes and therefore go on a diet consisting almost entirely of rice. DFC serves tasty (if miniscule) meals, as I can personally attest (I lost 15 pounds in 10 days there). Go to: www.dukedietcenter.org.
3) Required Visas for St. Petersburg: Because a growing number of cruiseships sail the waters of northern Europe in summer and stop at St. Petersburg, Russia, it's important to reveal that Russia doesn't automatically permit passengers on such ships to disembark in the famous capital of Peter the Great. Rather, they will need a Russian visa (a document requiring at least a month to obtain) unless they have signed on for a group sightseeing excursion organized by the cruiseship -- the only example I know of a mandatory purchase of that sort. For the American who would rather wander around the city on their own (visiting the Hermitage and the Nevsky Prospekt at their leisure, and not as part of a group), it's necessary to take the steps to obtain a Russian visa or else simply pass up that superior method of seeing a great city.
Add a comment about this post.
1) Wikitravel: Just as Wikipedia tries to create a universal encyclopedia written by its readers, www.wikitravel.com tries to create a universal travel guide written by its readers, a storehouse of information on every travel destination however minor. So far, this free-of-charge electronic travel guide doesn't come close to competing with the infinitely-better Frommer's guidebooks or website ("wiki" suffers from skimpy hotel selections, deadly writing style, and major pricing errors), but it occasionally contains historical or geographical information that might assist the planning of your trip. It's something to watch.
2) The Duke Diet & Fitness Center: Among all the weight-reducing spas of the United States, this university-associated weight-loss facility in Durham, North Carolina, is surely the most serious and effective of all. Unlike health spas that promote trendy and exotic diets of the sort that you can't possibly maintain once you've returned home, Duke serves a tasty and familiar assortment of traditional American foods, but in extremely small portions, and participants learn how to conduct life on 1100 calories a day, losing weight and later keeping it off. Don't confuse Duke's Diet and Fitness Center ("DFC") with the more extreme (and totally separate) "Rice House" meant for seriously obese people who need to lose a hundred and more pounds quickly for various medical purposes and therefore go on a diet consisting almost entirely of rice. DFC serves tasty (if miniscule) meals, as I can personally attest (I lost 15 pounds in 10 days there). Go to: www.dukedietcenter.org.
3) Required Visas for St. Petersburg: Because a growing number of cruiseships sail the waters of northern Europe in summer and stop at St. Petersburg, Russia, it's important to reveal that Russia doesn't automatically permit passengers on such ships to disembark in the famous capital of Peter the Great. Rather, they will need a Russian visa (a document requiring at least a month to obtain) unless they have signed on for a group sightseeing excursion organized by the cruiseship -- the only example I know of a mandatory purchase of that sort. For the American who would rather wander around the city on their own (visiting the Hermitage and the Nevsky Prospekt at their leisure, and not as part of a group), it's necessary to take the steps to obtain a Russian visa or else simply pass up that superior method of seeing a great city.
Add a comment about this post.
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
