Comments on: The Mickey Tax

By: nick s

nick s — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:01:45 +0000

matt @55: mea culpa, my snark was misplaced—at least in your direction, not the USCIS’s.

Of course, regardless of the data protection concerns, the question is whether electronic waiver procedures will be bogged down by the same anachronisms (no, sir, I didn’t participate in the Holocaust, since I was born in the 70s) as the existing system.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:24:11 +0000

I like negislation, and self-defeating is already available as an adjective. But for academic cred you need a poncey Greek formation, like Ernest Jones' parapraxis for Freud's elegant German coinage Fehlleistung. I suggest the adjective "paratelic" (para=against, telos=purpose): thus, a paratelic law, regulation or policy.

By: Down and Out of Sài Gòn

Down and Out of Sài Gòn — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:28:53 +0000

Sweet. Thanks, Alex and Antirealist.

By: antirealist

antirealist — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:57:15 +0000

Air Canada now flies Vancouver-Sydney non-stop. No more middle of the night dealings with DHS in Honolulu.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:42:03 +0000

I think Air New Zealand has a route to Vancouver, or at least had.

By: otto

otto — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:33:20 +0000

Well, could be a sort of baptist-bootlegger tax on airtravel, which might be a small step re. global warming.

If it’s paid on-line by credit card, I fail to see how the admin costs can possibly as high as Henry suggests.

By: e julius drivingstorm

e julius drivingstorm — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:28:50 +0000

Maurice and low-tech cyclist get my vote. But I think acronyms carry more weight. If it’s called the Travel Promotion Act, how about the TRAPMOTION act. Or is that an “anacronym”.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:22:16 +0000

Roy- I’m afraid I don’t have the slightest idea what your talking about.

By: Roy Belmont

Roy Belmont — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:53:58 +0000

“Such people are then kept in a holding cell at the airport”
They’re the anti-slaves, the people you don’t want anything to do with ever, the people you’ll beat and whip to ensure they stay away.
An improvement in these cases where “it’s expensive and unpleasant for everyone involved”.
Like rising gasoline prices are a disimprovement in those cases where…
What else is involved here – who cares?
Letting people into the country is the bestowal of a privilege, a particular gift by the system of particular admittance to the particular admitted, or not.
That these same arbitrary-seeming grantors have taken the seas right down to their deathbeds, removed songbirds from the daily lives of the common people – among many other heinous acts, and threaten close now to taking the whole biological thing down with them as they retire to extinction – that’s still not quite on the table as a legitimate topic. Why not? Because the them in that are in charge mostly are surrounded by courtiers who see which side their bread is buttered on, and don’t see much else.
The difference between self-gratification and the thrill of reproduction – to the wanker it’s pretty much a subliminal distinction.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:16:54 +0000

Your confidence in the efficiency of the US government’s immigration bureaucracy is touching.

No, nick s., it’s not. I’m a lawyer who works in immigration and I know the situation all too well. But, many people are not eligible for visa waiver travel but attempt, usually through ignorance of their ineligibility, to entry that way anyway. Such people are then kept in a holding cell at the airport for a while and eventually put back on a plane. It’s expensive and unpleasant for everyone involved. If the new system works fairly well (the check system, not the fee system- the two are tied together but not the same system) then at least some, hopefully most, of these people won’t try to enter on as a visa waiver visitor and so won’t face this problem. There will obviously still be other problems and this system won’t be perfect- I never implied it would be- but for these cases it’s an improvement.

By: Down and Out of Sài Gòn

Down and Out of Sài Gòn — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:13:15 +0000

So…. what’s the quickest way to get from Australia to Canada without stopping in Honolulu? Any Sydney-to-Vancouver flights happening? $25 dollars is pretty trivial, but the mandatory fingerprinting shits me. I don’t want to share my biometrics with the Heimatschutzministerium just to visit my relatives in Ontario.

By: Roy Belmont

Roy Belmont — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:12:54 +0000

The fundies think this is all prep for the rise of the Anti-Christ. We’ll stop the evil ones at the border, protecting the nursery of the New Messiah.
The radical mystics think it’s about already entrenched Apocalyptic evil safeguarding itself against the return of militant-this-time Jesus.
Myself to me it looks like the speed-freak neighbor finally cracking up, barricading himself in the house, watching out the attic louvers all night and day with his M-16 and AK-47 and ammo close to hand. Because the chemicals and lack of sleep and food have altered his grasp of reality past coherent retrieval.
He’s nuts, armed, and alternately terrified and hyper-confident.
I’d like to move, but the rent’s too cheap to foreswear. Plus we’re walking distance to schools and shopping, which saves a bundle on gas.

By: nick s

nick s — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:46:14 +0000

The one advantage of the new system is that people who are now rejected at the border, kept in a holding cell, and then sent back on the next plane because they are not eligible for visa-waiver entry will be denied before they come.

Your confidence in the efficiency of the US government’s immigration bureaucracy is touching.

By: Twilight

Twilight — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:14:02 +0000

On one hand I get your point. But on the other, $25 is hardly a deal breaker.

As a US citizen it costs $50.00 USD in taxes just to land in Paris, France. This morning I just paid $388.00 USD in taxes to land in Kiev, Ukraine. And I am fairly certain those taxes aren’t going to benefit me in anyway.

What we should be concerned about is where is that money going to go?
What is the exact purpose of this fund?
Will it be spent to improve our systems of mass transportation?
Will it be used to offset the cost of fuel if a non-US citizen rents a car?
Will small tourist based companies benefit with subsidies and be listed in promotions?

Before labeling something as completely stupid, let us atleast have a real look at the small print.

By: Nick Brooke

Nick Brooke — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:47:43 +0000

“To boost the British economy, I’d tax all foreigners living abroad.”