the visa requirement for those countries were a formality, never being denied. it was just reciprocating the visa requirement of Brazilians to visit those destinations. it was a way to press for more international access for the citizens.
this action makes it clear that the current administration is giving up any hopes of international influence, a great shift from the previous workers party administration's stance, which was Brazil to be a leader of the BRICS
> it was a way to press for more international access for the citizens.
Does it work against large/rich countries?
The US and Canada are being forced to allow visa free travel for Romanians and Hungarians, so their response has been to create a visa that’s not a visa.
Your second paragraph is ideological gibberish. Brazil was always miles distant from leading BRICS, which is merely a buzzword to captivate through vanity the minds of theirs political elites.
By playing international influence game, the workers party managed to overflow Brazilian market with cheap and unfairly produced Chinese industrial goods, paying for it by selling most of our mineral commodities and committing with money-sink international projects with African dictatorships.
At the same time, the aforementioned party gave billions of dollars in infrastructure projects throughout Latin America bolivarian states, that without a doubt won't make returns in any way.
If that is what you call "international influence", I'm relieved we gave it up.
> At the same time, the aforementioned party gave billions of dollars in infrastructure projects throughout Latin America bolivarian states, that without a doubt won't make returns in any way.
First and foremost, the money went to Brazilian companies that built that infrastructure.
Second, it was a loan that has to be paid back by those governments.
Not only this, but even if the money comes back anyhow (and I am casting doubt on it, never heard of any insurances) all the international influence built will be lost, because it was done specifically for the parties of some countries supporting tyrants.
There was no plan for Brazilian international relevance, but a plan for colluded political parties, to disintegrate nationalities.
> money-sink international projects with African dictatorships.
You mean like those projects that China funds to successfully increase their international relevance and financial prosperity? Like all the ports and plants and railways?
That’s it! For the Chinese they were great. What was gained by Brazil, if not some temporary seats on some international bureaucracy, with hardly any Brazilian commons ever hearing of it?
Your reply seems equally ideological to me. The reality is that it's a complex situation, and that there is a non-trivial political concession in dropping reciprocity.
I think dropping it makes sense, because pragmatically the damage outweighs the benefits. But simplistic, partisan tarring of existing policy doesn't help us learn anything new.
What is ideological about my statements? There are only facts with named actors in it. Or simply by casting the wrong names makes it be tagged ideological?
Lol. I am talking about "stance" and "goals" of political parties on that paragraph, there's not even my opinion on which is better. You either have a reading impairment or are just plain trolling.
I visited Brazil with an American passport a few years ago and ended up spending a bunch of time gathering documents and visiting the embassy back and forth. It was pretty discouraging and draining and I thought about not going.
Potentially turned away tourists, but now I also I understand what it's like to go through the process and I'm a big proponent of more free borders. It's a double edge sword, but it certainly left a similar impact on the other Americans I met in Brazil as well.
Your problem is that you don't have an American passport, you have a United States passport. It would be pretty nice if American passports would exist.
> I visited Brazil with an American passport a few years ago and ended up spending a bunch of time gathering documents and visiting the embassy back and forth. It was pretty discouraging and draining and I thought about not going.
That is the same as when a Brazilian would like to visit the US. This general waiving of requirements simply guarantees that Brazil's the only one getting the short end of the stick. A negotiated reciprocal agreement would be much better.
It would also be completely unrealistic as millions of Brazilians would just go to the US and stay there. Reciprocity doesn't work between countries with significantly different wealth and standard of living.
I've been on the receiving end of US visa process. They require you to demonstrate that you have substantial ties to your country that would make it more likely that you'll eventually leave the US. Income, real estate or other assets, children/wife staying, that kind of thing. That's not a guarantee you'll return, of course, it just makes it more likely.
> It would also be completely unrealistic as millions of Brazilians would just go to the US and stay there.
Millions? I don't think so. Maybe a few thousands? I think you overestimate the amount of people in Brazil who fancy a life in the US. Furthermore, I also think you overestimate the amount of people who, fancying a life in the US, are actually able to secure financial and social resources to move there.
Brazilians have visa-free access to Europe[0] and you don't see "millions of Brazilians" just going there and staying. Why would it be different?
[0] Technically there's a visa which is granted on arrival
I would like to see some stats on Brazilian immigration in Europe vs USA, both legal and ilegal.
Sometimes, Brazilians in US are categorized as Latinos but in reality, outside Boston and maybe Florida, there isn’t that expressive Brazilian communities in the USA.
I guess my motivation was more to dwelve on historical fact European immigration to Brazil could make easier for European Brazilians descendants to immigrate back to Europe legally? Yet, I suspect it is not as much as it could be.
I don't know about living in Europe illegally, but I can tell you that I at one point considered moving to Germany legally (and was offered a job there, which is very much a prerequisite for such a move).
I have found their immigration process so onerous, I decided against it. One of the most irritating things was, my wife would not be able to work for 5 years (IIRC, it's been a while) if there are _any_ Germans whatsoever willing to take the job she'd be applying for. She's an accountant, so that would definitely be the case. I mean, I see the point of all this _for Germany_, but that definitely put them at a disadvantage in attracting me to work there, in addition to much lower pay that my profession gets in Germany (which, ironically made the second income much more desirable).
People in the US seem to think that EU is this open borders paradise where "ihre papiere bitte" is not a thing. It very much is a thing.
You still only tasted the bureaucracy annoyance. For visiting the USA you have that plus the problems of being turned away by sheer caprice of the border agent. In the end you still are being treated much better all things considered.
One funny part of the implementation of reciprocity is that you could pay a visa expediter to actually deliver the passport and visa request without going to the consulate in person, whereas the U.S. consulates abroad don't allow this option. That means that the reciprocity was often more financial than, well, experiential.
> whereas the U.S. consulates abroad don't allow this option.
I wouldn't know whether this is allowed or not, as I never had use for such a service, but I know a few people myself who used an expediter in Brazil ("despachante") to ease the process of getting a U.S. visa.
As far as I know it has to do with documentation, easier scheduling of the interviews for people who live far away from the consulate, as well as some queueing thing.
At least in Argentina, from what I've seen from friends hiring them (i didn't cuz i thought it was a waste of money and also i don't trust strangers to give them all my personal data to fill some forms for me), they just handle the same stuff that you can do on your own, basically:
- go to the embassy's web page,
- load all your personal information for the visa application in the web page.
- schedule an interview
- schedule the visit to the CAS (where they take you a photo and your fingerprints).
So, basically, they manage the bureaucratic procedures that happen BEFORE you get to the interview, and give you advice on the documentation you should take with you to prove you are economically rooted to your country (so you won't become an illegal immigrant)...
But you still need to go personally to both the CAS and the Embassy (on 2 different days). So, not really worth it for anyone who knows how to use a webpage.
Agreed. I was mostly noting that "the visa requirement for those countries were a formality" is one hell of a formality when it's multiple days and hundreds of dollars of travel.
It's also worth noting that those "few hundred dollars" represent about half of an average monthly salary for people in those countries.... so, the real cost of getting a visa for people in those countries is much higher in the end.
Exactly like the reverse case. What would be better for Brazil is to waive requirements both ways. This just puts Brazil in a clear position of inferiority.
> it was just reciprocating the visa requirement of Brazilians to visit those destinations. it was a way to press for more international access for the citizens.
If this was the case, did the strategy work? I'm not sure if there are any countries that reversed its Brazil visa requirement due to reciprocity. Visa policies typically don't sway to political actions like reciprocity unless the country has some kind of leverage. I love Brazil but on this front I feel it overestimated its geopolitical importance (speaking as someone who went through the trouble to get a 5-year Brazil visa and am happy I no longer need one).
> this action makes it clear that the current administration is giving up any hopes of international influence
That's not a honest evaluation.
The current administration is giving up negotiation power on getting Brazilians more freedom of movement in exchange of facilitating foreigners tourism into Brazil.
You are free to disagree with the government's priorities, but you can't deny it is a meaningful exchange (it is not simply giving up stuff), and that it's aligned with its campaign promises, that people overwhelming approved (as 4 of the top 5 candidates had similar proposals).
Brazil as a leader of BRICS ? Whoever believed that must be smoking something strong. China and India would be the main contenders for that place and China is at least 3x more powerful than India.
Brazil can not have much international influence. Sadly, USA has played a deliberate role in keeping South American countries crime ridden and unstable. Brazil is at max a weak colony of USA.
Visa reciprocity requires the agreement of both countries who are prepared to address the implications for visa-free travel between both countries.
Unilateral waivers for visas from certain countries are generally in a bid to increase foreign tourism and business travel and retain domestic tourism, while negating the need for complex negotiations and bilateral considerations.
“You’re going to require a visa from our people? Well we’ll require a visa from your people!”
No agreement required. Visas usually come after migration begins (you used to be able to arrive by ship, no visa required anywhere in the world).
That seems to have been Brazil’s policy. I don’t think too many Canadians were going and overstaying, working illegally or otherwise causing trouble more than average.
> A policy that gets created when you let people with diplomatic passports decide who needs a visa.
That would be most government officials, won't it? How do you propose handling visas then? Just not have reciprocity and have mandatory visas for every country? Sell visas on entry (some places do that, as a form of tax)?
Visa reciprocity agreements are made at a high enough level that I don't see it being farmed out to low level bureaucrats. Besides it would have to be low level bureaucrats who actually travel.
Whoever decides and negotiates the visa process must also be made to follow the same visa process for say 10 years. Other government officials can continue to have diplomatic passports.
Last year Indian government planned to giving two types of passports. A blue passport for all the educated skilled folks and an orange passport meant for blue color working class people. The idea was that to negotiate a separate visa system for high skilled Indian citizens with other countries.
There was an much uproar over this idea and it was shelved. It was both immoral and unethical to treat your citizens like this. A rich industrialist reportedly told PM's office that all government officials be given Orange passport if this were to pass to show solidarity with working class Indians.
That does sound terrible. US has the global entry and other such thing for TSA to expedite entry. But at least they had enough common sense not to call it "blue" or "orange" other colored passport.
> Whoever decides and negotiates the visa process must also be made to follow the same visa process for say 10 years.
But I like the idea in general. I wish it would happen for all the things they make laws about - public housing, education, medical care etc.
Essentially second rate citizens. TSA precheck is available for all as long as you have security clearance. Whether you are poor or rich does not matter.
>For example, during the 1980s Brazil enforced strict controls on the import of foreign computers in an effort to nurture its own "infant" computer industry. This industry never matured; the technological gap between Brazil and the rest of the world actually widened, while the protected industries merely copied low-end foreign computers and sold them at inflated prices. In addition, countries that put up barriers to imports will often face retaliatory barriers to their exports, potentially hurting the same industries that infant industry protection is intended to help. [1]
Please note that there are errors in this text. All imports were banned due to the external debt crises. What was special about the computer industry is that foreign companies were not allowed to make mini computers or smaller locally unlike in other industries.
The lack of original designs were something that worried a lot of people at the time, but it turned out that PC clones killed everything else world wide so it wouldn't have mattered in the end.
While it was easy to find examples of inflated prices (the first PC clone was launched at US$15K for a configuration for which IBM charged US$5K, for example) there were a few cases where the local copy cost less than the original (like the TK3000 compared to the Apple //e).
I lobbied against the "reserved market policy" at the time and still wish that Brazil had taken Taiwan's path instead, but people remember things wrong and don't learn what they should from it.
An Atari 2600 clone was mentioned in another comment, for example. Videogames were not subject to the policy. Atari and Polyvox/Gradiente had a joint venture for the 2600 and Philips made its Odyssey 2, both things which the policy prohibited. Yet people remember the policy as being to blame for the late and expensive games even though the situation persisted for decades after its end in 1992.
We actually have import taxes on everything (except books), which is 60% plus state-specific taxes (around 10-15%), which you pay on the whole price you payed, including the shipping costs. So in my experience we pay approximately 100% over the original price.
Passport sales made up 41% of revenue for the Government of Vanuatu in the 3rd quarter of 2018. The most common customer is someone from China desiring visa-free access to the EU.
Very interesting. USA' EB-5 visa is at 500k USD, in comparison.
For a chinese national, a Vanuatu passport would provide visa-free entry at almost all of EU, Cuba, Hong Kong (!), Northern and many African countries, Israel, Caribeean.
Hopefully Paraguay will follow. When I visited Argentina, I decided the red tape of neighbouring countries visiting Iguazu Falls wasn't worth the 13 hour bus ride.
73 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadthis action makes it clear that the current administration is giving up any hopes of international influence, a great shift from the previous workers party administration's stance, which was Brazil to be a leader of the BRICS
Does it work against large/rich countries?
The US and Canada are being forced to allow visa free travel for Romanians and Hungarians, so their response has been to create a visa that’s not a visa.
But it depends how far you want to go back. E.g. visas for Croatians used to be required, but scrapped a long time ago.
By playing international influence game, the workers party managed to overflow Brazilian market with cheap and unfairly produced Chinese industrial goods, paying for it by selling most of our mineral commodities and committing with money-sink international projects with African dictatorships.
At the same time, the aforementioned party gave billions of dollars in infrastructure projects throughout Latin America bolivarian states, that without a doubt won't make returns in any way.
If that is what you call "international influence", I'm relieved we gave it up.
First and foremost, the money went to Brazilian companies that built that infrastructure.
Second, it was a loan that has to be paid back by those governments.
Third, the loan is covered by insurance.
In every loan that got investigated, the money seems to have gone into corrupt politicians pockets, both inside and outside of Brazil.
There was no plan for Brazilian international relevance, but a plan for colluded political parties, to disintegrate nationalities.
You mean like those projects that China funds to successfully increase their international relevance and financial prosperity? Like all the ports and plants and railways?
I think dropping it makes sense, because pragmatically the damage outweighs the benefits. But simplistic, partisan tarring of existing policy doesn't help us learn anything new.
Potentially turned away tourists, but now I also I understand what it's like to go through the process and I'm a big proponent of more free borders. It's a double edge sword, but it certainly left a similar impact on the other Americans I met in Brazil as well.
That is the same as when a Brazilian would like to visit the US. This general waiving of requirements simply guarantees that Brazil's the only one getting the short end of the stick. A negotiated reciprocal agreement would be much better.
It would also be completely unrealistic as millions of Brazilians would just go to the US and stay there. Reciprocity doesn't work between countries with significantly different wealth and standard of living.
I've been on the receiving end of US visa process. They require you to demonstrate that you have substantial ties to your country that would make it more likely that you'll eventually leave the US. Income, real estate or other assets, children/wife staying, that kind of thing. That's not a guarantee you'll return, of course, it just makes it more likely.
Millions? I don't think so. Maybe a few thousands? I think you overestimate the amount of people in Brazil who fancy a life in the US. Furthermore, I also think you overestimate the amount of people who, fancying a life in the US, are actually able to secure financial and social resources to move there.
Brazilians have visa-free access to Europe[0] and you don't see "millions of Brazilians" just going there and staying. Why would it be different?
[0] Technically there's a visa which is granted on arrival
Sometimes, Brazilians in US are categorized as Latinos but in reality, outside Boston and maybe Florida, there isn’t that expressive Brazilian communities in the USA.
Protip: Go to Carioca in Astoria or Copacabana on 39th Ave. Holy shit Brazilians can cook.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Americans
I have found their immigration process so onerous, I decided against it. One of the most irritating things was, my wife would not be able to work for 5 years (IIRC, it's been a while) if there are _any_ Germans whatsoever willing to take the job she'd be applying for. She's an accountant, so that would definitely be the case. I mean, I see the point of all this _for Germany_, but that definitely put them at a disadvantage in attracting me to work there, in addition to much lower pay that my profession gets in Germany (which, ironically made the second income much more desirable).
People in the US seem to think that EU is this open borders paradise where "ihre papiere bitte" is not a thing. It very much is a thing.
I wouldn't know whether this is allowed or not, as I never had use for such a service, but I know a few people myself who used an expediter in Brazil ("despachante") to ease the process of getting a U.S. visa.
Clearly I know very little.
- go to the embassy's web page,
- load all your personal information for the visa application in the web page.
- schedule an interview
- schedule the visit to the CAS (where they take you a photo and your fingerprints).
So, basically, they manage the bureaucratic procedures that happen BEFORE you get to the interview, and give you advice on the documentation you should take with you to prove you are economically rooted to your country (so you won't become an illegal immigrant)...
But you still need to go personally to both the CAS and the Embassy (on 2 different days). So, not really worth it for anyone who knows how to use a webpage.
If this was the case, did the strategy work? I'm not sure if there are any countries that reversed its Brazil visa requirement due to reciprocity. Visa policies typically don't sway to political actions like reciprocity unless the country has some kind of leverage. I love Brazil but on this front I feel it overestimated its geopolitical importance (speaking as someone who went through the trouble to get a 5-year Brazil visa and am happy I no longer need one).
That's not a honest evaluation.
The current administration is giving up negotiation power on getting Brazilians more freedom of movement in exchange of facilitating foreigners tourism into Brazil.
You are free to disagree with the government's priorities, but you can't deny it is a meaningful exchange (it is not simply giving up stuff), and that it's aligned with its campaign promises, that people overwhelming approved (as 4 of the top 5 candidates had similar proposals).
Brazil can not have much international influence. Sadly, USA has played a deliberate role in keeping South American countries crime ridden and unstable. Brazil is at max a weak colony of USA.
We shouldn’t let people make decisions when the results can’t impact them under international law.
Unilateral waivers for visas from certain countries are generally in a bid to increase foreign tourism and business travel and retain domestic tourism, while negating the need for complex negotiations and bilateral considerations.
“You’re going to require a visa from our people? Well we’ll require a visa from your people!”
No agreement required. Visas usually come after migration begins (you used to be able to arrive by ship, no visa required anywhere in the world).
That seems to have been Brazil’s policy. I don’t think too many Canadians were going and overstaying, working illegally or otherwise causing trouble more than average.
That would be most government officials, won't it? How do you propose handling visas then? Just not have reciprocity and have mandatory visas for every country? Sell visas on entry (some places do that, as a form of tax)?
It’s only the senior officials that get diplomatic passports.
Create a process that decides and doesn’t report to them.
Last year Indian government planned to giving two types of passports. A blue passport for all the educated skilled folks and an orange passport meant for blue color working class people. The idea was that to negotiate a separate visa system for high skilled Indian citizens with other countries.
There was an much uproar over this idea and it was shelved. It was both immoral and unethical to treat your citizens like this. A rich industrialist reportedly told PM's office that all government officials be given Orange passport if this were to pass to show solidarity with working class Indians.
> Whoever decides and negotiates the visa process must also be made to follow the same visa process for say 10 years.
But I like the idea in general. I wish it would happen for all the things they make laws about - public housing, education, medical care etc.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_industry_argument
The lack of original designs were something that worried a lot of people at the time, but it turned out that PC clones killed everything else world wide so it wouldn't have mattered in the end.
While it was easy to find examples of inflated prices (the first PC clone was launched at US$15K for a configuration for which IBM charged US$5K, for example) there were a few cases where the local copy cost less than the original (like the TK3000 compared to the Apple //e).
I lobbied against the "reserved market policy" at the time and still wish that Brazil had taken Taiwan's path instead, but people remember things wrong and don't learn what they should from it.
An Atari 2600 clone was mentioned in another comment, for example. Videogames were not subject to the policy. Atari and Polyvox/Gradiente had a joint venture for the 2600 and Philips made its Odyssey 2, both things which the policy prohibited. Yet people remember the policy as being to blame for the late and expensive games even though the situation persisted for decades after its end in 1992.
Also, presuming you're also not a fan of Trump, would you then advocate for all tourism to the USA to cease?
I don't think that's a rational position.
It has fallen off a cliff under Trump
Vanuatu sells citizenship for USD$155,000.
https://twitter.com/dailypostdan/status/1108123023616311296
Compare China and Vanuatu passports: https://www.passportindex.org/comparebyPassport.php?p1=vu&p2...
For a chinese national, a Vanuatu passport would provide visa-free entry at almost all of EU, Cuba, Hong Kong (!), Northern and many African countries, Israel, Caribeean.