Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No visa required

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: No visa required

#71

Post by rdtsc »

kjhgfgbhnj wrote: post #57
Kliment wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and this is also true for non-EU Europeans.

My point was that: You don't need a visa, a visa is a form you have to fill in before they allow you in the country. Instead you just have to fill in these other bunch of forms before they allow you in without a visa.

I guess the difference is that in one case they have to explicitly allow you in -- by issuing the visa. And in the other case, they have to explicitly not let you in (presumably by stopping you at the airport before boarding?).

Re: No visa required

#72

Post by rdtsc »

c4urself wrote: post #60
mortenjorck wrote: post #24

As a US citizen, it's wonderful getting into other countries with so little hassle. The only annoying part is getting back into the US.

so true and that's the USC/Permanent resident line, how about that visitors line...

That actually varies as well. Typically one would expect the USC line to always go much faster, and it usually does, but sometime a flight is just full of USC/PR passangers and not many visitors, so you get the opposite effect (happened to me twice).

Also now they fingerprint and photograph permanent residents. So what used to be "Hello!" + 2 questions now is "Hello!" + 5 questions + fingerprinting + photographing.

But, hey we all feel safer, right !?

Re: No visa required

#73

Post by rdtsc »

prototype56 wrote: post #63
mortenjorck wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't traveled that extensively, but every time I've entered a Schengen country with nothing to declare, I've been able to walk right in after getting my passport stamped. Every time I've returned to the US, however, I've had to go through an exhaustive baggage screening and pat-down before I could even board the plane, and then stand in line for half an hour in Immigration once I got back, filling out an entire…

Experience getting back into us after a vacation during financial meltdown of 2008-2009 Immigration "officer": Are you sure you still have your job at the bank. Me: yes Immigration "officer": If that turns out to be false we will kick you out like dogs

The sad part is. There is nothing you can say to that. You cannot argue with them. The best you can do is not say anything and take his abuse.

Re: No visa required

#74

Post by kjhgfgbhnj »

rdtsc wrote: post #71
kjhgfgbhnj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that: You don't need a visa, a visa is a form you have to fill in before they allow you in the country. Instead you just have to fill in these other bunch of forms before they allow you in without a visa.

I guess the difference is that in one case they have to explicitly allow you in -- by issuing the visa. And in the other case, they have to explicitly not let you in (presumably by stopping you at the airport before boarding?).

The new US online form authorizes you before you go - can't see how that is different from a visa.

Re: No visa required

#75

Post by brc »

sdurkin wrote: post #42
DrJokepu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also suspect that another reason is that immigration from Britain was never really an issue anywhere at any point in the history, so there was no reason to limit travel rights of British persons. After all, it was always a modern, industrialized country with English-speaking population, and mostly white (which unfortunately mattered in less enlightened times, not even too long ago).

Overpopulation was actually a major problem for Britain for most of its history, (hence the continent-sized penal colony in Australia.) It was just that British immigrants had the nasty habit of overthrowing the government in their new homes.

> continent-sized penal colony in Australian

Highly inaccurate.

Accurate : 4 or small 5 penal settlements in a vastly empty continent with only a few hundred thousand native inhabitants started the colonies of Australia. The main reasons for convict settlement in Australia were (a) the loss of the USA in the revolutionary war and, as such, the need for new colonial holdings to offset this loss, and (b) the need to establish a permanent settlement on the continent to cement the claim made 18 years earlier by Captain Cook. It's a little known fact that a French expeditionary force also landed in modern-day Sydney the day after the 'first fleet' landed and erected the Union Jack.

Tiny numbers of convicts (164,000) were transported over a 80 year period from 1788. This is against estimates of the England/Wales population of 8.5 million people, and you can see that transportation wasn't really a useful way of reducing the English population - certainly not as such a great expense when execution was just as effective and a whole lot cheaper (and regularly handed out by magistrates)

Also compare the convict numbers to numbers of people arriving for the Gold rush - 370,000 in 1852 alone - and you can see that while Convicts make for a great story, they really aren't a large part of the story.

So the true story of Australia was that it's foundation as a European colony were more to do with establishing new colonies after the loss of the revolutionary war than it was in reducing english population. The shipping of convicts merely met two aims simultaneously : establishing a colony with forced labour and removing the eyesore prison hulks being used as prisons. It didn't meaningfully help in reducing the overpopulation or unemployment in England. That was eventually solved by free immigration in large numbers to both Australia and the USA/Canada.

Re: No visa required

#76

Post by _delirium »

whyenot wrote: post #50
gaius wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland is fairly obnoxious towards immigrants tho' (e.g. it is pretty much impossible to naturalize as Swiss). It should be rights be difficult for Swiss to travel anywhere. I expect their private banking industry is what opens the doors...

Exactly what about the swiss naturalization process makes it "pretty much impossible" and what is obnoxious about it? There is a residency requirement, a language fluency requirement, and you have to show that you have integrated in swiss society. It's not an easy process compared to many other countries, but also not impossible.

It depends greatly on the area, but some parts of Switzerland have a requirement that all new citizenships must be approved by a local referendum. I'm not aware of many other countries where to get citizenship, the municipality you live in has to approve it in a popular vote.

Re: No visa required

#77

Post by maneesh »

prototype56 wrote: post #63
mortenjorck wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't traveled that extensively, but every time I've entered a Schengen country with nothing to declare, I've been able to walk right in after getting my passport stamped. Every time I've returned to the US, however, I've had to go through an exhaustive baggage screening and pat-down before I could even board the plane, and then stand in line for half an hour in Immigration once I got back, filling out an entire…

Experience getting back into us after a vacation during financial meltdown of 2008-2009 Immigration "officer": Are you sure you still have your job at the bank. Me: yes Immigration "officer": If that turns out to be false we will kick you out like dogs

Returning from Oslo, Norway Immigration officer: Why were you visiting Norway? Me: I was there visiting some friends. Immigration officer: Why do you have friends in another country, sir?

Re: No visa required

#78

Post by garply »

sivers wrote: post #12

Singapore is not shown, but is near the top, (150 countries vs Denmark's 157) and deserves special mention as the only passport that's visa-free for both US and China. http://www.henleyglobal.com/citizenship/visa-restrictions/

As an American in China, you have no idea how many times I've envied the Singaporeans. China goes out of its way to gouge Americans for visas - a visa costs about $150 for us, maybe $30 for a Canadian or European.

I'm told visas are about equally expensive for Chinese entering the US (although the US does a much more thorough background check to ensure the Chinese person has consistently had a good job with regular income), so I guess the feeling between the 2 governments is mutual.

The visas for foreigners here are also of relatively low quality - they have a short duration. And the rules about what a person can obtain are constantly changing. I've spent so much time, effort, and money dealing with visa issues, I've really contemplated marrying my Chinese girlfriend. We're not really ready to get married from a relationship perspective, but we're both pragmatists and it would save us money and headaches.

Re: No visa required

#79

Post by xiaoma »

garply wrote: post #78
sivers wrote: post #12

Singapore is not shown, but is near the top, (150 countries vs Denmark's 157) and deserves special mention as the only passport that's visa-free for both US and China. http://www.henleyglobal.com/citizenship/visa-restrictions/

As an American in China, you have no idea how many times I've envied the Singaporeans. China goes out of its way to gouge Americans for visas - a visa costs about $150 for us, maybe $30 for a Canadian or European. I'm told visas are about equally expensive for Chinese entering the US (although the US does a much more thorough background check to ensure the Chinese person has consistently had a good job with regular i…

Yeah, tell me about it. I spent a small fortune on my multiple entry L visa in HK, and it was only good for a month at a time-- not quite enough time to get my long term residence visa. Worse yet, getting a simple extension while the paperwork goes through is more expensive than just hopping on a train and leaving the country only to re-enter it again. What a waste of my time, of space on the train and of fuel. And for what?

Re: No visa required

#80

Post by rdtsc »

kjhgfgbhnj wrote: post #74
rdtsc wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the difference is that in one case they have to explicitly allow you in -- by issuing the visa. And in the other case, they have to explicitly not let you in (presumably by stopping you at the airport before boarding?).

The new US online form authorizes you before you go - can't see how that is different from a visa.

Yes in that case it is not. They are just saving you a trip to the embassy and $100+.
Post reply on HN