 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Rufus, could be.. could be to speed up the new passport types. They were supposed to issue this a long time ago too and enforce this rule.
Say if every Euro had to apply for visa to visit.. how long it woudl take to get that visa? 1 week? 3 weeks? Anywhere from 1 week and longer would be undoable. You can say, its' what you have to do, if you don't want to, go somewhere else. well.. those are words. But it's still undoable. and if all were enforced to have visas, it wouldn't be sorted out in one week per person. Fact. |
Here in the Philippines, we run the second-busiest US visa unit in the world (Mexico City is #1), and it takes at least 6-8 weeks to get a tourist visa. (That is, one needs to schedule an appointment for a visa interview 6-8 weeks in advance)
If EU countries lost visa-waiver status, London, Paris and Frankfurt would become at least as busy as we are, while having a tiny fraction of our manpower (as well as no experience in dealing with the logistics of such volume). Europeans would end up waiting months for visas.
It's just not going to happen. It's about the passports.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Well, it would be very logical. About the passports though.. I think it's good we upgrade them, if the US wants to use them as default, that's cool. Get them new passports out then. Also using visas is not a good way to prevent anything when talking about higher risks, better passports makes more of an impact. However, against higher level risks.. there's really not much that can be done in this particular regard. |
I agree. The US knows that the best defense is better passports, not visas, which is why they're pushing so hard for this. One could argue that, if we're the ones demanding passport changes, we should shoulder the cost of making them; the cost, as I understand it, is the real sticking point here. Unfortunately, our Congress regularly creates policies that it expects other governments to pay for -- though it's usually state legislatures, and not foreign governments, who get dumped on in this way.
In the long run, biometric passports are a good thing and would have been adopted by the EU anyway. What you're really seeing here is the Bush administration's usual, and usually counter-productive, heavy-handed approach to diplomacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I agree. The US knows that the best defense is better passports, not visas, which is why they're pushing so hard for this. One could argue that, if we're the ones demanding passport changes, we should shoulder the cost of making them; the cost, as I understand it, is the real sticking point here. Unfortunately, our Congress regularly creates policies that it expects other governments to pay for -- though it's usually state legislatures, and not foreign governments, who get dumped on in this way.
In the long run, biometric passports are a good thing and would have been adopted by the EU anyway. What you're really seeing here is the Bush administration's usual, and usually counter-productive, heavy-handed approach to diplomacy. |
bullshit. We can control our borders as we choose. My reservemate died in the Pentagon. I got no problem with tightening things up. You bithc that Bush should have stopped 9-11 and then complain when anything is done.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2005 05:03
|