Governments deterring businessmen and tourists with cumbersome visa requirements | Hacker News Reader

Governments deterring businessmen and tourists with cumbersome visa requirements

economist.com

69 pointse15ctr0n59 comments

It is such a shame, really. I live in the UK and my wife is Armenian. There have been many times where we would have liked to go to France, or Holland, or Germany, for a long weekend. Likely spending hundreds of pounds as tourists. Yet the absurd process and cost for her is just not worth it, so we don't go, and the tourism economy suffers. I will never understand how the visa nonsense got so out of control, and continues to do so. Truly one of the more illogical rules in existence.

--EDIT-- I will add that it wouldn't be so bad if we could go through the process once every couple years or so and get a multiple entry Shengen visa - but that would make too much sense and be too easy, so you need to provide the paperwork, pay the fee, and wait 2 to 4 weeks, every time for a single entry. Crazy bullshit.

Can't she become a british citizen? Will that not simplify things?

It will probably make it more difficult to go to the country where she was born. This is a problem if she wants to go back quickly, for example when someone there is sick.

Both countries allow for dual citizenship, so it shouldn't be a factor.

That's a long and expensive process. There seems to be a common belief that it's more or less automatic once you're married, but that's far from true in most countries, the US and UK included.

You say that like we can just roll up to the immigration store and get a passport any time we like.

6 years minimum for her to get citizenship. It's been 3.5

The US is actually worse. I've been here 8 years and I'm not even a little bit closer than I was 8 years ago, to permanent residence let alone citizenship.

I have a six figure salary. I should probably just get married.

Are you a British citizen? It is not well known (including by officials and airlines) you have the right that your wife can join you on your travels. As an Armenian citizen she needs a visa but that has to be provided free of charge and under an accelerated procedure (often it takes under 24 hours). You do not need to go through the otherwise required visa agencies and they cannot ask for documents other than passports and the marriage certificates – although they often do if you don't insist. Theoretically it can even be applied for directly at the border but that might be a bit stressful.

Here is a handy guide by the EU commission http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/faq/freetravel/doc/guide_20...

If you are not an EU citizen, yes it's tough. Although they should give out multi-entry visa after she had one once or twice.

I'd add that airport security and passport controls are also deterring me from travelling. I have very little appetite for standing for 45min+ in a queue and when you travel international now, you do many of those (security, passports out, passports in and all again on the way back). I don't know if many are like me but I am limiting my travelling to the strict minimum because of that.

I don't know. When the flight is 12 hours, 45 minutes on either side isn't such a big deal. I did get stuck in a 4 hour immigration line at Heathrow once...I'll just avoid the UK from now on.

I guess we all have different levels of tolerance to queueing. Mine is pretty low, I would never go to a restaurant where I have to queue, even only for 15min. In airports, these queues are the result of pointless checks (I am not aware that in the history of aviation a single terrorist has been caught at an airport security check) and bad management (long queues at passport checks are often associated with lots of empty desks).

The fact that terrorists/weapons/explosives are rarely caught in security checks isn't really a compelling argument to remove security checks.

If you reverse the argument and say they exist mainly to discourage people from trying, you could argue that they are nearly 100% successful.

In my experience security is pretty snappy compared to e.g US immigration. I look European and find it tedious and annoying, I can only imagine what it's like if you have a middle eastern type name or look.

I am not suggesting to completely remove them. But over the years we see even more little rules, taking even more time, bothering grannies with their sun cream, and with, in my opinion, a value added in term of security of zero.

The reverse argument doesn't really work, because there are occasional terrorist attacks against airliners that get through security.

At the same time, these security checks do create places where 200+ people gather close together in an area where it is totally reasonable for someone to be wheeling around a 35-lbs un-checked bag.

So? There's no shortage of places where hundreds of people gather, where it wouldn't be out of place to have a large package or bag. Adding a few more at airports really isn't a big deal.

Not that I agree with all the "security", but that argument against it isn't very convincing.

That means terrorists killing everyone on a plane (the same as everyone in the security queue) is an acceptable risk, as long as they don't crash the plane into even more people like at 9/11. So maybe we don't need airport security at all. Just have the air force ready to shoot down rogue commercial planes before they reach densely populated areas.

It happened in China. Muslim terrorists attacked hundreds of people waiting in a ticket hall. No need to go through security.

I agree it's not a compelling argument. The reverse sounds a bit better, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Ultimately, airport security does something. More security does more of something. But security also costs a lot - in money, material, man hours and various secondary effects like deaths from more people opting out of flying and going for cars, etc. Ultimately, it's always about costs and benefits. The costs are huge, and yet they don't seem to buy us much.

> If you reverse the argument and say they exist mainly to discourage people from trying, you could argue that they are nearly 100% successful.

That would be a weird argument to make, given the known attempts and multiple successful attempts by auditors to bring weapons through airport security.

I travel a lot, immigration is rarely a bottleneck, if I checked luggage, I rarely don't beat my bag. So every country is different, I mentioned my horrible heathrow experience, I guess India and Bangkok can be bad during peak seasons. Bali will always be chaotic, and someone will offer "express service" for a bribe, but it never lasts that long. Japan moves quickly, austrailia is a breeze for USA passport holders, so is the USA these days if they are using kiosks. The EU has never been anything but fast. China is always a bit slow starting out but they usually open up some extra lanes after all the Chinese are processed.

Security in the states at a big airport is a bit more painful than other countries; you have to get into a 15-30 minute line. But that is the only country actually. Heck, in Australia they don't even check your ID. It can get s bit weird in the Philippines where I don't even think they are trying (very minimal security for even an international flight).

Handy hint at UK airports. When there's a queue for UK passport holders, and a queue for everyone else, UK passport holders can use either queue. I went to the empty "everyone else" queue by accident and the guy said they don't mind me using the wrong queue to save time. That was 10 years ago, might have changed.

Same for me. I rather travel by train/bus instead of feeling like a fucking terrorist every time I want to board a flight.

Also, the time saving on national flights is negligible. For example, Munich to Hamburg takes 6 hours via train and 1.5 hours via airplane. Then add transport from Munich Hauptbahnhof to the airport (45min if you're lucky), and from Hamburg Airport to Hauptbahnhof (25min). Another 45min for security controls, checkin, boarding, baggage retrieval... 3.5h minimum. And you don't have (fast) Wifi or 230V on the plane, and it's cramped.

Only upside of taking an airplane: no. fucking. loud. kids. (because parents do manage to keep their kids under control on a plane, in contrast to a train)

A related article in the 'leaders' section of the print edition: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21684782-they-have-the...

"Britain ... requires visa applicants to fill in a ten-page form, provide a list of every foreign trip over the past decade and declare that they have never incited terrorism to boot. This is absurd. ... America’s visa-waiver programme allows citizens of 28 countries to visit by filling out a simple online form with basic personal information."

28 countries are in the US's VWP. 56 countries (plus all EU countries) are in the UK's visa-free entry list. So, the article is not comparing like with like.

Don't you think that listing every and each trip you've done abroad for the past 10 years is bit excessive and tormenting?

I wouldn't even be able to list every trip I've done abroad for the past 10 years. I'd probably forget to mention half of them, which no doubt would trigger a whole pile of nasty sanctions for lying on an application. In some places that might even be reason to detain you.

Google Location History to the rescue. That is about the only thing that could help me with filling such a form, and I don't even travel much. The requirement is ridiculous in modern times.

Google does not have my location history and I very much plan to keep it that way.

That's orthogonal to the point I was making.

My point was this: The article compared (i) the UK's 10-page form with (ii) the USA's visa waiver program. However, this isn't a fair comparison. The USA's visa waiver form requires pre-registration and payment. The UK's equivalent does not. The USA's visa waiver program applies to 28 countries. The UK's equivalent applies to 56 countries, plus all EU countries.

Regarding your question: I have had to do that (to get a visa for India) and I found it surprising and inconvenient. Now that I book all travel online, though, it's not that difficult. I wouldn't call it 'tormenting'.

Even with a digital record of air ticket purchases, I find it basically impossible to fill these things out to the detail that's requested. They want a record of the exact dates you've entered and exited every country, but I've crossed uncontrolled Schengen borders probably hundreds of times, usually with just a local transit ticket, nothing that shows up in my email with a receipt like airfare would. If they counted "the Schengen zone" as de-facto a country (for visa purposes), I might have a chance of filling the application out accurately, but at least formally I'm supposed to state the exact date for every time I exited Denmark and entered Sweden, which there is no way I can do.

I can see how that would be a problem. I've only ever lived in the UK and China, and have crossed land borders fewer than 10 times ever.

They're just fishing for information. It's really offensive they even ask, as if it's any of their business at all. Just don't tell them.

Pro tip: keep a spreadsheet in Google docs with your travel history. Lots of visa forms require this (e.g., the US DS-160 form asks for a list of countries visited in the last 5 years, and also a list of previous US entry dates.)

It's definitely tormenting trying to reconstruct this after the fact, but its pretty trivial to keep track of with some effort. Kind of like a tax return or something.

They may be trying to make the point that there are alternatives that help to prevent unwanted entrants without being burdensome. While ESTA is overbearing in the context of travel from Britain to the US, it would be a welcome relief to visa applicants from India or China.

Some of the intellectual energy that fueled the momentum of globalization has abated. Of course, the corporations are still 100% in favor of free movement of goods and capital (and certain people, including business executives and poor peasants who will work on farms in the wealthy nations). The corporations still provide much of the energy for maintaining relatively free movement of goods, capital and some people.

But consider the intellectual energy that drove the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 or the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1994. At that time, Western elites seemed unified in their belief that open borders would benefit everyone.

Since that time, a host of concerns has arisen. Some are security related. Others are about the uneven effects of attempts at monetary union (broadly speaking, this includes not just Europe, but also nations like Argentina that attempted to peg their currency to another currency (such as the USA dollar)). Some are about currency manipulation (first Japan, then Taiwan, and then, much more sensationally, China). And the rise of wealth inequality in all the developed nations.

It's possible that globalization could be restructured in a way that brings benefits to everyone. But first there would have to be a long conversation about all the ways it is now failing.

I worked in a job where i was in charge of getting Visas for some of our employees (most of them U.S. citizens) for various countries all over the world. I had never done that previously but i quickly became an expert.

Let me tell you, the countries that have the most fucked up economies are the ones with the craziest Visa procedures. One would think that they are happy that Tourists and Businesses are coming to spend $$$ in their country. Crazy long forms, crazy document requirements, stupid turnaround times and zero support - there is nerver a number or a email if you have any questions regarding a form or edge case. It really is a pain and beyond crazy.

Yes, there are two things going on there... firstly, their economies are fucked up because they have inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies. Secondly, visa requirements between countries are typically more or less reciprocal, so because developed countries impose a heavy burden on travellers from those countries, they return the favor. In many cases, they'll have visa-free or less hassle for citizens of neighboring fucked up countries.

You mentioned that this is for U.S. citizens, so you're more or less just dealing with a reflection of the U.S. visa burden imposed on those same countries :)

This looks like an excellent place to whine about having to cancel a holiday to Tehran because it would mean losing my visa-free travel to 'merica. Hold exclusively a British passport.

As someone who's never had visa free travel to the US in the first place, this is some good Schadenfreude.

Frankly I think you should still visit Iran and just get a US tourist visa like the rest of the us. US tourist visas are good for multiple entries and only expire after 10 years, so it's not as bad as most European countries.

The actual success story, USA included South Korea in visa waiver program: https://vwp.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/South%20Korea_0...

I think all parties would benefit if USA would add a few more countries to Visa Waiver Program like Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania and Croatia.

The USA now has 10 year tourist visas for people from China, so I don't see it as much of a problem (most passports have 10 year validity).

10 years for Indians too in general.

I had an unlimited-validity-multiple-reentry visa for the US in an old passport. When the passport expired, the page containing the visa was left alone, everything else was mutilated and the whole mess returned to me. I never tested it, but the visa supposedly remained valid.

EDIT: Writing "visa" as if it was a singular noun really feels strange, even if everybody does it. You know, the pages in your passport are labeled "visa" because they can contain many of them...

The visa is valid. If travelling to the US keep both, the valid passport and the valid visa. Whatever you do do not cut out the visa and try and glue it into the new passport.

/fromexperience

Frankly the idea of a NATO country not part of the visa waiver is absurd. If the citizens of a country are worthy enough for the USA to be ready to send its youth in their defense, they probably are ok to enter USA without visa.

The US has a massive problem with illegal immigration from Mexico and Romania is even poorer than Mexico. It wouldn't make any sense at all to have visa waivers for citizens from countries that poor.

I think that the US is suffering an illegal immigration problem stemming from Central American countries and not Mexico. There's a downward trend observed from immigration to Mexico to USA in aggregate numbers (legal plus illegal) and for legal migrants, the numbers are heading in the other direction with more people from Mexico going back home than coming to the US.[0]

Please note too that Mexico is going through an economic boom esp. in manufacturing that's fueling this trend.

[0]: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...

It also makes no sense to have mutual defense pacts with them ...

Does nobody read the article before it get's published? For me a whole paragraph (beginning with "The most sensible response") is twice in the article.

I can see what the article states happening. When I was in Sweden as an exchange student all the Chinese exchange students were travelling around Europe. But not to the UK, because of the additional visa requirement.

I'm not sure who your claim is targeted at, but I read the whole article before commenting. The assumption of sensibility in immigration and border control agencies is laughable.

It's not just you, I also saw that paragraph repeated.

LOL, I thought for a brief moment that my brain must be replicating things.

I didn't get much of a sense that anybody was being deterred by visa requirements. Pissed off, maybe, but let's say you're a business with a potentially lucrative and growing market in a foreign country? Are you going to suspend plans or operations because it's annoying and expensive to get a visa? Like hell. Same goes for tourists. If you have your heart set on seeing the Pyramids but get frustrated at the Egyptian visa process, are you really willing to settle for, say, Lebanon?

> If you have your heart set on seeing the Pyramids but get frustrated at the Egyptian visa process, are you really willing to settle for, say, Lebanon?

No, but I'm probably willing to settle for Germany or France. It's pretty rare for me to have my heart set on somewhere. There are many things I want to see, and if one country feels like being a pain in the neck, I'll just go see something else, or go somewhere to do something else.

I'm not sure whether most tourists are more like me or more like the heart set on kind of folks. But, even assuming that they're of the heart set on kind, once you've seen the pyramids it's less likely to drag you back through the bothersome process again. One would imagine a bothersome process somewhat decreases your opportunity for repeat business.

What reasons are there for complicated visa processes? Tracking entry/exit to/from the country can be done in a significantly more efficient way, and there's no economic upside to adding expenses to business trips or tourism.

This is one of many reasons that Nations as a concept are rapidly becoming obsolete and will eventually be forgotten once there isn't enough profit in them.

There is ample "profit" to be made in each individual state, so I don't see that happening anytime soon. If you solve the "problems" of protectionism and globalization, then you might just get to a point where the concept of "multiple nation states" could become obsolete.

We're already solving the problems of globalization, and even if we weren't governments are getting more and more de-fanged to resist the corporations. People by and large don't care about the environment, most say they do but if we told them we could save a big portion of it by eliminating Amazon Prime, most people would opt to keep the quick shipping I think.

A big part of the general population has their personal identities closely tied with their country (it's known as patriotism). We'll need to find a good substitute for that before trying to obsolete nation states.

Case in point - a lot of EU citizens, politicians in European Parliament included, feel that the whole Union business is about robbing them out of national identity, and therefore do their best to sabotage the entire effort. Maybe the young generation will feel different about it though; as the world gets more interconnected, younger people seem to care less and less about nations.

Agree with the article 100% but... Politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com