Welcome to Argentina? A Visa/Reciprocity Update

Several times I’ve written about the so-called “reciprocity fees” that Argentina and Chile collect from travelers with passports from countries that charge visa fees for Argentines and Chileans – most notably the United States, Canada, and Australia, but also Mexico in the case of Chile. In the case of US citizens, both countries now charge US$160 for the privilege of entering their territory. For Argentina, Australians pay US$100 (single entry), while Canadians pay US$75 (single entry, valid for multiple visits over three months) or US$150 (valid for five years).

Chile has done this for quite some time, and it’s a simple process – arriving passengers at Santiago’s Aeropuerto Internacional Comodoro Arturo Merino Benítez line up on arrival, where authorities collect the fee and affix a receipt that’s valid for the life of the passport (the “tourist card” is a separate document, usually valid 90 days and renewable for another 90). Santiago’s airport is the only border point where Chile requires “reciprocity;” arrivals at other airports, or land or maritime border crossings, pay nothing.

“Reciprocity” is a relatively recent measure for Argentina and, initially, it only applied to air arrivals at Buenos Aires. Late last year, though, the government announced a broader measure for which I had only second-hand information and, for some weeks, I’ve been trying to clarify the rules, which are singularly opaque on the Migraciones website. After getting shuttled from one anonymous functionary to another, I finally received the following summary (my translation) from the Area de Coordinación Operativa, Direccion General de Movimiento Migratorio, Dirección Nacional de Migraciones: “We are pleased to inform you that the reciprocity fee should be paid if you enter by any border crossing (whether by air, land, or sea/river). The only means that remains exempt from payment is entry by cruise ship until June 30th, 2013.”

Probably the best available summary is now on the US State Department website, which explains that US citizens (and others, presumably) must pay the fee by credit card through the Provincia Pagos website. This requires setting up an account that, I expect, most visitors will use just once in a lifetime. I haven’t had to do so yet, because I paid mine in Buenos Aires when Migraciones still accepted cash, and it’s valid for another seven years or so (though I now have to carry two passports, as the Argentines pasted my receipt in one that is now expired).

My friend Álvaro Jaramillo, who is leading a wine-and-birding tour to Chile and Argentina next month, is the first person I know to have gone through the process of paying the reciprocity fee online. Álvaro, who is Chilean-born but carries US and Canadian passports, found the process relatively straightforward, but with some glitches.

According to Álvaro, the process was “cumbersome but doable, it was not always clear what the next step was but I got through it. Largely I succeeded because I have done a lot of payments online, but this one had its slight oddities. I am not sure a little old lady from the Midwest who does not get on the computer a lot will be able to adequately manage this.” One issue appears to be that Migraciones could not be bothered to hire a professional translator: “The oddities are mainly some of language, where you have to know to ‘add form’ and ‘print ticket’ instead of ‘upload data’ and ‘print receipt’ or something that makes more sense.”

Having printed the receipt, Álvaro recommends making more than a single copy, which is scanned when entering Argentina, because “I have no idea exactly how to login again and print a new receipt in case I lose the first. What I did is print one to PDF, so that I can have a copy that I can print in the future and I would suggest that others do this if they know how to print to PDF.”

Personally, I consider “reciprocity fees” to be foolishly counterproductive measures that might more accurately be called “retaliation fees.” As a US citizen, I would prefer that my own country make it easier for foreign visitors, and it’s understandable that a discriminatory visa process – Argentines and Chileans must jump through multiple hoops to get one – would upset someone who might have to fly four hours, at great expense, for a ten-minute interview at the US consulate in Buenos Aires or Santiago. Visa reform in the US (as well as Canada and Australia) may be the only hope for ending “reciprocity” as we’re unfortunately getting to know it.

In Argentina’s case, “reciprocity” may have contributed to the fact that foreign tourism fell by more than four percent in 2012. The obligatory bureaucratic obstacle of applying online, rather than even having the option of paying on arrival as in Chile, is another disincentive. Coupled with inflation upwards of 20 percent, the fee has made Argentina a more expensive country to visit, and it may discourage budget travelers – the prosperous professionals of the future - in particular.

In all likelihood, “reciprocity” simply redistributes some tourism income directly to the government – in both Argentina and Chile, that US$160 goes to the treasury instead of hotels, restaurants and other services. Eliminating it unilaterally would require long-term thinking, but that sort of thinking is hard to come by, especially in Argentina.

Undoing Argentina's "Reciprocity" Mess

In late 2009, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s administration imposed a tourism “reciprocity fee” for passport holders from the United States, Canada and Australia, who can no longer simply arrive at the airport (or other border) and automatically expect a stamp in their documents (as shown below).

On the face of it, this was a just measure - those countries require visas for Argentine citizens, who must pay for the privilege of merely applying to the US (US$160), Australia (US$100) and Canada (US$100). That visa process often involves traveling great distances for a consular interview. My own brother-in-law and his wife, who are presently visiting California, also had to make a special trip to Buenos Aires from their home in northern Patagonia – at additional expense in time and money - for a perfunctory interview at the US consulate in Palermo.

In this context, requiring comparable fees for visitors from the US and countries with similar policies was never unfair. One might even argue that the Argentine policy was relatively liberal, since it never required those visitors to seek an advance visa. Still, I would suggest that the reciprocity fee was (and is) a foolish and counter-productive measure that has made Argentina a less than welcoming destination to many potential visitors.

As the new Argentine administration of Mauricio Macri has taken power, it has already eliminated multiple exchange rates and the “currency clamp,” both of which had caused confusion and problems for visitors who, however, still cannot withdraw money from local ATMs except on disadvantageous terms, and must often carry large amounts of US and Argentine cash. That’s an important step forward for the tourism sector, but it should also eliminate the “reciprocity fee” as soon as possible.

There are many good reasons to eliminate it. In the first place, it adds to the cost of visiting a destination that is already expensive to reach because of distance – for a family of four from the US, it means an extra US$640 diverted to the Argentine treasury rather than circulating in the economy at large. In the second instance, paying the fee requires opening an account with an unfamiliar payment system to which potential visitors may not wish to surrender personal information online. Third, the arriving visitor must show an easily lost or misplaced printout of the transaction.

A Chilean-born friend (with US and Canadian passports), who leads tours into Argentina, described the process and its pitfalls for me as: “cumbersome but doable, it was not always clear what the next step was but I got through it. Largely I succeeded because I have done a lot of payments online, but this one had its slight oddities. I am not sure a little old lady from the Midwest who does not get on the computer a lot will be able to adequately manage this.” He also noted that the English-language version was clumsily unprofessional: “The oddities are mainly some of language, where you have to know to ‘add form’ and ‘print ticket’ instead of ‘upload data’ and ‘print receipt’ or something that makes more sense.”

While none of these may be an insuperable obstacle – visitors from all three countries have not disappeared - they cannot compare with the simplicity of arriving at Ezeiza or a land border and simply having your passport stamped. On the positive side, the fee is valid for ten years, but even that’s not totally positive. In my case, since I travel to Argentina every year, the annual amortization amounts to only US$16, but it does require me to carry the expired passport with proof of payment (at the time, I was able to pay on arrival at Ezeiza, which is no longer possible). My dual passports invariably confuse immigration officers, especially at remote border crossings in Patagonia, because their numbers are different.

Those are short term considerations, but I think the Fernández de Kirchner administration also struck out on a key longer-term perspective. One booming sector of the travel and tourism sector is youth travel, as evidenced by the proliferation of hostels that cater to students and other budget travelers. Their absolute monetary contribution to the economy may be smaller than luxury accommodations and gourmet restaurants, but it often goes to needier providers, such as snack bars, and neighborhood restaurants and grocers. Today’s budget backpackers, though, are tomorrow’s prosperous professionals and, if they have a good experience now, they’re likely to return when their financial resources are far greater. Repeat visitors are better than one-timers.

This, in my opinion, is a missed opportunity. Certainly some of those travelers have made their way to Argentina, but we can speculate that others have bypassed Argentina for, say, Chile – which eliminated its reciprocity fee in 2013. To some degree, of course, Argentina’s reciprocity fee – which I often refer to as a “retaliation fee” - owes its origins to the recent administration’s impulsive politics and awkward relations with the United States, to the detriment of visitors and Argentina’s own future.

Along with the reform of multiple exchange rates, unilateral elimination of the “reciprocity fee” would bring in part of the valuable foreign exchange that the country needs to reactivate its economy. It would be a major step toward improving Argentina’s competitiveness and, in this context, it’s worth noting that Brazil will suspend its advance visa requirements during the upcoming 2016 Olympics.

Practical Potpourri: Reciprocity and ATM Fees

At irregular intervals, I write about Southern Cone topics, such as visas and money, that change from time to time and affect the traveler’s experience. In fact, I wrote recently about Argentina’s imposition of a “reciprocity fee” for United States, Australian, and Canadian citizens, but it wasn’t until last week, when I flew from Santiago de Chile to Buenos Aires, that I experienced it personally.

In another post, I’ve detailed my objections to the reciprocity fee, which I won’t repeat in any detail here other than to say that I think it’s a foolish measure. Suffice it to say that, on arrival at Aeropuerto Internacional Ministro Pistarini (popularly known as Ezeiza), the only airport where the fee is collected, Americans, Australians and Canadians pass through a separate line where they pay their fees: US$131, US$100, and US$70 respectively. Payable in cash or by credit card, the fee (as depicted in the receipt above) is valid for ten years for Americans, but only for a single entry for Australians and Canadians (apparently, lobbying by US ambassador Vilma Martínez managed to obtain this concession from the Argentines, but her Australian and Canadian counterparts have neglected their duties in this matter).

The Argentines have done a poor job of explaining the details - no information whatsoever about the fee appears on the immigration department's website - and one of my concerns was that it would only be valid until the expiration of my passport in November. The cashier, however, confirmed that it was valid for ten years no matter what, and suggested that I carry my expired passport along with the new one just in case; although I would be in their database, my new passport will have a different number.

This was a relief to me, of course, since I travel frequently to Argentina, but it does not deal with the real issue. Amortized over a decade, the fee is a minor inconvenience to me; to a one-time visitor, especially with a family, it may be a deterrent to visiting the country. For instance, a family of four visiting Argentina and Chile (which collects a similar fee at its international airport) would incur more than US$1000 in “reciprocity fees,” and might well decide to vacation elsewhere--especially since the airfare to get here is so much higher than, say, Mexico or Costa Rica. Chile, which hopes to jump start its tourism industry after the recent earthquake, would do especially well to rescind its “reciprocity fee.” A contact in the Chilean sector recently wrote me that they hope the new government will be receptive to the idea.

There is at least one exception to the Argentine measure, by the way: my Argentine wife, a naturalized US citizen, was not required to pay when she used her US passport on arrival at Ezeiza in January: "I was told twice upon arrival that if you got US citizenship before 1981 Argentina considered you American, and thus you would pay. Since I got mine in 1985 I am exempt. However, they have to take your word for it, because nowhere in your US passport does it say what year you became nationalized."

On another issue: Argentine ATMs, in both the Banelco and Link systems, have raised their charges on overseas transactions to 15.50 pesos (as indicated in the photo here), the equivalent of US$4; the former charge was US$3. The maximum daily withdrawal per account is 1000 pesos, but in reality it’s a bit less because they add the fee on top of the withdrawal.

One way to minimize these charges is to take the maximum out per day - in the case of Banelco ATMs, it’s possible to take out in multiples of ten pesos, up to 980 pesos which, with the charge, comes to just under the maximum. In the case of Link ATMs, it’s multiples of 50, so the real maximum is 950 pesos. Still, one relatively large transaction is always better than several smaller ones. Banks in Uruguay, where I recently spent ten days while updating my Buenos Aires book, charge US$3 per transaction.

In Chile, meanwhile, the state-run Banco del Estado still does not collect an overseas transaction charge at its ATMs. This is a huge improvement over a few years ago, when only its own plastic worked at its many branches - in smaller Chilean towns, it is often the only bank. During my brief stay in Santiago, I was unable to verify whether the handful of private banks, such as Banco Desarollo and Corpbanca, are still not collecting the fee. Other Chilean banks impose a fee of US$3 or US$4.

Welcome to Argentina? The "Reciprocity" Conundrum

Nearly thirty years ago, when I first visited Argentina during the "Proceso" military dictatorship, an apparently drunken policeman in the Patagonian town of Puerto San Julián insisted in telling me how much he loved Americans. In those days, any such attention from an official figure made you uncomfortable and, as it turned out, the policeman in question was heavily medicated - having literally shot himself in the foot the day before.

Fortunately, Argentina is a stable democracy now, but that doesn’t mean the country doesn’t shoot itself in the foot sometimes. Earlier this week, interior minister Florencio Randazzo announced that the country would institute a “reciprocity fee” - similar to the one collected by neighboring Chile - on foreign tourists whose governments impose visa fees on Argentine citizens. This would mean, for instance, that US citizens entering Argentina would have to pay US$131 per person for the right to enter Argentina, while Canadians would pay even more. Australians and Mexicans will pay correspondingly less.

This is not unfair, of course. Not only do Argentines seeking tourist visas for the US need to pay the said fee, but they also have to provide bank statements and other supporting documentation to prove they have stable employment and resources for their trip, and that they will not overstay their welcome. An applicant from, say, the southern city of Ushuaia will have to fly four hours to Buenos Aires and then back for a perfunctory personal interview at the US consulate. If the visa is not granted, there is no refund. It’s no surprise that Argentines (and other foreigners) resent the expensive, laborious and almost humiliating process, and many of them consider the new measure long overdue.

On the other hand, Argentine tourism operators are up in arms, and rightly so. Their sector has boomed since the 2002 economic collapse made Argentina an affordable destination, but rising international airfares, high domestic inflation, and the deteriorating international economic environment have put their livelihoods - and that of all Argentines directly and indirectly involved in tourism - in peril. Today's Buenos Aires Herald editorializes that the government "now risks discouraging tourism during a global crisis when few enough people feel inclined to travel." The measure, adds the Herald, "is jeopardizing a tourist revenue of potentially billions for the sake of 40 million dollars," the estimated amount of revenue that it would raise.

A US family of four would thus pay more than US$500 additional in “reciprocity fees” for a two-week Argentine holiday, and may well decide to go elsewhere in the current economic crisis. According to Ricardo Roza, president of the Asociación Argentina de Agencias de Viajes y Turismo (Argentine Association of Travel and Tourism Agencies), “In addition to being inconvenient, [the measure] seems dubious and difficult to apply. The world economic crisis is already affecting the arrival of tourists. There’s no reason to impose any more obstacles. In reality, this will limit the country’s foreign exchange earnings.” Another private tourism official added that “This charge is punitive, a very inhospitable measure.”

Originally, it was announced that the measure would take effect on January 1, 2009, but there are rumors it may be postponed until March - which would at least give operators one less worry for the upcoming summer high season. The details are yet unclear as well - who will collect the fees and how? Chile, for instance, collects its reciprocity fee only at Santiago’s international airport, as it’s utterly impractical at some remote border posts, so that overland travelers are de facto exempt. Nor is the Argentine measure’s term of validity clear - in Chile, again, it’s valid for the lifetime of the passport, up to ten years.

Meanwhile, an apparently impulsive government decision threatens to undermine one of the Argentine economy’s most dynamic sectors. It's fair enough to open fire on a threatening enemy, but it's foolish to shoot your ally, and even more foolish to shoot yourself in the foot.

The End of "Reciprocity?" Chile's Pending Visa Waiver

With some frequency in this blog, I have criticized both the Argentine and Chilean governments for their so-called “reciprocity fees,” which are a deterrent to tourism in both countries (the image below is a receipt from Santiago's international airport). It’s clearly worse in Argentina, where the government has decided to collect the fees for US citizens, Canadians and Australians at overland and maritime/fluvial crossings as well as airports. There, it appears to be primarily a government revenue-raising measure, in addition to its political symbolism.

There’s another side to this, of course, and that’s the fact the United States, Australia and Canada impose comparable fees on Argentine and Chilean citizens (To their credit, Uruguay has refrained from retaliating as Argentina and Chile have). Matters are looking up in one regard, though, as Chile’s ambassador to Washington, Felipe Bulnes has announced that the US and his country are close to an agreement that would permit Chilean visitors to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program as early as next year.

Inclusion in the program would save Chilean tourists both money and effort, as they would instead register online through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), avoiding the cost of a visa application (US$160) and a personal interview at the US consulate (not such a big deal if you live in Santiago, but expensive and time-consuming if you live in, say, Punta Arenas, which is three hours away by air).

Letting more Chileans into the United States is a win-win. An increasingly prosperous Chilean middle class will contribute to job creation and maintenance in the US tourism industry and, presumably, Chile will respond by eliminating or reducing the “reciprocity fee.” Since ESTA currently requires an online payment of US$14 per visitor, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the Chileans continue to collect that amount – they currently charge Mexican tourists the same US$30 that Chilean visitors incur for a “tourist card” at the Mexican border.

That would eliminate a major disincentive for US visitors to Chile – whether it was fair or not, adding more than US$600 to the cost of a family vacation for four was never a wise policy. Its elimination will free up additional money for US tourists to spend on good and services, rather than going directly into the Chilean treasury. With the luck, the same will happen in Argentina, but it does not seem imminent.

Moon Handbooks Chile, in Saratoga

In just over two weeks – Monday, June 17, at 7 p.m., to be precise – I will offer a digital slide presentation on travel in Chile at Santa Clara Country’s Saratoga Library (13650 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070, tel. 408-867-6126, ext. 3817). Coverage will also include the Chilean Pacific Islands of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) and Juan Fernández (Robinson Crusoe), as well as southernmost Argentina (Tierra del Fuego and the vicinity of El Calafate) that appear in the book. I will also be available to answer questions about Argentina and Buenos Aires. The presentation is free of charge, but books will be available for purchase.