Fingerprinting delays?

[Guest YFSC]

RE: fingerprinting

 

Good for you, ihpguy! It sounds like you have hit the ground running and are off to having a fabulous time. If you're smart, you'll spend your time doing what you went to Brazil to do, and not posting on this board. But tell us all about it when you get back!

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Liberalizing Brazilian Visa Requirements?

 

>BTW, on another point, I noticed that my passport wasn't

>stamped either going into Brazil on my most recent trip, or

>upon exiting yesterday. (Both entry and exit were in Rio.)

>The immigration officer just picked up the second sheet of the

>tourist card, and that was all! As I'm pretty sure that

>Brazil doesn't have a computerized record of entries/exits, if

>this is now the practice it will make it even more difficult

>to enforce the 180-day per calendar year limit on stays by

>persons who are tourists. What have been the experiences of

>other recent travelers (like within the past six months)? Did

>the Brazilian authorities stamp your passport? Or just the

>tourist card?

 

Tri, isn't stamping the tourist card effectively the same as stamping the passport? When you do leave, the immigration officer will see the date you entered on the tourist card just as well as on the passport. So how would that allow people to slip by the 180 day limit, or make the limit more difficult to enforce?

[Guest YFSC]

RE: UNwealthy Brazilians traveling to the U.S.

 

>If most Brazilians are not wealthy and $100. is too high for

>their Visa, HOW can they afford to travel to the closest U.S.

>port, Miami? It costs money to fly, and far as I know, there

>are no cheap banana boats.

>

>Yet, I meet a lot of Brazilians dancing in Miami and New

>York!!

>

>But it might explain the attempted stow aways.

>

>:+

 

msclonly:

 

I agree with your earlier point that the US is the vulnerable country and that the government is only trying to protect it from attacks by terrorists.

 

But the remarks immediately above are uncalled-for and are not germane to that issue.

 

1. By far most Brazilians are indeed *not* wealthy and $100 is a *very* expensive charge for them. Those are just empirical facts, despite your calling them into question. $100 is over half the average salary for a *month*. Are you prepared to pay half your monthly income for a visa to visit another country?

 

2. US visas *are* hard to get for citizens of underdeveloped countries. Another empirical fact. Especially now after 9/11, and especially for unattached young males. The fear, obviously, is that a simple tourist visa will become a means of illegal immigration, since we have been unable to control length of stay once someone is here.

 

3. Brazil has the second largest population in the Western hemisphere, after the US. It has about 2/3 of the US population, some 170 or so million. Even if you could find 1000 Brazilian dancers (which is obviously far more than the real number), that would be .00006% (or 1 in 170,000) of the population.

 

4. Many of the Brazilian dancers that you meet here probably came to the US as students, with partial or total financial support for their trip and visa. And some probably are indeed the children of the wealthy.

 

5. Many of the Brazilian dancers that you meet here are moonlighting students, and many others have probably overstayed their visas.

 

6. Some of the Brazilian dancers that you meet here may have entered illegally without visas, and may have worked their way north by sea or overland.

[trilingual]

RE: 180-days

 

Brazilian immigration law has two separate and not-fully-congruent requirements for tourists: one provides for each entry to be good for 90-days, the second restricts visitors to 180 days in the country within any calendar year.

 

The tourist card visitors received on entry is stamped with the entry date and the second sheet (which also includes a date stamp) must be surrendered to immigration when you leave. Since the date is right there on the form, it doesn't take a math genius to figure out if you've exceeded your 90-day entry.

 

The 180-days-per-calendar-year rule is harder to enforce, because Brazil doesn't seem to have a computerized immigration entry system the way the U.S. does. So the only way to determine if someone has been in Brazil for more than 180 days during that year is to read the entry/exit stamps in the passport. Of course, if the dates on the stamps are smudged and blurry, as they often are, it may be very difficult to determine how long someone was in the country. If there are NO stamps in the passport (as in my case, currently) it obviously becomes impossible to tell if someone spent more than 180 days in Brazil during the year!

[Guest msclonly]

Negative interpretation not necessary

 

yfsy,

 

There was NO need for you to address my post with your negative interpretation of what I said. What I said was very simple, if they can not afford the $100 for a Visa, HOW can they afford to take the trip. Period! So please don't read anything else into it.

 

It is NOT all that hard to tell who is a student and comes from a wealthy family. Most of the dancers are of a tougher type and probably arrived by some other statis. No doubt, the INS would have screened the ones remaining by now.

 

:7

[trilingual]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

The visa fee is onerous in Brazil and other poorer countries. In Brazilian currency, the fee alone costs approximately R$300 in a country where a good middle-class salary is anywhere from R$1500 - R$3000. So the visa fee takes a much larger proportional bite out of someone's income in Brazil (or a similar country) than it would of the average American's income.

 

The fee makes it prohibitively expensive for a middle-class family to apply, because we're not talking US$400 for a family of four, or around R$1200! And to add insult to injury, the fee isn't refunded if the visa is denied!!! x(

 

But the visa fee isn't the only expense involved! The U.S. forces people to call an expensive (900) type number in Brazil to get information and forms, and to make appointments for visa interviews. In addition, the U.S. now requires person-to-person visa interviews for almost all applicants, which can mean having to take a trip of hundreds or thousands of miles with all the costs entailed if the applicant isn't lucky enough to live in one of the few cities where visas are issued (Rio, SP, Brasilia and Recife).

 

How anxious would you be to visit Brazil (or any other country) that put you through this to get a required visa?

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

Then how can they afford to travel to the US, if the Visa costs are prohibitive? The costs of getting a Visa is of little significance, if they can't afford to travel! Or vise versa!

 

I had to travel hundreds of miles to get a Brazilian Visa and pay the costs of lodging, meals, and transportation to do so, as well, so I can appreciate those problems.

But I could also afford to travel to Brazil before deciding to get the Visa!

[trilingual]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

All I can say is that it must be nice to be as comfortably well-off as you appear to be, so that traveling hundreds of miles to get a visa isn't a big deal for you. By Brazilian standards you're very rich indeed. In fact, even those of us who earn less than US$45,000 a year are very rich!

 

Middle-class people in South America could afford to visit the U.S. in the past. It took scrimping and saving, but by using charter fares and group excursions to places like Disney World, they could manage to take their families on vacation. Or people stayed with friends and relatives to save money. Now, when you add the costs of the visas (which have at least tripled in the past few years) plus the additional costs associated with the process, the U.S. is nearly out of reach for most middle-class South Americans. For a family of four (or more) the money really adds up. Rather than spend the money on a U.S. visa (and risk losing it all if the visa is denied) people are opting for other destinations that don't make them go through all this. Florida's loss is Cancun's gain (not to mention Cuba's and the Dominican Republic's, among others).

 

Don't forget that people don't always just travel for pleasure. Sometimes they need to travel to get medical care or to deal with family emergencies, and again, the U.S. visa process makes it difficult and, in some cases, prohibitively expensive. If you want to know why the U.S. is so unpopular across the world these days, our rapacious visa process and heavy-handed immigration procedures are a big part of it.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

It does not make any sense to make so much todo about the price of the Visa, when you can not afford the trip for whatever reason.

It just is not the ball buster, you make it sound like.

 

Yes I would like to visit some expensivee countries like Swiss in Europe, but can't afford it. The cost of a Visa would not be the determining factor. The cost of the trip would be!

 

Of course, when you see the number of Brazilians in NYC and Miami, it seems like those that are determined find a way to get there from Brazil. There is no need to MAKE up a scenerio about how many more can not afford it, if they even wanted to come here.

 

If you mean 'well off', then I wonder why I spend my pension money for a budget hotel and meals in Rio. I see so many natives eating better then I do!

[Guest Gringo]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

What all due respect, if we could refocus our attention to the original topic of this post, the situation has improved. Brasil has the absolute right and has implimented an identification process similar to the one imposed on visitors to the USA. The delays have been significantly reduced with the installation of digital equipment. If anyone has an interest in discussing comparative economies, that might be more appropriately addressed as a new topic.

[Mavica]

Ignorant of the facts

 

Brazil didn't do what the U.S. did regarding fingerprinting/photographing . . . Brazil sought-out U.S. travelers and made it rough on them . . . to punish the U.S. government through the tourists . . . a very stupid and counter-productive thing to do. To say the U.S. policy, which applies to most of the nations on the planet, is the same policy Brazil has implemented solely against U.S. citizens is ignorant of the facts. Such a statement is another example of often expressed exaggeration on this forum. The travel/common sense inexperience of some of the contributors to this forum is obvious.

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

Thanks for trying to bring this thread back to its initial focus!

Damn, some folks like to play tit-for-tat when there's a diffference in opinion. I can't fanthom the cybermate's questioning ever point that had been clearly explained by someone who lives in Brasil now (off and on) throughout the year and has had momentous experience... Enough said. I'm descending my staircase in order to watch "Sex in the City."

[trilingual]

RE: Ignorant of the facts

 

>Brazil didn't do what the U.S. did regarding

>fingerprinting/photographing . . . Brazil sought-out U.S.

>travelers and made it rough on them . . . to punish the U.S.

>government through the tourists . . . a very stupid and

>counter-productive thing to do. To say the U.S. policy, which

>applies to most of the nations on the planet, is the same

>policy Brazil has implemented solely against U.S. citizens is

>ignorant of the facts. Such a statement is another example of

>often expressed exaggeration on this forum. The travel/common

>sense inexperience of some of the contributors to this forum

>is obvious.

 

Mavica, this is an example of an inability to read what other posters have said, and/or twisting other postings into something other than what the original poster wrote.

 

Brazil IS doing exactly what the U.S. did regarding fingerprinting and photographing some foreign visitors. The first few days were done manually, rather than electronically, but otherwise there's no difference at all.

 

Everyone here understands and agrees (and many have explicitly said in their postings) that Brazil is only doing this to U.S. tourists in reprisal for the U.S. treatment of Brazilian visitors. Everyone here understands that Brazil has the absolute right to do this. Everyone here also agrees that reflexively exercising its right of reciprocity in a tit-for-tat manner is not always in Brazil's best interest, and that its current fingerprinting policy is an example of that, because it discourages tourism, which Brazil needs and is actively trying to encourage. In other words, most of the posters here agree with you! It's difficult to understand why you can't see that!

 

Except in a couple of instances, Mavica, I see no evidence in any of the postings on this topic of exaggeration, inexperience or lack of common sense, and your name-calling and snide remarks don't contribute to the discussion. So in the future please self-edit your postings for such things before putting them on the board. In many ways your observations are interesting and stimulate good discussions. You don't need the nasty parts to get your message across.

[Guest Deweywop]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

It always strikes me how Americans, even those who profess to have some superior level of travel experience and worldly wisdom, can never recognize reciprocity when they see it. The US charges Brazilians $100 for visas. Brazil immediately charges $100 to US travelers. The US fingerprints Brazilians. Brazil fingerprints American arrivals. How is Brazil *not* doing exactly what the US is doing?

 

Well, of course, it's because they don't do it for the same reasons! That's always the "ugly American" rationale. Whatever we do is because we had a direct telephone line to God and he told us we could do it. If another country does the exact same thing, it's because they're vindictive, or deliberately punishing Americans, or being counterproductive. But how is Brazil deliberately targeting Americans? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Brazilian policy is they would reciprocate visa/immigration policies toward *any* country. Thus, for example, if another country doesn't require visas of Brazilians, Brazil won't require visas of that country's nationals. This seems to be a perfectly fair rule of universal application and not discriminatory. If the US would behave itself more like the French and not treat Brazilian tourists like criminals, why then American tourists won't be treated the same way either. Nothing anti-American about that policy.

 

Reciprocity is the first rule of diplomacy. Today I read about a brewing tit-for-tat regarding the Russian consulate in San Francisco demanding more parking spaces, with the implicit threat that the American consulate in St. Petersburg would lose its spaces. Yes, it gets as childish as that, but where international law doesn't really exist, tit-for-tat reciprocity might be the only thing a weaker country has left when dealing with a stronger country.

[HooBoy]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

I am sorry, but I have not been following this thread closely so I may be repeating something already stated and if so, I am sorry.

 

But I just got off an elevator with a group of loud Americans and a an airline pilot. The buzzer went off and a group of the Americans got off saying that there must be too many people on board.

 

I joked that someone must not have been fingerprinted.

 

After the laughter died down (no doubt remembering Margaret Cho jokes) I asked if they were using ink and they all said "no" and it went real fast.

 

This is something that is a must for the fake feeling of protection the airline industry must instill worldwide.

 

I thought it was interesting the airline pilot got off on my floor and then hit the elevator button to go back down. Maybe he recognized the Showerstud, or worse, me!

 

I'm thinking my new hairpiece is making me look like a cross between Rip Taylor and Carrottop.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

Depends where you were all going,

when the Pilot decided to pass on the experience!

 

 

 

:+

[trilingual]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

>It always strikes me how Americans, even those who profess to

>have some superior level of travel experience and worldly

>wisdom, can never recognize reciprocity when they see it.

 

What's difficult to understand (at least for me) is why Brazil insists so strongly on enforcing reciprocity even when it isn't in its own best interest. Just because Brazil has the right to act reciprocally doesn't mean it must exercise that right in every instance! Many other countries deliberately DON'T exercise their right to require visas of U.S. visitors (even though the U.S. requires visitors visas for their citizens) because they understand that their stronger interest is in attracting U.S. tourists, which helps their economies.

 

Argentina and Uruguay are two countries that come to mind as examples; neither requires visas for American tourists, even though Argentine and Uruguayans must now get visas to enter the U.S. The result: Argentina is having a record tourism boom, with more foreign (and U.S.) visitors than ever before in its history. The Americans are big spenders, and are shopping their way across the country! (I know at least a couple of M4Mers who've personally contributed in a very big way to the recovery of the Argentine economy.)

 

Brazil also wants to develop its tourism industry and attract more visitors from the U.S. The income received and the jobs created by the tourism industry are desperately needed, and would seem to outweigh Brazil's interest in exercising its right of reciprocity. This hasn't been lost on all Brazilians! The new tourism minister is proposing abandoning the current consular visa system for U.S. visitors and replacing it with an "on-the-spot" visa (with no fee) issued upon arrival at the airports and other ports-of-entry in Brazil. Whether he can sell this plan to Lula and the rest of the government remains to be seen, but I hope he succeeds because it will dramatically increase the number of tourists from the U.S. It would also free up the overworked consular staff in the U.S. to devote more time to trade promotion, which is also a big need.

 

This is a fast and continuously changing story, so stay tuned to this channel for latest developments!

[Mavica]

Leave it at home

 

“Brasil has the absolute right and has implimented an identification process similar to the one imposed on visitors to the USA.”

 

Not true.

 

“The delays have been significantly reduced with the installation of digital equipment.”

 

Not true.

 

(Remainder deleted. Personal attack on the moderator. NOT a particularly smart tactic.)

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

>yfsy,

>

>There was NO need for you to address my post with your

>negative interpretation of what I said. What I said was very

>simple, if they can not afford the $100 for a Visa, HOW can

>they afford to take the trip. Period! So please don't read

>anything else into it.

 

The dominant interpretation of your post, especially taking into account the context in which it was made, the tone, and the change you made to the subject line, seemed to be that you question that travel and visa expenses keep Brazilians from coming to the US and that most of them don't have much money ("It costs money to fly, and far as I know, there are no cheap banana boats."); and you point to meeting "a lot of Brazilians dancing in Miami and New York!!" Rereading of your post, as well as reading some other posts that you made afterwards, does not change that impression.

 

If you were simply asking a neutral question, I apologize for characterizing your post as "uncalled-for," which is the only word that might be taken as a "negative interpretation" of your post. In the remainder I was either agreeing with you (first paragraph), providing factual information (paragraphs 3-5), or providing possible explanations for your observation about Brazilian dancers in the US (paragraphs 6-8).

 

>It is NOT all that hard to tell who is a student and comes

>from a wealthy family.

 

I disagree, certainly with the student part (see below), less so about the family, but with that too.

 

>Most of the dancers are of a tougher

>type and probably arrived by some other statis.

 

I have to disagree with this too. The ones I have encountered are not what I would call "of a tougher type," whatever that might indicate.

 

Also, do not make the mistake of assuming that "student" always means "university student enrolled in a 4 year college program" or "graduate student pursuing an advanced degree." Our government issues "student visas" to all sorts of people for any kind of education or training broadly interpreted, as long as the visa is supported by an "approved" institution that has accepted the applicant. The programs can vary widely in length, and can be as short as one or two weeks. They cover a very broad range of academic and vocational programs and beyond, as several of our 9/11 hijackers could attest, if they were not dead.

 

>No doubt, the INS would have screened the ones remaining by now.

 

And I must disagree strenuously with this. I personally know at least 2 people (not dancers, not from Brazil) who have been here for several years after the expiration of their student visas.

 

It is an open secret that, at least until very recently, once in the country someone can very easily disappear and remain here indefinitely. The INS and other authorities usually had no way whatsoever of finding visa holders, even when they were *not* trying to hide from the authorities or overstay their visas. (That has now changed a little, but not all that much.) And are you unaware of the huge number of illegals or "undocumented aliens" in this country? Why do you think they are still here, if they could be so quickly and easily caught and deported by the INS or some other agency? Only now, after the institution of much tighter procedures, are the authorities even beginning to be able to track visa entrants, though still not very efficiently.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: 180-days

 

>Brazilian immigration law has two separate and

>not-fully-congruent requirements for tourists: one provides

>for each entry to be good for 90-days, the second restricts

>visitors to 180 days in the country within any calendar year.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. It wasn't clear earlier that there is a 2-pronged time limit.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

>I had to travel hundreds of miles to get a Brazilian Visa and

>pay the costs of lodging, meals, and transportation to do so,

>as well, so I can appreciate those problems.

 

Maybe you did do that, but you didn't have to. You could have paid a fee of about $30-50 to an agency in the city where the consulate is and they would have gotten your visa for you. Persons applying for an American visa nowadays (in Brazil or anyplace else) cannot do that, no matter whether they are willing to pay an extra fee, because a *face-to-face* personal interview with a consular official is required. So they have no choice but to show up in the city where the consulate is. (Please note: I am neither condoning nor condemning that practice here, just stating the current fact.)

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Ignorant of the facts

 

>Brazil didn't do what the U.S. did regarding

>fingerprinting/photographing . . . Brazil sought-out U.S.

>travelers and made it rough on them . . . to punish the U.S.

>government through the tourists . . . a very stupid and

>counter-productive thing to do. To say the U.S. policy, which

>applies to most of the nations on the planet, is the same

>policy Brazil has implemented solely against U.S. citizens is

>ignorant of the facts. Such a statement is another example of

>often expressed exaggeration on this forum. The travel/common

>sense inexperience of some of the contributors to this forum

>is obvious.

 

Well, it all depends on how you define it, doesn't it.

 

If you say "solely against U.S. citizens" vs. "applies to most of the nations on the planet" you can sure make it sound discriminatory. But if you say "reciprocal" and "applies it to citizens of those countries that apply it to citizens of Brazil" it doesn't sound discriminatory. And I think it's a good bet that if Uganda started fingerprinting and photographing Brazilians entering Uganda, Brazil would start doing the same to Ugandans entering Brazil.

 

"Stupid"... yes. "Counter-productive"... yes.

But they are within their rights, and *we* started it. Yes, it was for a good reason, or at least is supposed to be. But that doesn't change the fact that we started it. And it also doesn't change the fact that Brazil's reaction is childish and short-sighted. Maybe they will figure that out soon. It seems that their Minister of Tourism already has.

[lfarj]

RE: Negative interpretation not necessary

 

Thank you Deweywop,

you understand diplomatic reciprocity as practiced by the French centuries ago.

And for some : Dont be afraid anymore. No more ink, just as modern as in your country. But with due respect as in your country.

[Guest Valleyman]

RE: Liberalizing Brazilian Visa Requirements?

 

When I left Rio in early November the Brazilian authorities collected the tourist card but did not stamp my passport. (When I visited Brazil in 2002 my passport was stamped upon exit.)

 

At the time I was really worried about this. My new visa is valid for 5 years, but it says “First Entry within 90 days”. I was worried that without the stamp in my passport, on my next trip the authorities might conclude that I had not made an entry within 90 days of the issuance of the visa and would refuse to admit me into Brazil. But if not stamping the passport is now the standard practice, presumably lack of proof that I entered Brazil within 90 days will not create difficulties for me on my next trip.

[trilingual]

RE: Leave it at home

 

>“Brasil has the absolute right and has implimented an

>identification process similar to the one imposed on visitors

>to the USA.”

>

>Not true.

>

>“The delays have been significantly reduced with the

>installation of digital equipment.”

>

>Not true.

 

Either demonstrate conclusively how the above statements are not true, or this last posting of yours will be removed. However, I think you'd better be prepared for that removal, because

 

a) as a sovereign nation Brazil (like any other nation) has the absolute right to do whatever it wants with respect to entry procedures for foreign visitors (unless you can prove the contrary),

 

b) the U.S. identification process involves taking a photograph and fingerprinting arriving foreigners and, although the technology for doing this was different initially, Brazil's process does exactly the same thing as the U.S.'s (again, unless you can prove the contrary) and

 

c) all the news reports and statements by M4Mers who've arrived in Brazil within the past few days say that the delays are now insignificant with the installation of the digital equipment (I'm not sure how you'll prove the contrary on that one!).

 

Anxiously awaiting your proof. . .