I feel like an under-discussed consequence of the current administration is how deeply these choices will harm tourism. Travel is a big part of our economy. A 250 dollar fee is yet another reason to choose Europe or Asia or your own country over the US.
My read - this administration seems to be betting that behaviors will change slowly enough and America has enough of a draw still that they can extract more concessions, both in the market (with tariffs), and with measures like this in the near term, without a collapse in tourism or middle class consumerism.
They must believe that the long term effects will change slowly enough, or the effects will be concentrated on the poorest, and so they can just ignored as they won't be electorally punished for them.
I disagree with the policies personally but politically I don't know if their calculation is wrong.
> I disagree with the policies personally but politically I don't know if their calculation is wrong.
The current administration is really deluded about the prominence and draw it thinks America still has. They had the misconception, for example, that China was much more dependent on trade with the USA rather than the 2% impact that the numbers actually suggested. They are simply making all of their calculations with factually incorrect premises along with bad math.
Their purpose is to destroy the US. This helps that goal. You must look at every action this admin takes… its the only thing that consistently makes any sense at all.
Seems like half of the comments here have only skimmed the article.
There doesn't seem to be an intent to implement reimbursement of the fee from the time it is implemented, and clear incentive to be as slow with it as possible.
> On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period
Skimming the article only enhances the vagueness. It remains unclear whether it's just for visas which must be explicitly applied for, or visa waivers with the reference to I-94.
From what I can tell, visitors with visa waivers (German tourists, for example) are exempt from this fee.
So, just another way to discourage the "wrong" sorts of people, who may visit for any number of valid (and profitable) reasons. White European vacationer? Great, welcome to the USA. Everybody else? Get fucked.
The article says that this fee will be refunded after the visa expires. For many people who have had B1/B2 visas, they usually get a 10-year multiple entry visa (during subsequent applications). For this group, it means they may get the refund after the 10-year period. That’s a very long interest free loan to the government of another country.
As stated a few times in the article, most of this money isn’t getting back to the people who paid it.
Hopefully the EU wakes up and starts enforcing its laws. There’s a law saying that if one country requires visa against any of its members, the whole of EU will require visas for that country.
Currently the US requires visas for Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus and the European Commission has refused to follow that law, regardless of how many times the European Parliament votes for it to be followed, since they don’t want to impact France’s and Italy’s tourism sectors.
With this $250 fee, this refusal of theirs becomes even more egregious.
I wonder how this will work for visa waiver programs like the ESTA. I have family visiting next year and if they have to pay an extra $1k, it won’t happen.
The visa waiver program does not require those eligible to get non-immigrant visas (hence the phrase “visa waiver”), so if the scope of the new program is, in fact, “all visitors who need non-immigrant visas”, those eligible for visa waivers would be outside its coverage.
It is a lightweight pseudo-visa process, but it does not involve anything which is actually legally a visa, so a program that is attached to non-immigrant visas does not apply to it. What things are called in law matters quite a lot.
The article says it, "Cannot be waived", so does that mean that the thousands of people who travel under the ESTA visa waiver will suddenly need to find $250 (each, so $1000 for a family of four?), and to have the headache of potentially more forms at the end to get their money back again?
That seems like a lot of hassle if so, and will cause people to think twice about visiting the US.
Since the ESTA is a visa waiver program, by taking advantage of it you don't require a visa so would not have to pay this fee. At least that's my reading of it...
There are border towns where some workers do daily crossings. Without refund infrastructure in place it looks like this would add $250/day fee for all of these individuals
One has to love how it's two weeks after the big ugly spendthrift bill was passed, and its actual contents are still being dissected. Not just small details, but entire topics.
Where's the time for us citizens to be informed? And the time to write our senators and representatives so they know what their constituents think? Of course that's idyllic, and we haven't had that in decades. At least things like the (anti-) "PATRIOT" act were bipartisan, despite selling out the people. But the sheer speed this barge of incoherent trash was wholesale rammed through really shows how utterly feckless Congress as a whole has become.
It seems like they need to watch more of those 90's "Just say no" ads.
The more interesting (and depressing) aspect of congress is not how few of them read the bills, but the entities that actually write the bills. Most of the laws today have almost nothing to do with all of the lawyers in congress. They are written by lobbyists and industry groups.
Huh! The US isn't the only country where laws are written by lobbyists and industry groups. I'd maintain it's one of the biggest problems facing democracy these days.
People everywhere know their voice hardly counts when lobbying, big business and money are involved.
Like Pelosi proudly announcing the same for the Affordable Care Act in 2010? Nothing changes, except the issues you chose to be mad about and the ones you chose to ignore.
what on earth would lead you to believe that i would defend anything nancy pelosi has ever done? she's a ghoul and i hope she burns in hell. are you happy now?
the affordable care act was one of the single largest transfers of wealth into private industry in the last few decades, and a massive failing by both major political parties to actually provide affordable, high quality healthcare that we're capable of shouldering as a society. you won't catch me defending any part of it, or anybody who kneecapped it during the legislative process.
can you stop acting like politics is a team sport that can be won, and start recognizing that both parties are Bad, Actually, and do absolutely nothing for the vast majority of americans with net worths under a billion dollars?
I’m sorry I gave the impression that I was talking directly to you.
It was a generalization of hyper-partisanism and how maybe if people don’t want something ahitty to happen to them later, they shouldn’t ignore it when they believe it is in their favor.
See stacking the court, ending the filibuster, lowering the voting age to 16, etc.
Oh, thank you for explaining that the real problem is caring. You're right, we're all just meat feedstock for "AI" (ie corpos) or whatever, and we should be thankful for our chance to passively watch before it's our own turn to be fed into the grinder. </s>
I get how the ACA is this reactionary touchstone about big scary de jure government daring to regulate the corpo-created death panels, and as a libertarian I would have vastly preferred a much different type of healthcare reform. But from a perspective of individual liberty, a national implementation of Romneycare couldn't possibly have fucked the country nearly as hard as handing more unchecked reins of power to an autocrat running on dementia fumes of ideas that might have worked in the 90's.
So no, it is not "nothing changes". Rather it is a continual escalation. Your both-sidesing is itself based on that exact partisan interpretation whereby you care less about these specific topics, making you ignore that the overall problem is increasing - with this particular step being drastic.
Seems like they’re trying hard to deter tourists. Don’t want those commies talking about universal healthcare or maternity leave or Americans might start getting ideas.
I gave a talk in Montana last week and I could hear a pin drop when I said my wife got 18 months maternity leave so we travelled the world with our little one.
I know some countries 'hold' your place of employment up to 5 years, although one gets only symbolic money during all that time, think like 10% of the salary.
If more money made for a better life, you’d think the US would rank higher in quality of life measures, rather than often being dead last among its peer OECD nations.
That line of thinking has very much been proven wrong by decades of facts.
If lower salary means they won’t go bankrupt, and won’t have to sell their house or live paycheck to paycheck from a small medical issue it’s a Great trade off.
US adults have the shortest life span among the richest countries so it sucks even more, even your high salary and zero medical issue still means you are living inferior life.
So it seems like you get the $250 back if you honor the terms and leave by the end. It's an interesting monetary incentive, not unlike the bottle deposits.
Except they have no idea how it will be implemented, and as the article points out, few people will seek the reimbursement, meaning it isn't automatic and isn't returned when you leave, you must seek it out after you leave the country.
its like any other monetary fine projected on to all people - it hurts poor people more.
As it stands it isn't an incentive, its just a disruptive and opportunistic approach to take money from a politically disfavored group. THe CBO, as quoted, is clear that until they figure out the reimbursement process they are still just going to colelct the fee and keep the money:
>, “CBO expects that the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period.”
Australia and the UK have their own particular immigration crises. In Australia, overstaying a student visa is the most common way of becoming an illegal immigrant, and so the increased fee is part of a larger suite of reforms designed to reduce this. In the UK, the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue: the average salary for a new graduate in the UK is the same as the minimum wage.
This visa integrity fee seems to be a much blunter instrument.
> the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue
At least in IT/tech I would expect an opposite effect - with number of skilled immigrants reduced there will be risk that multinational companies will close development offices in the UK, startups will have one more reasons to choose another country too. With number of available jobs going down workforce reduction will not prop salaries up IMHO.
There is, however, a long history of immigration to Australia that is illegal under Australian law; see the 'Timeline' section of this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia
You do not sound very genuine. It does not say it is multi-entry fee enywhere. For tourists very few countries ask more except visa fee (and many do not require visa at all). For UK this fee is only 16GBP for 2 years and not 1200 USD:
It's a "deposit" you're giving to a government ruled by an autocrat who is notoriously famous for stiffing people when he can get away with it and whose policy platform is based around harassing foreigners. I would consider the money gone.
I had a similar experience in Europe. The store told me that VAT was refundable, but they didn't mention that the process was so convoluted that few actually did it. I persisted and they sent me a check that could only be cashed in Europe.
Unfortunately many countries pull stunts like this.
Great - so we're in agreement that this is an unfortunate development for our own country, and thus another way we're unnecessarily destroying our position of global leadership.
For people who really shouldn't be there, it serves as a filter; If they can't afford to loan the US $250, it is unlikely they will be able to afford theirlife necessities once in the US. Such a person should solve their issues BEFORE traveling to the US.
It's pretty clear that it won't be returned as they leave if you read the article. The government would need several years to implement reimbursement and in lieu of providing them the CBO estimates a $29B windfall for the government.
Except there are no details on how the refund process works...
So, family of four saves up to visit NYC for vacation, now they need to find an extra $1000 to take the trip. And it's unclear when they get that money back (is DHS going to post somebody at international departure terminals to issue them - unlikely).
My wife was forced to pay about $200 to Canada at the border because she had a DUI five years prior. Somehow those shakedowns aren’t mentioned in the news.
Edit: I’m a Democrat but for each downvote to this post I’m donating $1 to the Republican Party. Y’all are crazy if you think other countries aren’t doing this.
Current tally:
$2 for downvotes
$5 for a comment made without any knowledge of the situation
$7 total
> Edit: I’m a Democrat but for each downvote to this post I’m donating $1 to the Republican Party. Y’all are crazy if you think other countries aren’t doing this.
That's an absurd amount of butthurtdeness coupled with pettiness, lol. Sucks for your wife, she could've chosen to not drive drunk though.
If she was driving with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit, then she was by definition, driving drunk.
I don’t necessarily agree with the way that Canada handles people with past drunk driving convictions in the US, but that’s not the same thing as a blanket fee.
The French felt there was little evidence of Iraq having WMDs, or working with Al-Qaeda, and refused to back George W. Bush's US-led invasion in the UN.
The US responded with a wine boycott, renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries on the congresesional cafe menu, and some WW2-related insults on TV.
At the time, a lot of people would say GWB was one of the worst ever US presidents, that cutting taxes while spending a bunch on a costly war was irresponsible, etc.
But looking back? That guy had no signs of dementia, no major convictions, hadn’t been credibly accused of rape, and nobody was heiling hitler at his inauguration. I for one now look back on his presidency fondly.
not having sterile international transit and forcing everyon to clear US immigration and customs even if you are connecting to another international flight would be a good place to start.
I feel like an under-discussed consequence of the current administration is how deeply these choices will harm tourism. Travel is a big part of our economy. A 250 dollar fee is yet another reason to choose Europe or Asia or your own country over the US.
My read - this administration seems to be betting that behaviors will change slowly enough and America has enough of a draw still that they can extract more concessions, both in the market (with tariffs), and with measures like this in the near term, without a collapse in tourism or middle class consumerism.
They must believe that the long term effects will change slowly enough, or the effects will be concentrated on the poorest, and so they can just ignored as they won't be electorally punished for them.
I disagree with the policies personally but politically I don't know if their calculation is wrong.
> I disagree with the policies personally but politically I don't know if their calculation is wrong.
The current administration is really deluded about the prominence and draw it thinks America still has. They had the misconception, for example, that China was much more dependent on trade with the USA rather than the 2% impact that the numbers actually suggested. They are simply making all of their calculations with factually incorrect premises along with bad math.
Their purpose is to destroy the US. This helps that goal. You must look at every action this admin takes… its the only thing that consistently makes any sense at all.
it's almost like they don't want tourists.
Or they want to have one more chip to play with when negotiating trade deals.
Like a child banging their head on the wall because you won't let them use their iPad. At some point people start calling your bluffs.
T A C O
Then why host the World Cup?
FIFA is looking at moving our matches to Canada. I don't think this administration was that interested in hosting a global event.
And the Olympics in 2028
Agreed under a previous administration. Besides, oligarchs like football, that's why it was hosted in Qatar previously.
I thought the position of HN was that tourism is bad.
... from "certain" countries.
Many "desirable" countries have visa-waiver programs where I would assume they would be unaffected.
Not just from certain countries but they only want certain people from certain countries.
Seems like half of the comments here have only skimmed the article.
There doesn't seem to be an intent to implement reimbursement of the fee from the time it is implemented, and clear incentive to be as slow with it as possible.
> On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period
Skimming the article only enhances the vagueness. It remains unclear whether it's just for visas which must be explicitly applied for, or visa waivers with the reference to I-94.
From what I can tell, visitors with visa waivers (German tourists, for example) are exempt from this fee.
So, just another way to discourage the "wrong" sorts of people, who may visit for any number of valid (and profitable) reasons. White European vacationer? Great, welcome to the USA. Everybody else? Get fucked.
The article says that this fee will be refunded after the visa expires. For many people who have had B1/B2 visas, they usually get a 10-year multiple entry visa (during subsequent applications). For this group, it means they may get the refund after the 10-year period. That’s a very long interest free loan to the government of another country.
As stated a few times in the article, most of this money isn’t getting back to the people who paid it.
Hopefully the EU wakes up and starts enforcing its laws. There’s a law saying that if one country requires visa against any of its members, the whole of EU will require visas for that country.
Currently the US requires visas for Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus and the European Commission has refused to follow that law, regardless of how many times the European Parliament votes for it to be followed, since they don’t want to impact France’s and Italy’s tourism sectors.
With this $250 fee, this refusal of theirs becomes even more egregious.
I wonder how this will work for visa waiver programs like the ESTA. I have family visiting next year and if they have to pay an extra $1k, it won’t happen.
No fee according to TFA
Where does it say that? ESTA doesn't appear and searching waiv only turns up:
> The fee applies to all visitors who need nonimmigrant visas to enter, and cannot be waived.
Which sounds like the opposite of "no fee"?
The visa waiver program does not require those eligible to get non-immigrant visas (hence the phrase “visa waiver”), so if the scope of the new program is, in fact, “all visitors who need non-immigrant visas”, those eligible for visa waivers would be outside its coverage.
ESTA is not a visa. It's specifically the process to enter America for people who do not need a visa.
It's called a visa waiver, but it's effectively a lightweight visa process. Look at what it involves, not what it is called.
It is a lightweight pseudo-visa process, but it does not involve anything which is actually legally a visa, so a program that is attached to non-immigrant visas does not apply to it. What things are called in law matters quite a lot.
For sure, I'm not disputing this.
ESTA is just the authorization to apply, nothing to actually get you into the country.
With an ESTA in hand, an eligible visitor must get an I-94 visa waiver at the border for $6. Even with a valid ESTA this can be denied.
Source: at this point I’ve had 4 dozen of them over the last two decades.
You can be denied at the US border if you have a full and valid visa. The only way not to be denied is to be a US citizen (so far ...)
That’s true with any country.
I was prepared to be scandalised but it seems fine…
The article says it, "Cannot be waived", so does that mean that the thousands of people who travel under the ESTA visa waiver will suddenly need to find $250 (each, so $1000 for a family of four?), and to have the headache of potentially more forms at the end to get their money back again?
That seems like a lot of hassle if so, and will cause people to think twice about visiting the US.
Since the ESTA is a visa waiver program, by taking advantage of it you don't require a visa so would not have to pay this fee. At least that's my reading of it...
So, if you are one of 52 wealthy and mostly white countries... got it.
“Visa Waiver” it’s right there in your comment. Waiver means “no visa required: the requirement is waived.”
There are border towns where some workers do daily crossings. Without refund infrastructure in place it looks like this would add $250/day fee for all of these individuals
Is it per visa or per entry? Do the workers need to get a visa a day?
The fee is per visa and not per entry. Non-immigrant work visas usually are valid between 12 - 36 months depending upon the type of visa.
One has to love how it's two weeks after the big ugly spendthrift bill was passed, and its actual contents are still being dissected. Not just small details, but entire topics.
Where's the time for us citizens to be informed? And the time to write our senators and representatives so they know what their constituents think? Of course that's idyllic, and we haven't had that in decades. At least things like the (anti-) "PATRIOT" act were bipartisan, despite selling out the people. But the sheer speed this barge of incoherent trash was wholesale rammed through really shows how utterly feckless Congress as a whole has become.
It seems like they need to watch more of those 90's "Just say no" ads.
Many politicians who voted for the bill publicly admitted they hadn't read it before passing it.
The more interesting (and depressing) aspect of congress is not how few of them read the bills, but the entities that actually write the bills. Most of the laws today have almost nothing to do with all of the lawyers in congress. They are written by lobbyists and industry groups.
Huh! The US isn't the only country where laws are written by lobbyists and industry groups. I'd maintain it's one of the biggest problems facing democracy these days.
People everywhere know their voice hardly counts when lobbying, big business and money are involved.
And then you have things like https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/gambling-tax-trump-big-b... which no one seems to have wanted and made it through anyway.
Like Pelosi proudly announcing the same for the Affordable Care Act in 2010? Nothing changes, except the issues you chose to be mad about and the ones you chose to ignore.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/p...
what on earth would lead you to believe that i would defend anything nancy pelosi has ever done? she's a ghoul and i hope she burns in hell. are you happy now?
the affordable care act was one of the single largest transfers of wealth into private industry in the last few decades, and a massive failing by both major political parties to actually provide affordable, high quality healthcare that we're capable of shouldering as a society. you won't catch me defending any part of it, or anybody who kneecapped it during the legislative process.
can you stop acting like politics is a team sport that can be won, and start recognizing that both parties are Bad, Actually, and do absolutely nothing for the vast majority of americans with net worths under a billion dollars?
I’m sorry I gave the impression that I was talking directly to you.
It was a generalization of hyper-partisanism and how maybe if people don’t want something ahitty to happen to them later, they shouldn’t ignore it when they believe it is in their favor.
See stacking the court, ending the filibuster, lowering the voting age to 16, etc.
Oh, thank you for explaining that the real problem is caring. You're right, we're all just meat feedstock for "AI" (ie corpos) or whatever, and we should be thankful for our chance to passively watch before it's our own turn to be fed into the grinder. </s>
I get how the ACA is this reactionary touchstone about big scary de jure government daring to regulate the corpo-created death panels, and as a libertarian I would have vastly preferred a much different type of healthcare reform. But from a perspective of individual liberty, a national implementation of Romneycare couldn't possibly have fucked the country nearly as hard as handing more unchecked reins of power to an autocrat running on dementia fumes of ideas that might have worked in the 90's.
So no, it is not "nothing changes". Rather it is a continual escalation. Your both-sidesing is itself based on that exact partisan interpretation whereby you care less about these specific topics, making you ignore that the overall problem is increasing - with this particular step being drastic.
Seems like they’re trying hard to deter tourists. Don’t want those commies talking about universal healthcare or maternity leave or Americans might start getting ideas.
I gave a talk in Montana last week and I could hear a pin drop when I said my wife got 18 months maternity leave so we travelled the world with our little one.
> my wife got 18 months maternity leave
With 100% of salary, 50%?
I know some countries 'hold' your place of employment up to 5 years, although one gets only symbolic money during all that time, think like 10% of the salary.
100% for the first 12 months, then 50% for the next 6.
We could have shared that too, but chose not to.
By law they must hold her position.
Who paid for that 18 months? Your wife’s lower salary did.
If more money made for a better life, you’d think the US would rank higher in quality of life measures, rather than often being dead last among its peer OECD nations.
That line of thinking has very much been proven wrong by decades of facts.
If lower salary means they won’t go bankrupt, and won’t have to sell their house or live paycheck to paycheck from a small medical issue it’s a Great trade off.
US adults have the shortest life span among the richest countries so it sucks even more, even your high salary and zero medical issue still means you are living inferior life.
So it seems like you get the $250 back if you honor the terms and leave by the end. It's an interesting monetary incentive, not unlike the bottle deposits.
Except they have no idea how it will be implemented, and as the article points out, few people will seek the reimbursement, meaning it isn't automatic and isn't returned when you leave, you must seek it out after you leave the country.
its like any other monetary fine projected on to all people - it hurts poor people more.
As it stands it isn't an incentive, its just a disruptive and opportunistic approach to take money from a politically disfavored group. THe CBO, as quoted, is clear that until they figure out the reimbursement process they are still just going to colelct the fee and keep the money:
>, “CBO expects that the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, they’re raising student visa fees to $1279 (USD.)
US student visas, after all fees are roughly $500 (USD.)
UK skilled worker visas are about $1660. The H1B is about $1700.
The U.K. multi entry visitor visa for 10 year validity is about $1200.
The U.S. version: $185
I understand it’s popular to post articles that sensationalize how “bad” the U.S. is, but reasonable people probably should have some perspective.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australias-ruling...
Australia and the UK have their own particular immigration crises. In Australia, overstaying a student visa is the most common way of becoming an illegal immigrant, and so the increased fee is part of a larger suite of reforms designed to reduce this. In the UK, the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue: the average salary for a new graduate in the UK is the same as the minimum wage.
This visa integrity fee seems to be a much blunter instrument.
> the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue
At least in IT/tech I would expect an opposite effect - with number of skilled immigrants reduced there will be risk that multinational companies will close development offices in the UK, startups will have one more reasons to choose another country too. With number of available jobs going down workforce reduction will not prop salaries up IMHO.
> In Australia, overstaying a student visa is the most common way of becoming an illegal immigrant,
This may be due to the difficulties with border crossings.
There is, however, a long history of immigration to Australia that is illegal under Australian law; see the 'Timeline' section of this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia
> This may be due to the difficulties with border crossings.
It’s no harder getting out than it was getting in.
You do not sound very genuine. It does not say it is multi-entry fee enywhere. For tourists very few countries ask more except visa fee (and many do not require visa at all). For UK this fee is only 16GBP for 2 years and not 1200 USD:
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/electronic-travel-author...
Is it a fee if you always get it back? It’s more like a deposit.
It's a "deposit" you're giving to a government ruled by an autocrat who is notoriously famous for stiffing people when he can get away with it and whose policy platform is based around harassing foreigners. I would consider the money gone.
I had a similar experience in Europe. The store told me that VAT was refundable, but they didn't mention that the process was so convoluted that few actually did it. I persisted and they sent me a check that could only be cashed in Europe.
Unfortunately many countries pull stunts like this.
Great - so we're in agreement that this is an unfortunate development for our own country, and thus another way we're unnecessarily destroying our position of global leadership.
Seems reasonable.
For most people, it'll be returned as they leave.
For people who really shouldn't be there, it serves as a filter; If they can't afford to loan the US $250, it is unlikely they will be able to afford theirlife necessities once in the US. Such a person should solve their issues BEFORE traveling to the US.
For visa overstayers, it funds their deportation.
It's pretty clear that it won't be returned as they leave if you read the article. The government would need several years to implement reimbursement and in lieu of providing them the CBO estimates a $29B windfall for the government.
Except there are no details on how the refund process works...
So, family of four saves up to visit NYC for vacation, now they need to find an extra $1000 to take the trip. And it's unclear when they get that money back (is DHS going to post somebody at international departure terminals to issue them - unlikely).
For someone intending to overstay their visa, is the loss of $250 really going to serve as much of a deterrent?
Sounds great, good job all.
My wife was forced to pay about $200 to Canada at the border because she had a DUI five years prior. Somehow those shakedowns aren’t mentioned in the news.
Edit: I’m a Democrat but for each downvote to this post I’m donating $1 to the Republican Party. Y’all are crazy if you think other countries aren’t doing this.
Current tally: $2 for downvotes $5 for a comment made without any knowledge of the situation $7 total
> Edit: I’m a Democrat but for each downvote to this post I’m donating $1 to the Republican Party. Y’all are crazy if you think other countries aren’t doing this.
That's an absurd amount of butthurtdeness coupled with pettiness, lol. Sucks for your wife, she could've chosen to not drive drunk though.
[flagged]
If she was driving with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit, then she was by definition, driving drunk.
I don’t necessarily agree with the way that Canada handles people with past drunk driving convictions in the US, but that’s not the same thing as a blanket fee.
Yes, by definition, you’re right. But she was in no way incapacitated by any reasonable measure.
People complained about American policies and actions for years.
Well, now you get to look back upon those policies and actions fondly.
What are you talking about specifically?
The French felt there was little evidence of Iraq having WMDs, or working with Al-Qaeda, and refused to back George W. Bush's US-led invasion in the UN.
The US responded with a wine boycott, renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries on the congresesional cafe menu, and some WW2-related insults on TV.
At the time, a lot of people would say GWB was one of the worst ever US presidents, that cutting taxes while spending a bunch on a costly war was irresponsible, etc.
But looking back? That guy had no signs of dementia, no major convictions, hadn’t been credibly accused of rape, and nobody was heiling hitler at his inauguration. I for one now look back on his presidency fondly.
Name it.
US desire for oil, troops being stationed abroad, supply-side economics, "lack of culture", gun politics.
Those are off the top of my head.
not having sterile international transit and forcing everyon to clear US immigration and customs even if you are connecting to another international flight would be a good place to start.