http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/26/travel.promotion.act/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote :

"A bill that will create a tourism promotion organization for the United States has received its final passage in the Senate. The Travel Promotion Act calls for a nonprofit Corporation for Travel Promotion that will promote the United States as a travel destination and explain travel and security policies to international visitors. ... A $10 fee charged to visitors from countries included in the Visa Waiver Program will partially fund the public-private organization. These visitors will pay the fee every two years when they register online using the Department of Homeland Security's Electronic System for Travel Authorization."

it seems to me that this is counterproductive. and it probably means other countries are going to reciprocate...which means we'll also get to pay more for the pleasure of traveling abroad. bah.

2/26/2010 4:01:53 PM

Foreigners don't vote.

2/26/2010 4:05:08 PM

I wonder if any sort of Cost Benefit Analysis has been done to see promotion tourism and traveling will outweigh the decreased travel by those whose willingness to pay is within $10 of being unwilling to travel.

Quote :

"National tourism organizations in countries including Greece, Australia and Mexico each spent more than $100 million on tourism marketing in 2005, according to the U.N. World Tourism Organization. The United States spent about $6 million the same year -- the last year for which figures are available. Oxford Economics, an economic consulting and forecasting company, estimates a well-executed promotional program would draw 1.6 million new international visitors annually and generate $4 billion in new visitor spending."

We certainly don't seem to be competing adequately based on the specifics mentioned in the article. But without a cost-benefit analysis we are left to rely on intuition as to whether this is a good move or not, and there are cases to be made both ways for that. Benchmarking against the other countries mentioned, some level of increased tourism promotion seems to make sense to me.

2/26/2010 4:13:21 PM

Foreigners don't vote.
Those that do vote seem to hate foreigners.

2/26/2010 4:36:13 PM

You pay $100 to enter Argentina.

2/26/2010 4:55:19 PM

the US should tax people in other countries.

2/26/2010 5:26:35 PM

$10? That's it?

That's nothing compared to basically every other country on the planet.

2/26/2010 5:28:45 PM

sure, $10 isn't much...but this applies to people from countries included in the visa waiver program. we don't make them get a visa, but then we do this? seriously?

2/26/2010 5:39:08 PM

While it seems contradictory, it doesn't have to be.

A visa is a permission to entry. Visa-waiver means you don't need permission to enter, you can come and go as you please. A fee usually accompanies a visa, which can be seen as the fee to process the visa application plus an entrance fee to the country.

The $10 fee is an entrance fee of sorts. And it is negligible.

I applied for a US visa last year and had to pay a visa application fee of $133. Surely, it doesn't take $133 to read the application form and have someone interview me for 5 minutes? And I had to spend $197 getting to the US Embassy in the capital as the US Consulate in the city I reside in (~600 miles from the capital) doesn't do visas (stopped about 3 yrs ago) due to security concerns.

Anybody travelling to the US has $10 to spare. It is not about the principle here, as the amount is so small. If it was something like $50, then one could complain.

2/26/2010 5:49:07 PM

Quote :

"You pay $100 to enter Argentina."

So you can get 1 years access to Argentina for the same price as 20 years to the US? There more I think about this the more I am tending to agree with 0EPII1 that it'll be negligible.

2/26/2010 6:06:05 PM

^^i'm not debating the fact that $10 is negligible. or the fact that an entrance fee is different from a visa.

but i will disagree with your last point: my concern IS about the principle of the thing. i still think it'll drive other countries with whom the US has visa waivers to charge similar fees. and sure i can afford it, but you argue the small and inexpensive things (the ones that smell funny) because of principle.

[Edited on February 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM. Reason : &]

2/26/2010 6:07:34 PM

I don't see a problem with this.

They should make it $50.

2/26/2010 11:20:58 PM

10 bucks is not an issue. If it offsets any of the costs the government will incur from increased tourism, then I'm fine with it. It's a way to limit some costs, and keep from straining the budget even more.

2/26/2010 11:52:22 PM

wait, I thought the tourists were our enemy according to dubya

2/27/2010 12:23:59 AM

Quote :

"You pay $100 to enter Argentina."

Don't cry for me.

2/27/2010 12:31:02 AM

No no, the problem with this is not being comprehended here. It is a $10 fee on visitors that will then be used exclusively to buy advertising in foreign countries encouraging people to visit America. People that are already in America are going to be forced to give money to foreigners will no intention of visiting America. How many visitors will be discouraged by the fee into either not coming or spending less while here, and how many new visitors will the advertising draw?

But even this is an incomplete description. This bill is two parts: the fee on visitors which will go into the U.S. treasury, making them U.S. tax payers, then a bill to spend millions of U.S. tax payer dollars on advertising in foreign countries. Even if the fee on visitors can be justified, it seems impossible to me to justify the spending binge.

2/27/2010 10:34:15 AM

A good portion of the countries I've visited have some sort of "fee" or "tax" added onto the trip. Micronesia's was a "$20 fee to *leave* the country." You didn't have to pay anything to get in, just $20 to leave, and Micronesia is a part of the Visa Waiver Program as well. If you've been on cruises, a lot of the ports will have "port tax" to enter the country. This is comparable, and really a fair price.

^But I agree with you on the spending thing. I'd rather that go to the direct cost of tourism or foreigners in our country, rather than advertisement. But perhaps an increase in advertisement will increase tourism, will increase spending in the US... etc.

[Edited on February 27, 2010 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

2/27/2010 10:43:29 AM

I was somewhere else where there was a fee to leave, I can't remember, maybe it was Turkey or something. I just remember that I had to have enough of the local currency left over to pay the exit fee. Maybe it was China. I dunno, bad memory.

I also remember crossing the border from Belize to Guatemala where the guards tried to shake down the people in my van for money to cover the cost of building "the new bathroom".

2/27/2010 10:56:35 AM

Does anyone know what we currently charge for entry to visitors? Might this be a $10 fee increase on top of whatever we already charge?

That said, two wrongs do not make a right. Countries should not charge for entry or departure in my opinion.

2/27/2010 2:00:01 PM

Quote :

"I was somewhere else where there was a fee to leave"

i've been to a place like that

it was called Delaware

2/27/2010 3:35:04 PM

i was charged $2.50 to leave guatemala. there's a $30 tax included in your airfair though.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1129.html



[Edited on February 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : [0]

2/27/2010 4:07:47 PM

$25/person to leave Costa Rica.

2/27/2010 5:20:53 PM

I hear this is also being tested in Cary.

2/27/2010 11:11:32 PM