Haven't these guys heard of the "reciprocity principle"?
When I went to Brazil a few years ago, the basic price for a tourist visa was like $25 and could be done online. But, if you were a US citizen, it cost $150 and you had to schedule an attend an interview in person -- because, those were the costs and burdens placed on Brazilian citizens to apply for a US visa.
Does the US want other countries inspecting our citizens' social media posts for the last five years?
In this case, what has Ireland done to US citizens that this reciprocates? Ireland has a special deal for US citizens - no visa is required for visits up to 90 days - you just turn up and show your passport.
I'm not convinced that this is truly about actually protecting the US from terrorism or foreign attack since all major terrorist acts that I can recall over the last few decades were perpetrated by native-born US citizens and not by visitors on visas.
It seems more about catching people who might have, for example, expressed an opinion that doesn't align with "they deserve it" with respect to Palestinians in Gaza - which currently seems sufficient to be branded "a threat to the US" and grounds for detention and expulsion.
You don't seem to have understood their post at all by asking what Ireland did that this is reciprocating. They're saying other countries should reciprocate this upon Americans. The point you make about the purpose from the American pov is valid and correct + clearly meant to be expanded upon or abused in the future, but not their point.
9/11, which most people would put in the past few decades and a major terrorist act, was exclusively done by people on visas.
Meanwhile, I think the post you are responding to was pointing out that other countries are likely to reciprocate similar rules for US visitors to their countries.
I’d guess this administration draws its power from voters who don’t have a passport and power brokers whose staff handle visas. (Or at least it operates as if it believes it does.)
For all but a tiny fraction of Americans, the cost of a passport is a tiny, rounding error expense compared to actually leaving the country. This isn't Europe, where you take a wrong turn and end up in a different country. Here in California, there's a highway you can drive on for 750 miles and not even have left the state (like driving from Paris to Warsaw). And we're just one state of 50. On the diagonal, crossing the continental US is like driving from London to Tel-Aviv.
Nearby, we've got Canada and Mexico, and up until pretty recently, you could cross over those borders with a driver's license. And both those countries are big. On the other sides we have oceans. So for most Americans, the minimum cost of an international flight is the same as the cost for a European to fly to the US ($500-$1000), and a full day's travel each way. Here on HN, we might forget that most of the population makes fucking peanuts, so keep in mind that means that for most Americans, $1000 is a lot of money. Most Americans also don't get a lot of time off, so those 2 days of travel are a significant cost in of themselves.
All told, the lack of passports amongst Americans isn't indicative of some isolationist mindset. It's just that they have no need of a passport, because they aren't taking the kinds of extremely far-flung vacations that would need one, and they know if they need one, they can just get one before their trip.
In addition to the other answers, I'd like to add that the Schengen area, the EU, and the Eurozone are all technically separate, none is a subset of one of the others:
Ireland and Cyprus are in EU & Eurozone but not Schengen; Poland, Hungary (and more) are in EU & Schengen but not Eurozone; Switzerland is in Schengen but neither EU nor Eurozone; Montenegro and Kosovo are in the Eurozone but neither the EU nor Schengen.
In europe we have a kind of mini passport, called person id. Which only works in your own country and other shengen countries. It’s nearly the same cost as a passport (at least in my municipality)
You are required to have a passport (or id) with you (as in, that’s what the law says). Even in your own country. But in your own country a drivers license is usually also sufficient.
But in practice you will almost never be asked to show any of those. In your own country, nor abroad.
That depends on country, in Poland you don't need to carry any ID on you anymore (you're then required to remember PESEL number, and recite it to police if asked; 11 digits, six of those are birthday).
In practice you can get away with not having ID on your person in most countries as long as its reasonably close by. Technically you could get in trouble though so better carry one if you might provoke the police.
Fewer than half of Americans have passports. Many have probably never left their home state, and there are probably a significant number who have never left a 100 mile radius around their homes.
People who regularly travel internationally are not a large or powerful voter base. They can be shit on without hurting a politician's career.
Access that costs thousands of dollars for a short trip that most people simply don't have the spare money for. The median US income is <40k/year, and healthcare + housing costs dominate most workers' lives.
Also, it's not $18/year like a subscription, it's $165 upfront -- money that could be spent on gas, food, medical bills, desperately saved up for emergencies, etc. and won't provide any benefit whatsoever to their lives unless they're taking a vacation they probably don't feel they can afford financially or in their <2 weeks of vacation time.
The US isn't insanely backwards. France hovers at 50-60% of citizens with passports. The UK has similar rates to the US. Italy is slightly higher at 60%. Japan and China have far lower rates.
I think you just overestimate how common passports are.
The US is pretty big and varied. It has more than enough natural wonders to last you a lifetime. Nothing wrong with someone deciding that they don't need more than tat.
I wish it happened more in different countries. Your country demands that you are forbidden to bring any items, regardless of how dangerous they are, in the embassy? Apply the same rule to the citizens of that country and only for them. I'm sure they will appreciate being openly discriminated in front of the applicants from the other parts of the world. Your country demands 150-200 dollars for a shitty single time entry tourist visa (yes, I'm looking at you UK)? Charge the citizens of that country the same sum for their visas. Etc. And in reverse - if they are easing or removing absurd restrictions, then reciprocate and ease restrictions in return.
> Haven't these guys heard of the "reprocity principle"?
Did you see the trade war started recently with every country in the world? I don't think anything is being thoroughly planned or thought out in this administration. They're all about power and not governance.
Bolivia also has a reciprocity visa charge of $160 for US citizens. Many years ago we were very close to the Bolivian border but the visa cost for a day trip just didn't make it worth it.
Very few people will be able to provide a list of 100% of the accounts they used. This means every visitor will technically be lying on their forms.
You're more than happy to visit - until you do something the regime doesn't like, like criticizing the recent attack on Iran, or making fun of the military parade. Then they have a ready-made reason to deport and ban you.
He didn't mention it, but I think he meant to extend it to "and how would they check/prove it?".
The practice of creating pretextual laws is well established in places like Russia, but a necessary component is proof. In fact that's the entire purpose of a pretextual law, to have something (as ridiculous as it may be) to pin on someone. I can't see any way they could prove I have this handle on Hacker News, for example.
At a minimum you get locked in a damp basement for an unknown amount of time while they book a flight for you, which happened to an Australian journalist recently.
The general vibe I'm hearing in Australia is that people are afraid to travel to the US right now if they have any reason at all to raise suspicion (being trans, having posted political comments, etc).
The goal is to have leverage over everyone, and to occasionally execute overt performative acts for the media, like refusing entry to famous ideological opponents.
Not exactly - they're guaranteeing that if you do lie on the form then they've got a nailed-on route to expel you even if nothing else sticks, because lying on an immigration form is an offence.
This kind of adversarial nonsensical thinking is the problem.
It's disadvantageous for the US if their citizens have to go through more bullshit whenever they are visiting another country. Regardless of how much they subject people going to the US, or how many people travel either way.
It's a lose lose pissing contest. The reason reciprocity is exercised is to discourage this kind of thing in the first place.
> to play the devil's advocate, if more people wanted to visit the US than the other way around, then it's not "disadvantageous" for the US to do this.
That would only be true if the per capita advantage to the US of doing it is at least as large as the per capita disadvantage of having it done to US citizens. Which it isn't. The value of doing it is negligible and the cost of having it done to you is significant.
Until you realize that tourism industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and the US used to be one of the biggest tourist destination of the world (only behind France and Spain).
Looks like the new requirement is only for F, M, and J student and exchange visas that already need more paperwork, not for B-1/B-2 tourism and business visas.
Why's that? Doesn't tourism and business coming into the US benefit the country?
Take student visas. Sure, you could have a student come to the US, finish their education, and go back to their home country, "stealing" knowledge from the US to benefit their own country. Or they could find a job in the US and/or start the next trillion dollar company since the opportunities in the US are better. Satya Nadella traveled to the US for a university degree and ended up at Microsoft, where he led business units bringing in tens of billions, and under his CEO-ness he increased the value of the MS stock from around $40 when he became CEO in 2014 to $477 today, making it one of the first trillion dollar companies in the US.
But that wouldn't have happened if he didn't get a visa. Neither would Tesla (Elon Musk, migrated from South Africa on a student visa), netiher would Google (Sergey Brin migrated in from Russia, Sundar Pichai migrated on a student visa from India), etc.
Stocks going up doesn't actually improve things for anyone. To use Microsoft as a specific example: that stock price increase corresponds directly to a reduction in quality of life for many people.
This is, of course, immaterial to your main point: we can point to many actual contributions from migrants, such as maintaining infrastructure, providing food and education, and technological advancements.
> Does the US want other countries inspecting our citizens' social media posts for the last five years?
Do you really think the US government cares that much about how Americans are treated outside of the US, or even considers that when setting up these policies? Based on some quick searching and skimming, it seems like only half the population even have passports in the first place.
US isn’t nearly as important to world tourism as it thinks it is. Maybe Mexico or Canada since they are so close, but otherwise Chinese tourist dollars are sought after more than American.
Reciprocation is going to be more of the norm than not.
From what I can see, China, Germany, and USA are the big three. So it's probably pretty important to make it easy for citizens of these countries to get a visa if you care about tourism. Also, there are places in China where it's very hard to get a visa to travel.
China opened up no visa needed for western European and many Asian countries, so…they have the right idea.
No one is really interested in catering to the US tourist market right now. It’s not even clear if Americans are welcome in many countries, or if they have to pretend being Canadians again.
I've been to Beijiang and the parts of traditional Tibet that are in Sichuan so I know some of the restrictions. Yes, it sucks waiting in the van when everyone else in your group is enjoying the border with Kazakistan, and it doesn't seem reasonable, but it isn't a huge deal breaker either.
> No one is really interested in catering to the US tourist market right now.
I don't think this is true, at least where I live (Ireland). I'm pretty sure that the economy of half the coastal towns would collapse without US tourists.
When I went to Brazil a few years ago, the basic price for a tourist visa was like $25 and could be done online. But, if you were a US citizen, it cost $150 and you had to schedule an attend an interview in person -- because, those were the costs and burdens placed on Brazilian citizens to apply for a US visa.
Does the US want other countries inspecting our citizens' social media posts for the last five years?
ED: Fix spelling mistake