Replies

The visa is if they want to stay beyond 90 days and work. It's 100$ for a 'green card' essentially.

They can still visit for a passport stamp.

This article is crap...

No, its not $100 for a greencard.. its for those who get new passports after October that do not (will not) have biometric data on it...

See: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/mrp.htm

And: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3378057.stm

The point of the article is that the 90-day exemption is effectively being eliminated by the Machine Readable Passport requirement.

For example, a U.S. nonimmigrant visa does cost $100, regardless of length of stay, as best I can tell.

Meanwhile, visitors from countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which specifically includes the U.K., do not currently require a visa at all to enter the U.S. for less than 90 days, thus entry is free. However, this is changing. From the State Department:

"Countries With a October 26, 2004 MRP Date - Travelers from countries granted the postponement can continue to travel, as they have in the past, without a machine-readable passport. On October 26, 2004 a machine-readable passport or U.S. visa will be required at the port of entry, to enter the U.S. without a visa. Countries with the machine-readable passport postponement until October 26, 2004 are:

"Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom."

Since the British government has said it cannot meet the Machine Readable Passport (MRP) requirements by October 26, 2004, then that means all Britons traveling to the U.S. for any reason without said MRP will be required to obtain a U.S. nonimmigrant visa, which does indeed cost $100.

While the article may indeed be crap, the issue of Britons needing to pay $100 to visit the U.S. after October 26, 2004 is a real one.

For my part, I support the U.S. on this, but I would hope that perhaps we and our VWP partners might find a better way to resolve this issue. I also have no use for those who would try to stigmatize the U.S. for taking reasonable measures to defend itself against a proven, deadly and continuing terrorist threat.

But I don't think charging our allies a hundred bucks to visit the U.S. is the way to go either. I wouldn't pay a $100 entrance fee to visit any of them.

My recent visits to Singapore and Malaysia were quite pleasant and unmarred by such extortion. I showed my U.S. passport and went right in to both countries without any hassles at all, and without paying any fees.

I would prefer that we Americans show greater hospitality to those who have stood by us in thick and thin.