President Obama Thursday enacted legislation to promote international travel to the United States by establishing a national tourism board that would coordinate advertising and other efforts to encourage foreigners to visit the United States.
As a bipartisan group of lawmakers looked on as Obama signed the bill in the Oval Office. The measure is aimed at reversing a decline in foreign visitors to the United States of nearly 10 percent over the past decade.
The board created by the new law would develop advertising and educational campaigns to help potential travelers navigate United States visa requirements and security procedures.
The effort is to be paid for by private sector contributions matched by a $10 fee on foreign visitors from countries who do not need a visa to enter the United States.
Visitors from those thirty-five countries---which include Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and those comprising the United Kingdom---do not have to pay any fee to acquire a visa, hence the reasoning behind this one. Our neighbors to the north needn't be worried:
U.S. officials told the Toronto Star Canadians would be exempt because of the special relationship between the two countries.The bill has fans in local tourism agencies in Utah, Vermont, and Florida, among others.
I'm certainly not a fan of this logic and of what the fee means, and you can find various takes on this collected on a post by Gadling. A better approach would be to remedy the issues that already keep tourists away, and to address the larger problems that, to borrow a page from what might fit in the Korea Tourism Organization's script, damage the national image.
The only English-language coverage out of Korea I've seen so far has been from the Korea Times Friday evening (their time), which says it'll take five to twelve months before this goes into effect, and:
European countries have opposed the initiative, saying they will impose retaliatory fees on Americans.
Korea will also consider levying a similar tax.
``Korea will need to review whether it is appropriate to impose a reciprocal fee under the visa-free travel program,'' Song Jin-hwan, an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said. ``We will keep an eye on the responses of European countries and Japan.''
Song said the number of Koreans travelling to the U.S. jumped to 8.5 percent of the total number of overseas tourists in 2009, up 2.2 percent from the previous year.
American tourists certainly ought to prepare for such retaliatory fees.
The only visual aid I could find, from last September in the 한국경제.
27 comments:
The biggest difference (and problem) I see is that Koreans (and many others) actually want to go the the US as tourists. When people want to do things, they are usually pretty willing to pay any fee. I can see European countries reciprocating without a problem, and even Japan, but Korea is already struggling to bring in tourists.
The only way Americans want to visit Korea, is either for a job, because a family member is marrying a Korean or they're visiting a friend currently residing there and they're on their way to another Asian destination. Trying to collect money from people who don't really want to be there, does not encourage them to even attempt to make the effort to visit in the first place.
So, let me get this straight: In order to attract more tourists to the US, instead of doing something about the outrageous security procedures when entering the country, they want to charge tourists instead?
The only reason I have not chosen the US as a holiday destination these past few years is because of the hassle in getting into the it. No amount of advertising will make that any easier.
More than the other countries, South Korea (and Taiwan) should be able to see the advantage of being on the visa-waiver program: ten bucks is a lot cheaper than the process was before. Quite your griping.
But, yeah, expect reciprocal fees (and we used to have them when leaving South Korea, I think), because the ROK government is big on the reciprocity thing: this is why Koreans granted a six-month tourist visa to Canadians (prior which, English teaching was a very different place; it wasn't a slacker magnet but a serious profession).
And why is the Korean traveler blonde?! (And I snagged this graphic from you, Brian, so mahalo!)
I think if you asked a Korean would they rather pay $10 a trip or stand in line for umpteem hours, undergo a degrading/invasive interview, and maybe get rejected, I think most Koreans would say they'd rather pay the $10. Of course countries that have been in the visa waver program for a long time won't be happy.
This fee won't be collected at the border like the cartoon suggests. It would just be added to the cost of a plane ticket. Part of the "taxes and fees" thing that bumps up a ticket by $150. When you're spending $1400 round trip on airfare an extra $10 is easy to sneak in.
As David says, imposing a retaliatory tax is stupid on a theoretical level and possibly in reality. It's like saying "well, Apple raised their prices on iPhone so I can raise my price on CrapPhone." People want iPhone and are willing to pay extra. No one wants CrapPhone and the only reason some people are buying it is because it's cost effective.
On the flip side, Brazil and other countries imposed a retaliatory finger printing procedure for US visitors. I'm not sure that really stopped anyone from visiting those nations. Hey, Brazil, if you want to spend money to show the USA it's as much your playground too, well, knock yourself out.
The Canada/USA special relationship? Well, about a decade back the USA imposed a departure card type system on visa waver countries. It applied to Canadians as well. It applied to Canadians day tripping across the border and trucks coming across the border. Only at the last minute someone did the math and realized having the millions of cars and trucks the cross every day fill out cards would add so much time to each entry it would effectively cut off trade and tourism. So no doubt the USA would collect even from Canadians if this were not a repeat of the same conditions.
This departure card system does have a cost and it's not unreasonable to pass on the cost to visitors. Nations impose strict visa requirements on other nations because of what a minority of their citizens might do negatively. You simply can't get around the discriminatory, you're assumed guilty, notion of trying to gain access to a foreign country. But ultimately this isn't fee levied to cover security costs. It's a fee levied to cover the cost of making people want to come to the USA. Which really makes no sense.
Kushibo's arrow of time regarding Canadian/Korean visa waver rules which grant Koreans and Canadians 6 months of visa free travel might be off. It seems to imply Canada granted Koreans 6 months and then Korea reciprocated. It could be this was part of some international trade agreement. Sure it benefits scummy Canadian backpacker type ESL teachers that has lived on too long as a stereotype, but it really benefits Koreans most of all. Korean Canadians or landed Koreans can bring their mothers over after a pregnancy. Families can travel both ways and spend time that's important in Korean culture. My step brother in the USA married a chinese national. She had a baby. They tried to bring her mother over from China to help with the baby. Her visa was denied.
Ultimately the USA shouldn't be in the business of promoting tourism or coordinating tourism promotion. No one visits the USA. They visit Florida, Vegas, NYC, etc. Those states/cities/industries should promote themselves and pass whatever promotional costs they incur onto their own customers. I don't know what possible benefit a government run tourism office could accrue. A $10 fee that would speed customs, make it less of a hassle for people to visit the USA would be great. It's another case where the government needs to get out of people's way.
This idea takes the whole notion of paying money to someone in order to find a job, and almost one up's it. Have the tourist pay to find reasons to visit the country. Who's loopy idea was that?
I'm not comparing the old visa process and this $10 fee. I'm talking about a $10 fee on tourists from friendly, "developed" countries, and in the name of promoting tourism for crying out loud.
Ryan G. is right, and so am I and so are the others who point out the hassle and the security as a reason keeping tourists out. There are a lot of reasons why the US isn't a hospitable tourist destination, and it has nothing to do with how it promotes itself as a vacation spot.
And kushibo, you make a good point about Korea, but Taiwan isn't part of the VWP. One of my Taiwanese friends had to go through a lengthy process just to get an interview to transit in the US en route to Costa Rica, and another had to bypass it altogether because she couldn't get one. A country is certainly free to admit or deny whomever it wants, though I think most Americans would be surprised to hear how hard of a time "foreigners" have trying to get here in the first place.
Kushibo,
you said, "And why is the Korean traveler blonde?!"
Joy asked, " Why most people(no matter what kind..)change their hair color? brunette to blond, red, or black, blond to others, "
Just FYI, plain black is current trend over here among the young girls.
Puffin Watch wrote:
Kushibo's arrow of time regarding Canadian/Korean visa waver rules which grant Koreans and Canadians 6 months of visa free travel might be off.
Can you show the actual timeline to demonstrate that it's off? Or is this like how Shinsegae got know-how from Costco and then went back in time to open E-Mart before they made their deal with Costco/Price Club? ;)
It seems to imply Canada granted Koreans 6 months and then Korea reciprocated.
No implication; that's exactly what I'm saying. Canada granted lengthy tourist visas to ROK nationals and because of that, ROK granted 180-day visas to Canadians.
Similarly, after the US put South Korea in the visa-waiver program, Korea reciprocated with 90-day visas for US citizens (instead of 30 days which could be expanded to 90 days after a visit to Kimmi).
And I agree with Puffin Watch that the extended visa-free stays in Canada are good for the Koreans, but they're also good for the Canadians who ended up getting tourist dollars from Koreans. Ditto with the US, where the governments of Hawaii, California, Nevada, and most other western states have been pushing for this for years.
WV: tardede, how someone who is... Oh, crap! Word Verification is getting really offensive these days.
Brian wrote:
And kushibo, you make a good point about Korea, but Taiwan isn't part of the VWP.
My mistake. In my groggy state, I was conflating two things, ROC (Taiwan) citizens' visa-free entry into parts of the US (Guam and CNMI) and ROC's efforts — concomitant with ROK's — to get on the visa-waiver program list. I thought I had read that when Korea got on, Taiwan was on the fast track to get on.
My bad.
A country is certainly free to admit or deny whomever it wants, though I think most Americans would be surprised to hear how hard of a time "foreigners" have trying to get here in the first place.
Yeah, I don't think most Americans realize that. Over the years, I've talked with quite a few who think it's as easy as (until recently) Americans crossing into Mexico.
And getting a work visa to work in South Korea is still far easier than the other way around.
David tz wrote:
I can see European countries reciprocating without a problem, and even Japan, but Korea is already struggling to bring in tourists.
For the past few decades, South Korea has been doubling the number of tourists about every ten years. Not exactly a struggle, though the authorities are always struggling to find new ways to attract them.
The $10 would be the biggest pain in the butt to travelers by ferry, day-trippers, for whom $10 represents a 10% or 20% increase in the cost of the trip. But that's travelers from Japan, which didn't put up a $10 cost, so the retaliatory/reciprocal $10 wouldn't apply.
Puffin Watch wrote:
As David says, imposing a retaliatory tax is stupid on a theoretical level and possibly in reality.
No, it's not stupid. If such a policy is consistent (and it is fairly consistent from the ROK's pov), then it prevents others from applying such taxes in the first place, and it provides the promise of similar reward if some other country does something nice for your citizens.
It's like saying "well, Apple raised their prices on iPhone so I can raise my price on CrapPhone." People want iPhone and are willing to pay extra. No one wants CrapPhone and the only reason some people are buying it is because it's cost effective.
Not really. Maybe if Apple needed CrapPhone parts to make an iPhone, and vice-versa, then it might apply: If you make iPhone parts more expensive for us trying to use iPhone parts to make a CrapPhone, then we'll make CrapPhone parts more expensive for you trying to use CrapPhone parts to make an iPhone.
Funny you bring up crossing the border from Mexico. I've mentioned a few times on here that we're going through the fiancee visa process to bring my fiancee here so we can get married in the US. When I tell people it takes on average 7 months and that we've spent countless hours compiling information and evidence to prove to the United States government that we're a legitimate couple and one that won't be a drain on the state, quite a few people have said (probably joking) she should just cross the border from Mexico. Everybody I've told about the process has been really surprised by how involved it is.
On one of my flights between Korea and the US I watched "The Proposal," with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, where she needs to get citizenship and gets fake-engaged in order to take care of it over the weekend. Yeah, doesn't exactly work like that. I know a few Canadian-USian couples who have gone through the same stuff we're going through now.
For the record, in case anybody is confused, the problem isn't getting her to the US. She can enter visa-free for 90 days, though it's not as hassle-free as it would be in Korea. I entered Korea twice without a visa and didn't have, and didn't have to show, any proof of onward journey. There were also no questions asked when I came back from a couple days in Fukuoka. She still has to prove she doesn't plan to stay here beyond those three months, and will have to detail what she's doing, where she'll stay, why she's coming here, etc. The fiancee visa is required for people who plan to marry in the US. That's what all this paperwork is for.
I won't blog too much about this fiancee visa process, because I don't want to get into my personal life too much and I don't want to jeopardize anything on the off-chance somebody googles my name. I will say that having to pay 2500 yen (about US$24) to the US Embassy in Tokyo just so we can get them to answer a question via email . . . yeah, awesome, really helpful service.
Brian, you are smart not to blog too many personal details about your private life, especially given the troubles you've had. I, too, hold back on private details because of the real-world crap I've endured — no small amount of it from expats and stateside Americans who read K-blogs — and that is unfortunate, because our own trials and tribulations can provide useful information to other people.
After it's all done, if you can provide a useful list of tips for people doing that, that would probably be a great help to a lot of people. In Korea I was engaged to a Korean national and wondered how this would go, I later dated long-term a US national and wondered what process we would go through if we decided to get married in Korea. I'm curious to know what others have gone through.
Anyway, I wonder, in your case, Brian, if getting legally married in Korea (or Japan) wouldn't have been an easier route (asking, not saying).
Kushibo's arrow of time regarding Canadian/Korean visa waver rules which grant Koreans and Canadians 6 months of visa free travel might be off.
Can you show the actual timeline to demonstrate that it's off? Or is this like how Shinsegae got know-how from Costco and then went back in time to open E-Mart before they made their deal with Costco/Price Club? ;)
I'm not saying it is. You're making a certain assumption and I'm suggesting there is an alternative.
Anyway, my contention was Costco and Shinsegae jointed operated together, Shinsegae learned the Costco methods, and then shortly after expanded their emart chain in parallel upon learning the Costco methods, much to the surprise of Costco. They never imagined Shinsegae would compete with its own joint venture. I think your contention was emart existed before Costco arrived. Be that as it may, that does not imply emart pre-costco was a bulk purchase concern that used the Costco methods before Costco.
Tom Coyner lays it out what Shinsegae learned:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx=1356
And I agree with Puffin Watch that the extended visa-free stays in Canada are good for the Koreans, but they're also good for the Canadians who ended up getting tourist dollars from Koreans. Ditto with the US, where the governments of Hawaii, California, Nevada, and most other western states have been pushing for this for years.
Sure. My point is some ESL types can't imagine why Korea would extend 6 month stays to Canadians when it's claimed this is open to all kinds of abuse. The abuse might be a minor annoyance given major benefits for Koreans on both sides of the Pacific.
Not really. Maybe if Apple needed CrapPhone parts to make an iPhone, and vice-versa, then it might apply: If you make iPhone parts more expensive for us trying to use iPhone parts to make a CrapPhone, then we'll make CrapPhone parts more expensive for you trying to use CrapPhone parts to make an iPhone.
Yeah, I'm not really sure why you're tying these two together. The point is rather simple: There's a huge imbalance in tourism. Many more Koreans visit the USA. Many more Koreans have a strong desire to visit the USA and are willing to pay a bit more. Not many Americans want to visit Korea and have many alternatives. Making it more expensive as a purely punitive measure doesn't have an upside.
I, too, hold back on private details because of the real-world crap I've endured — no small amount of it from expats and stateside Americans who read K-blogs
As I always noted on Seoul Survivors, we used our first names only less out of fear Koreans would get the jokes and more out of a fear of expats who wanted to pound down the nails sticking out a bit.
Puffin Watch wrote:
I'm not saying it is. You're making a certain assumption and I'm suggesting there is an alternative.
I'm not making an assumption. It was stated in the press that this was why they were doing it.
Well, I guess I'm making the assumption that the media wasn't full of crap about that, which is an assumption of sorts. ;)
As for the rest of what you wrote (about Costco/Emart), it appears the Tom Conyer KT piece you wrote repeats the same error. He says, "Stodgy Shinsegae, Korea’s oldest department store, took its lessons and launched E-Mart, a hybrid of a Costco operation and what the Koreans guessed correctly what might work best in Korea," when in fact E-Mart had been launched before the partnership existed. He also fails to mention Kim's Club (on which I believe the E-Mart business model was actually based) in the piece.
I'll email Tom and ask him about that, then write more about this. I think it's an interesting case.
Puffin Watch wrote:
As I always noted on Seoul Survivors, we used our first names only less out of fear Koreans would get the jokes and more out of a fear of expats who wanted to pound down the nails sticking out a bit.
At best count, I've had about a dozen people who tried to do real harm to me physically or professionally, made plausible physical threats to me, or did something illegal (?) like hack into my email and create problems from there. Some of the people who come to this blog are among those people or know who they are, in fact.
Two of them were Korean-American, the rest were other foreigners or White Americans in the US. To my knowledge, none were Korean, though I have had emails from KoKos complaining about certain topics.
Of course, there may be Korean-language fatwa against me that I'm not aware of. But when I'm back in Seoul, they know which Coffee Bean, McDonald's, or Starbucks to find me in, and they're all close to each other.
when in fact E-Mart had been launched before the partnership existed.
Again, Shinsegae might have had some Emart stores prior to their partnership with Costco. But that doesn't mean Emart of 1993 was the Emart we know today post-Costco, that is a discount/buy in bulk operation we associate with Costco.
It's like saying Little Caesar's Pizza existed before Dominoes Pizza. Little Caesars and Dominoes both employ the centralized phone ordering/delivery system. Therefore Little Caesars must have invented the system. No. Little Caesars could have conducted business a whole other way and then changed their model upon learning the Dominoes way.
So when Tom says they launched Emart based on what they learned from Costco, it doesn't necessarily imply the launching of Emart as a name. It can imply launching Emart as a discount buy in bulk system of stores. That's the issue at hand. Did Shinsagae at some point rejig its traditional Emart stores into a Costco like operation AFTER signing a partnership with Costco?
Puffin Watch wrote:
Again, Shinsegae might have had some Emart stores prior to their partnership with Costco. But that doesn't mean Emart of 1993 was the Emart we know today post-Costco, that is a discount/buy in bulk operation we associate with Costco.
Puffin Watch, I was there (I've been living in Seoul off and on since I was a teenager). E-Mart is not and never was like Costco, which has remained pretty constant for quite some time. E-Mart followed the Kim's Club model, but nixed the paid membership idea, and it never focused on bulk quantities. They started as different types of stores and they never were similar types of stores. The Costco-explaining-Emart idea doesn't hold water, and neither does the Little Caesar's/Domino's analogy.
So when Tom says they launched Emart based on what they learned from Costco, it doesn't necessarily imply the launching of Emart as a name.
Read it again, Puffin Watch: He gets the timeline wrong, and thus his what-engendered-what falls apart, especially since the two business models are actually quite different.
Shinsegae had a national network of stores that included fully stocked grocery stores, long before Costco ever thought of opening up shop in western Seoul. Why is it so hard to believe that they might actually have had the know-how to set up a chain like E-Mart without Costco, particularly since that's what they did?
It can imply launching Emart as a discount buy in bulk system of stores. That's the issue at hand. Did Shinsagae at some point rejig its traditional Emart stores into a Costco like operation AFTER signing a partnership with Costco?
No, they didn't.
Shinsegae had a national network of stores that included fully stocked grocery stores, long before Costco ever thought of opening up shop in western Seoul. Why is it so hard to believe that they might actually have had the know-how to set up a chain like E-Mart without Costco, particularly since that's what they did?
It's not hard to believe. But if given a choice between your anecdotal assertion and what I've read by experts, I'll believe the experts.
What I would find hard to believe, however, is Costco would even enter into such a partnership in 1994 if Shinsegae had a highly similar wholly owned discount grocery store chain a year before Costco.
My anecdotal assertion? I presented (in the other thread) news releases from 1993 and 1994 showing that Tom Conyer — whom I believe was not living in South Korea at the time (though I could be wrong on that) — got his "expert" facts mixed up.
And Tom Conyer's a good guy; I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm disparaging him in any way. We all get our facts wrong from time to time (I thought Taiwan was on the visa-waiver program). And you're a good guy, too, Puffin Watch, lest my tone make it sound like I feel otherwise.
All right, all right, let's get off that topic, it's already been discussed on an earlier thread.
Stick to this topic, newsworthy in its own right.
Sounds fair, Brian. Kushibo if you do a post about it, let me know. I'll see what you come up with :)
There is a special place in hell for spammers.
Post a Comment