#Apply for Italy Visa | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 5 months ago

Text

After years of fruitless discussions and aborted plans in the European Union, one country—Italy—has recently begun to process irregular migrants’ asylum claims in a third country for the first time. Or, to be more exact, it tried to do so.

Italy’s right-wing prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, who campaigned on an anti-immigration platform that included a naval blockade to stop immigration from North Africa, agreed with Albania last November to send some asylum-seekers to the Balkan country and process their asylum requests there.

Two recent attempts to ferry visa-less migrants rescued in the Mediterranean to Albania and fast-track their repatriation failed twice after Italian magistrates questioned the legality of Meloni’s landmark initiative. After getting two Albanian facilities ready for the purpose and staffing them with Italian personnel, in mid-October Rome sent there a group of 16 migrants it rescued in international waters while they attempted to cross the Mediterranean to reach Italy’s southern shores.

Under the so-called Italy-Albania protocol, Italy can ferry the migrants to Albania only if it considers their country of origin as safe and they aren’t minors, pregnant women, or other vulnerable people. However, an Italian court ruled that the migrants, who were from Egypt and Bangladesh, had to be transported to Italy within days because they could not be considered as coming from a safe country. An additional legal hurdle emerged for four of them because they either declared themselves as minors or had health problems.

Meloni’s government responded by approving by decree a list of 19 countries deemed safe for return, designating both Egypt and Bangladesh as free of danger. In November, Italian authorities sent a second group of eight Egyptian and Bangladeshi men (one of whom was found to be vulnerable and returned to Italy) to Albania, but the court again rejected the shipment. This time, it also asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to weigh in and clarify whether Italian law, in particular Rome’s recent designation of those 19 countries as safe for quick repatriation, is compatible with EU law, leaving the whole scheme in a legal limbo.

The court’s decisions sparked a loud rout between the Italian judiciary and government. Italian Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi said the decree “provides a standard” for judges to follow, rather than indulging in a “wavering interpretation” of the EU judgment.

Meloni denounced the decision to transport the migrants to Italy from Albania, calling it prejudiced, while Justice Minister Carlo Nordio said it was “abnormal” for judges to establish which countries could be deemed safe. Elon Musk, who is a friend of Meloni, weighed in the spat, writing on X after the second court decision that “[t]hese judges need to go” and doubling down later on by asking: “Do the people of Italy live in a democracy or does an unelected autocracy make the decisions?”

In a highly unusual response to Musk, Italy’s widely respected head of state, Sergio Mattarella, said the country “knows how to take care of itself.”

At the heart of the controversy lies an October ruling by the ECJ, which stated that no country of origin could be declared safe unless its entire territory was considered free of danger. The ruling referred to a Czech case but is applicable across the whole EU, prevailing over national legislation. Italian judges said they are forced to follow EU law and not apply Italian law if it conflicts with the bloc’s legislation. The Italian government appealed to the country’s Supreme Court to nullify the judges’ rejections. Its decision is expected in December.

However, the final word is likely to remain with the ECJ, according to legal experts, which in turn could take months to clarify whether Italy is able to fast-track irregular migrants’ repatriation in Albania.

The spat between the Italian government and the judiciary is casting doubts over the viability of the policy, which had attracted interest and praise from other European countries, as a way to deter illegal immigration to the continent.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen championed the Italian initiative, urging the bloc’s 27 leaders ahead of a summit in October to consider the possibility of creating repatriation hubs outside the EU, drawing “lessons from the Italy-Albania protocol.” At the summit, the leaders then committed to explore “innovative solutions” to fight against illegal immigration.

A debate at the European Parliament in late October showed that moderate, conservative, and right-wing politicians, who are in favor of a major clampdown on illegal immigration, tend to support the plan. In contrast, the socialists said it represents a violation of both EU and international law, the Greens branded the hubs as ‎Guantánamo-style concentration camps, and the liberals said it is an expensive and ineffective model.

This year, the EU passed the long-stalled Migration and Asylum Pact, designed to accelerate the repatriation of failed asylum-seekers and distribute the burden of hosting migrants and refugees among member states. The agreement, which is the latest attempt by the EU to manage and normalize migration flows into the continent, will come into force in June 2026.

Individual EU countries have mulled similar plans to Meloni’s to deter the arrival of irregular migrants in their countries. Germany, which accounts for around a third of asylum applications in the EU, will assess options for processing in third countries in December. The country’s conservatives, who are likely to win next year’s federal elections, have already signaled that they would support such deals.

A different, more radical plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda by former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was ruled unlawful by the country’s Supreme Court last year. Sunak’s successor, Keir Starmer, dismissed the policy of deporting asylum-seekers to the African country as a “gimmick.” However, after meeting with Meloni in September, he hailed Italy’s efforts to tackle illegal immigration, saying the two countries would share intelligence and work more closely together to “smash” the people-smuggling gangs. He added that he was “very interested” in Italy’s agreement with Albania but that he would wait to see the results after it became operational.

Even if legal hurdles were solved, many have criticized the Italy-Albania protocol as very expensive and completely ineffective at deterring migrants’ arrivals.

Matteo Villa, a researcher at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies in Milan, estimated that the cost of processing one migrant application in Albania, if the centers there ran at their full capacity of 10,500 asylum-seekers a year, is nine times the cost borne by the country if it processed them in Italy.

Given that the Italian government said the plan would cost around 130 million euros (about $137 million) a year and that each Albanian center can host at any one time up to 1,200 people, that translates into a cost per migrant of 297 euros (about $312) a day, Villa estimated, compared with the 33 euros Italy currently spends processing the applications on its soil.

At the same time, Villa concluded that taking as a baseline the arrival of 75,000 irregular migrants in the year to October, that the two centers can take only 10,500 a year, and considering the existing repatriation rates of asylum-seekers whose requests are processed in Italy, the probability of being taken to Albania and then repatriated is less than 2 percent.

“What governments should rather do is to work to increase their ability to repatriate the migrants, wherever they process their applications. Putting migrants in small centers abroad could only make it appear that there are less arrivals for a short period of time, but then almost all the migrants would end up in Italy,” Villa told Foreign Policy. “To make external return hubs work, governments would need to strike very strong agreements with third countries to be able to build a high number of these centers. This would enable Europe to show irregular migrants that if they try to enter illegally, they will systematically end up there and then repatriated.”

Villa added that individual countries have little leverage to negotiate with the countries of origin besides offering financial help to these countries in exchange for taking back the migrants. If the EU were to negotiate with these countries as a bloc, then European nations would be able to achieve better results, he added.

In the past decade, the EU was able to curb flows from specific countries of departure through agreements involving aid. Migration has also changed since 2015, when the wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan led to an influx of people fleeing those conflicts. With the notable exception of Ukrainian refugees, many now mostly hail from poor countries in search for a better life, with ruthless organizations of smugglers assuring them that it would be easy to get into Europe.

In 2016, the EU struck a deal with Turkey; the hefty aid package to the country was successful at preventing migrants from crossing into the EU. Migrants shifted to the more dangerous route from Libya to Italy. Another EU deal, giving boats and equipment to the infamous Libyan Coast Guard, helped reduce that flow. More recently, an accord with Tunisia, brokered by Meloni and von der Leyen, curbed departures from the North African country.

These deals attracted widespread criticism by human rights organizations and have been shaky at times but overall helped reduce the flows. Yearly irregular migrants’ arrivals dropped from around 390,000 in 2016 to 100,000 in 2020, according to the International Organization for Migration. Then they began rising again each year, up to 293,000 in 2023. Until November this year, Europe registered 189,000 arrivals.

Meanwhile, the populations of many European countries have kept on aging and shrinking, posing a host of problems, such as the sustainability of public pension systems and the shortage of personnel in the industrial and agricultural sectors. For instance, the research center of Italy’s industrial lobby Confindustria said in October that Italy needs roughly 120,000 foreign workers a year up to 2028 to achieve the economic growth forecasts for the period.

“The problem could be partially addressed by building programs through which the skills and profiles of qualified prospective migrants are screened to see how they can be matched with the needs of European employers,” said Salvatore Petronella, a migration specialist at the Washington-based Labor Mobility Partnerships. “Centers for training and employment can be created outside of the EU but not confused with rejection centers, which would be costly and of little use.”

Some European countries such as Germany have begun to warm up to the idea and are integrating increasing numbers of migrants into their workforce, by investing in sponsorships and training abroad. These programs tend also to help the countries of origins of migrants, as normally part of the salaries these workers earn in Europe is sent back as remittances and the migrants acquire skills that can be used in their home countries at a later stage.

Still, the prevailing European approach seems to be to stop the flows at any cost and to fast-track repatriations. To this end, external return hubs may be seen as a tool, provided that the EU manages to operate them in a host of different third countries. At this stage, however, the Italian experience is far from encouraging.

14 notes · View notes

transmasc-rose · 16 days ago

Text

I don't do modern/mundane AUs much but I DO think it's fun to think about, and to decide what bits you adapt to a less fantastical environment and how.

Pre-canon, Desmond can be almost entirely unchanged. He's a cult survivor who ran away. His cult just wasn't, well, right in a world without the Assassins proper. Without the Animus, the worst thing that might happen to him is his dad trying to take him back "home". The focus shifts and Desmonds story becomes one of the horror of family.

And, especially if you lean on AC1, Lucy adapts fairly well. Isolated and young college student, handpicked by a company that seduces her over to Italy, an ocean away from home. They don't need to ruin her chances at another job, though they could. They just need to get her there.

And once she's away from any hope of family, well... bad experiences with co-workers, a dependence on Vidic, a focus on her job. She doesn't need to be a literal prisoner to be scared of leaving if she's in an unfamiliar country of which she can't speak the language.

Then, say, Vidic becomes a problem.

Why not transfer? Vidic is high enough in the company to block it. Why not quit and find a new job? She's here on a work Visa, and she doesn't have anyone to fall back on back in America.

Maybe it becomes too much. Maybe she eventually leaves. Maybe the company blacklists her in her industry, and now a PhD, years of her life, is useless.

Canon Lucy talks about how she was running out of money, nd almost became a waitress before Abstergo made their offer. So, maybe here, she gets desperate. Tries to find a job wherever she can, "too qualified" for most of what she applies to, until the nice bartender gives her a reference...

This is how you get coffeeshop bartender au.

#rose rambles #knife boys #is it more interesting to throw ezio or altaïr in modern times? maybe #but I like poking at guys who are just a LITTLE bit too weird for the mundane world #and being like. ok. what would have happened if things were like. normal.#what if lucy COULD run away. because even if she had a connection to desmonds cult in some way #theyre just people in a way the Assassins aren't. theyre frightening and dangerous. but they aren't all powerful #i dont think I had a point here I was just like 'wow lucy'#the one time me and curtis talked about this we did have clay pop in too #he makes things a lot more difficult but #y'know. at least theres room to play with 'young man drawn into a cult #falling for conspiratorial thinking #and unable to disentangle himself from the organization until its all thats in his head #now. hwo is he connected to lucy and was he still held by Abstergo? well. thays what makes him more complicated.#bc there isn't a good way to adapt any of that to a more mundane universe #you kind of have to break clay off from his canon much earlier and then wing it. yknow.

5 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 months ago

Text

Kelly Rissman and Ariana Baio at The Independent:

President Donald Trump announced a new path to U.S. citizenship: a pricey gold card. The U.S. is going to “sell” gold cards for $5 million, Trump announced in the Oval Office Tuesday. “We're going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that's going to give you [permanent resident] Green Card privileges, plus it's going to be a route to citizenship,” the president said. He branded it as “somewhat like a Green Card but at a higher level of sophistication.” “Wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card,” he continued. “They'll be wealthy and they'll be successful and they'll be spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people. And we think it's going to be extremely successful and never been done before.”

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick clarified the Trump administration plans to terminate a somewhat similar EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program and “replace it with the Trump gold card.” The EB-5 program allows investors to apply for permanent residence in the U.S. if they “make the necessary investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States” and plan to create or preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs. Lutnick said the EB-5 program was “full of nonsense, make-believe and fraud” claiming it was poorly managed. “It was a way to get a green card that was low priced, Lutnick said. Once vetted, gold card holders “can invest in America and we can use that money to reduce our deficit,” he added. While the gold card visas are a slight shift from the EB-5 program, they are not an unprecedented idea. Other countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Greece, Malta, Australia, Canada and Italy have had similar programs.

[...] When asked if there would be restrictions on people from certain countries such as Iran or China the president said they likely would not restrict countries but would evaluate individual people. Trump was then asked if Russian oligarchs could qualify to which he responded, “Possibly. I know some Russian oligarchs who are very nice people.” The Kushner family was sharply criticized eight years ago after the sister of Jared Kushner, then senior White House adviser to his father-in-laws Donald Trump, traveled to Beijing to tempt wealthy Chinese with an EB-5 Green Card with an investment in one of the Kushner family’s real estate projects — an offer that a former White House ethics lawyer under George. W. Bush called “corruption, pure and simple.” The new citizenship pathway comes as the Trump administration cracks down on immigration into the U.S.

Another asinine idea by Traitor Tot.

See Also:

Daily Kos: Got $5M? Trump’s got a path to citizenship for you

Scripps News: Trump proposes a $5M 'gold card' visa system as path to US citizenship

#US Visas #Visas #Howard Lutnick #Donald Trump #EB5 Visas #Green Cards #Gold Cards #US Citizenship

9 notes · View notes

mchiti · 10 months ago

Text

it's even hilarious to me that he said that about Germany and he feels """"safer"""" in Spain when Spain is also full of racists complaining about migrants. do you know how much hate there's there towards maghrebis for instance? As I'm maghrebi I'm mentioning their case because I have relatives there but of course this applies to everyone, Spain for instance has the second biggest moroccan diaspora in europe after France. The hate is INSANE, it's even worse than here in italy. If he has a problem with migrants in Germany I don't see why his ugly racist agenda can't apply to Spain too. but there's an answer to that: he's a white german nationalist dude who only cares about the whiteness and the ""white identity"" of his country and doesn't give a single shit about the rest of the world, other cultures and other people. It's always about "my country, my culture, my people, my State, my rules, I, I, I, I" the shit racist mentality of the average shit racist european. you're migrating to Spain permanently to live the life of the rich millionaire expat while millions of people are denied visas and are basically hold hostages like fuck you big times lmao

14 notes · View notes

bohemianboynton · 7 months ago

Text

(originally from my other blog, maneskingroupie)

Your Biggest Fan (Thomas Raggi x f!reader)

A/N: I wrote this over the course of two days lol

Warnings: none except the mention of the ESC 2021 drug scandal

Word count: 956

It all started in 2015. You were a teenage exchange student living in Rome, and you had a few classmates who were in a band. They were just beginning their careers, but you could tell that they were going to be better as time passed.

Somehow, though, you managed to befriend them: Victoria, the bassist; Damiano, the lead singer; Thomas, the guitarist; and Ethan, the drummer. Together, they were known as Måneskin, a nod to Victoria’s half Danish heritage. You were among their first fans, and you were around their age. Even when it was time to return home, you kept in touch with them on social media through Instagram and WhatsApp. You learned Roman phrases with them over text while at the airport in your home country and you still supported them, albeit from a distance.

You found them all to be rather cute, but Thomas in particular caught your eye. With his awkward teenage boy appearance, his braces and the long blonde hair covering his face, your teenage brain found him irresistible. Almost every day, when there was time between both of your schoolwork and when the time difference would allow it, you would talk with Thomas through texting. Reading his texts made you giggle and blush, like every teenage girl getting a reply from their crush. Except that he was now becoming an Italian celebrity, thanks to the band’s appearance on the Italian version of X Factor.

A few years passed, you and your international musician friends all graduated school, and now you were all grown up and ready to head out into the world. Flash forward to 2020, you’re trying to apply for an Italian visa so you could finally get together with your friends after talking about it for what seemed like ages now. Then covid hit, and it hit Italy hard. So, your plans were halted. But you kept up with them through texts and social media, like you had before. No big deal.

However, something changed drastically in your world as things were getting back to normal. Thomas had posted a photo of himself with a woman, who you figured out was his girlfriend. This wasn’t really a shock, considering the other band members had relationships of their own as well. But seeing him with someone after talking to him all these years stung a little. But you moved on after seeing him so happy with her.

By the time your visa was approved, it was time for Festival di Sanremo in Italy, and your beloved band and friends were competing in the televised festival. The night before the final day of Sanremo, you met up with your friends and caught up in person at a small restaurant. Chatting and light drinking ensued, and you kept staring at Thomas to the point where he kept asking you what was wrong. Each time that he caught you looking, you turned away and mumbled that you were just staring off into space and not looking at him. But the truth was that you had fallen head over heels with him once again after seeing his face in person. He was definitely no longer the awkward boy you had a little crush on all those years ago, and he had grown into a rather attractive young man.

The next day, you were glued to the tv set in your hotel room, at the edge of your seat. The winners were being announced, and you waited with baited breath while watching your friends embrace each other and be embraced by their former X Factor judge, a rapper known as Fedez.

Måneskin won. They won Sanremo. They would go on to Eurovision now.

You were ecstatic for your contest winning friends, and now you could watch them compete in the biggest international musical competition in the world. It seemed so crazy that these guys were once the kids you saw in school talent shows, performing mostly cover songs. Now they had a new album out, a rage filled hard rock album that you loved the absolute hell out of. And now they had won Sanremo.

The 2021 Eurovision Song Contest came closer and closer, and with each day, you could feel the excitement between them, you, and what seemed like every person on Earth, especially after they won the contest. The excitement didn’t stop at the victory and the growing international fanbase however, a drug scandal emerged. Damiano had to pick up a broken glass that Thomas had dropped and it appeared to look as if he was snorting cocaine.

The controversy died down after Damiano’s drug test came back negative of course. You knew that a drug test would come back negative anyway, nobody in the band did any drugs. With the exception of cigarettes and alcohol, if you consider those to be drugs.

Flash forward once again to the present day, less than a few months after Eurovision. Your visa is about to expire, so you plan on bidding your friends farewell again tomorrow. Suddenly, your phone goes off. It’s Thomas blowing up your messages. He’s asking about learning English, interviews, and telling you about the planned tour. You answer his texts with short replies. You tell him that it’s because you're busy packing your belongings in a suitcase, but in reality, it's not just that. Paparazzi photos of him and his girlfriend out and about on a date were published the previous day, and when you saw them, that stinging bitter feeling of jealousy came back. You knew that Thomas didn’t know about your feelings and therefore wasn’t trying to hurt you. Nor was the woman he was dating.

You slid your phone into your pocket and left the hotel room.

#maneskin #måneskin #thomas raggi #thomas raggi x reader

7 notes · View notes

waryveinchaos · 10 days ago

Text

#italy #aph italy #hws italy #made in italy #italia #spain #sicily #rome #france #northern italy #animation #anime and manga #animals #aesthetic #911 abc #80s #70s #1950s #60s #alternative

2 notes · View notes

thaivisanews · 2 months ago

Text

Thailand Visa Exemptions

Thailand, known for its stunning beaches, rich cultural heritage, and vibrant cities, is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Southeast Asia. To make travel more accessible, the Thai government offers visa exemptions to citizens of many countries, allowing them to enter the country without a visa for a limited period. This article provides an overview of Thailand’s visa exemption policy, including eligibility, duration of stay, and important considerations for travelers.

What is a Visa Exemption?

A visa exemption allows citizens of certain countries to enter Thailand without obtaining a visa beforehand. Instead of applying for a visa at a Thai embassy or consulate, eligible travelers can present their passport at the port of entry and receive a stamp permitting them to stay in the country for a specified period. This streamlined process makes it easier for tourists and business travelers to visit Thailand for short stays.

Countries Eligible for Visa Exemption

As of October 2023, Thailand offers visa exemptions to citizens of over 60 countries, including:

Americas: United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico.

Europe: United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and most European Union member states.

Asia-Pacific: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong.

Middle East: Israel, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

The list of eligible countries is subject to change, so travelers should always check the latest information from the Royal Thai Embassy or consulate in their home country before planning their trip.

Duration of Stay

Under the visa exemption scheme, most eligible travelers are permitted to stay in Thailand for up to 30 days per entry. However, citizens of certain countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Korea, and Peru, are allowed to stay for up to 90 days per entry.

It’s important to note that the visa exemption is intended for tourism or short business trips. Travelers planning to stay longer or engage in other activities, such as work or study, must apply for the appropriate visa.

Entry Requirements

While a visa is not required for eligible travelers, there are still entry requirements that must be met:

Passport Validity: Your passport must be valid for at least six months from the date of entry into Thailand.

Proof of Onward Travel: Immigration officers may ask for proof of a return ticket or an onward ticket to another destination within the permitted stay period.

Proof of Sufficient Funds: Travelers may be required to show evidence of adequate financial means to support their stay, typically 10,000 THB (approximately $300) per person or 20,000 THB per family.

Accommodation Details: While not always requested, it’s a good idea to have details of your accommodation in Thailand, such as a hotel booking confirmation.

Extending Your Stay

If you wish to stay in Thailand beyond the visa exemption period, you can apply for a 30-day extension at a local immigration office. The extension process requires completing an application form, providing a passport-sized photo, and paying a fee of 1,900 THB (approximately $55). Extensions are granted at the discretion of immigration authorities, so it’s advisable to apply well before your initial stay period expires.

Visa Exemption vs. Visa on Arrival

It’s important to distinguish between visa exemptions and visas on arrival. While both allow travelers to enter Thailand without obtaining a visa in advance, they apply to different groups of travelers:

Visa Exemption: Available to citizens of eligible countries, as listed above.

Visa on Arrival: Available to citizens of certain countries (e.g., India, China, Saudi Arabia) who are not eligible for visa exemptions. This allows a stay of up to 15 days and requires a fee of 2,000 THB (approximately $60).

Important Considerations

Overstaying: Overstaying your permitted period can result in fines, detention, or even a ban from re-entering Thailand. Always ensure you comply with the rules.

Frequent Travel: Travelers who frequently enter Thailand under the visa exemption scheme may be subject to additional scrutiny by immigration officers. If you plan to visit Thailand multiple times within a short period, consider applying for a proper visa to avoid complications.

Border Runs: In the past, some travelers extended their stay by leaving Thailand and re-entering to receive a new visa exemption stamp. However, immigration authorities have tightened regulations, and this practice is no longer recommended.

Conclusion

Thailand’s visa exemption policy is a convenient option for travelers from eligible countries, making it easier to explore the country’s breathtaking landscapes, vibrant cities, and cultural treasures. By understanding the rules and requirements, you can ensure a smooth and hassle-free entry into the Land of Smiles. Always check the latest updates from official sources before your trip, and enjoy your stay in one of the world’s most captivating destinations!

#thailand #thai #visa #thaivisa #visainthailand #thailandvisa #immigration #thailandvisaexemptions #immigrationinthailand #thaiimmigration

2 notes · View notes

ukitalyvisa · 2 years ago

Text

Beyond Borders: Italian Appointment Visa Unveiled

Italy, a land renowned for its rich history, captivating art, and culinary delights, beckons travelers from around the globe. However, before you can immerse yourself in the beauty of the Colosseum or savor the flavors of authentic pasta, there's a crucial step that awaits: obtaining the Italian Appointment Visa. This intricate process is the key to unlocking the treasures that lie beyond borders.

Understanding the Italian Appointment Visa

The Italian Appointment Visa is your gateway to exploring the stunning landscapes, vibrant cities, and cultural gems that Italy has to offer. Whether you're a tourist, a student pursuing education in Italy, or an entrepreneur exploring business prospects, this visa is a pivotal requirement. It paves the way for your entry into the country and dictates the purpose of your stay.

Navigating the Complexities

Obtaining an Italian Appointment Visa involves navigating through a labyrinth of bureaucratic procedures and meticulous documentation. The journey begins with understanding the specific visa category that aligns with your purpose of travel. From Schengen visas for short stays to national visas for longer periods, each category comes with its own set of requirements and conditions.

Once you've determined the appropriate category, the next step is securing an appointment at the Italian consulate. This appointment is the linchpin of the process, as it's the platform through which you present your case and submit your application. The consulate scrutinizes every detail, from the completeness of your documents to the authenticity of your intentions.

The Document Dance

Documents play a pivotal role in your visa application. They are the storytellers that convey your purpose, credibility, and financial stability. Essential documents include a valid passport, completed application forms, travel itinerary, proof of accommodation, financial statements, and, if applicable, letters of enrollment from Italian educational institutions or business invitations.

Tailoring Your Application

Each visa category has specific prerequisites that must be fulfilled. If you're seeking a tourist visa, your application should demonstrate your travel plans, intended destinations, and financial means to cover your stay. For students, enrollment letters and evidence of financial support are crucial. Entrepreneurs must provide business plans, partnership agreements, and any other relevant documents.

The Power of Patience

The Italian Appointment Visa process demands patience. The waiting period between submitting your application and receiving a response can be nerve-wracking. While some visas may be processed within a matter of weeks, others might take longer due to the intricacies involved. It's essential to plan your application well in advance to ensure your travel plans align with the visa processing timeline.

Beyond Approval: Making the Most of Your Visa

Once you receive the coveted approval for your Italian Appointment Visa, a world of exploration awaits. Italy's diverse regions offer an array of experiences - from the sun-soaked beaches of the Amalfi Coast to the artistic wonders of Florence. Indulge in authentic Italian cuisine, witness centuries-old art, and immerse yourself in the warm hospitality of the locals.

Embracing the Culture

Beyond the tangible attractions, the Italian culture welcomes you with open arms. The bustling markets, lively festivals, and leisurely passeggiata (evening strolls) are all integral aspects of Italian life. Engage with the locals, learn a few phrases in Italian, and embrace the la dolce vita (the sweet life) philosophy that defines the Italian way of living.

The Unforgettable Experience

Securing an Italian Appointment Visa is not just a bureaucratic process; it's a gateway to a transformative experience. As you traverse the cobbled streets, gaze at the masterpieces of Renaissance art, and savor gelato while overlooking the picturesque landscapes, you'll realize that the journey to obtain the visa was merely the prelude to an unforgettable adventure.

Conclusion

The Italian Appointment Visa is more than just a travel document; it's the key to unraveling the enchanting tapestry of Italy. Navigating the intricacies of the application process, presenting your case with authenticity, and patiently awaiting approval are steps that lead to the ultimate reward: an immersive and enriching experience in one of the world's most captivating countries. So, embark on this journey, embrace the process, and prepare to witness the magic that lies beyond borders.

#italy visa uk #united kingdom #viral #travel #travel to italy #apply for italy visa #italy visit visa

0 notes

humairaafrin · 3 months ago

Text

Want to get free tourist visa to Italy from any country. Italian government has given this free Italy tourist visa to all countries to improve the tourist industry Apply to get this free visa. Apply For A Visa - https://t.ly/WLFQl

#visa

2 notes · View notes

stackslip · 11 months ago

Text

The European Union is set to generate millions of euros more from the high rejection rates of visa applications by African visitors with a new increase in non-refundable fees.

Citizens of the 26 member states within Europe’s Schengen area have unhindered borderless access within the area, while most travelers from elsewhere require visas. A 12.5% price hike that takes effect on June 11 increases the cost of a short-term (90 days) visa application to €90.

But while the price hike applies equally to all non-EU residents who require a Schengen visa, it raises the prospect of the bloc making disproportionately more money from its rejection rates for applicants from Africa, analysts say.

Of the €130 million the EU earned in 2023 from rejected visa applications, about 42% of that was from applicants living in Africa, even though the continent accounts for 24% of Schengen visa applications, according to London-based research firm LAGO Collective. Prospective visitors who apply from Ghana, Senegal and Nigeria receive rejection rates of between 40% and 50%, LAGO estimated, based on data from the European Commission’s migration and home affairs office.

“We found a relationship between the GDP of countries and rejection rates for short-term visas,” Marta Foresti, LAGO’s founder, told Semafor Africa. A similar rejection trend in 2024 with the new price would deepen long-standing inequality of outcomes between consumers paying for the same service from high and low-income countries, Foresti said.

While these encourage dangerous attempts to reach Europe across seas and deserts, most African migration is via “regular channels,” the Africa Center for Strategic Studies in Washington DC notes.

Yet Africans applying to visit Europe for short-term stays, such as business engagements or conferences, continue to face a stumbling block.

Average rejection rates for African applicants are generally 10 percentage points higher than the global average, Mehari Taddele Maru, a researcher at the EU-owned European University Institute in Italy, found. Seven of the top ten countries with the highest rejection rates for Schengen visa applications in 2022 were in Africa.

The EU’s more expensive visa and its potentially disproportionate impact on Africans comes as the bloc takes a tougher stance on migration.

New rules approved by the EU Commission in April impose a higher standard for screening non-EU nationals at borders, including the collection of biometric data, and health and security checks. Border fences set up by member states within the Schengen area have become longer in the last decade, stretching from 315 km to 2,048 km as of 2022.

Higher visa prices could be another type of fence, which when combined with high rejection rates, will continue to enrich European consulates at the expense of residents of low income countries who nevertheless have legitimate reasons to be in Europe.

Africa’s high rejection rate is sometimes explained as a consequence of visitors overstaying their visas. But “there is no evidence to suggest that a higher rejection rate leads to a decrease in irregular migration or visa overstays,” Maru argues. In essence, an unexplained bias against Africans is at play.

The costs of rejection to African entrepreneurs, career professionals, artists and other seekers of the EU’s short-term visa calls for a reform of the approval process, Foresti told me. Consulates with high unequal outcomes should review their decision-making to ensure “systematic discrimination” against some countries isn’t an underlying cause.

And should some EU members enforce high rejection for short-term visas to dissuade overstays by residents of particular African countries, more paths to legal migration should be considered, she argued.

#abolish borders #eu #imperialism #pol

6 notes · View notes

thailandimmigration · 8 months ago

Text

Thailand Visa Exemptions

Thailand, a popular tourist destination in Southeast Asia, offers visa-free entry for citizens of many countries. This makes it easier for travelers to plan their trips and enjoy the country's stunning beaches, vibrant culture, and delicious cuisine.

Countries Eligible for Visa-Free Entry

The list of countries eligible for visa-free entry to Thailand changes periodically. However, as of 2023, many nationalities can visit for a certain period without a visa. Some of the countries that typically qualify include:

Asia: Most Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

Europe: Most European countries, such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

North America: The United States and Canada.

Oceania: Australia and New Zealand.

Please note that visa requirements can change. It's always recommended to check with the Thai Embassy or Consulate in your country for the most up-to-date information.

Duration of Stay

The duration of visa-free stay varies depending on the nationality. Most travelers can stay in Thailand for 30 days without a visa. However, some nationalities may be eligible for longer stays.

Important Considerations

Passport Validity: Your passport must be valid for at least six months from the date of your arrival in Thailand.

Purpose of Visit: Your visit should be for tourism, business, or a short-term stay.

Departure Ticket: You may be required to present a return or onward ticket.

Visa Extensions

If you wish to stay in Thailand for longer than the visa-free period, you can apply for a visa extension within the country. The process typically involves submitting your passport and required documents to the Immigration Office.

#thailand #immigration #immigration in thailand #immigration lawyers in thailand #thailand immigration

2 notes · View notes

neutralgray · 1 year ago

Text

A Synthesized History: An Amateur Comparison of the Perspectives between the "Patriot's," the "People's," & The "True" History of the United States - Part 14

Full Essay Guide link: XX

(Patriot - Chapter 17 | People - Chapter 16 | True - Chapter 25-26)

World War II and Shifting World Powers

As explored in the last section of this essay series, the 1930's were a difficult time for the United States and much of the western world. While the United States coasted through the decade using reactionary short-term economic measures led by president Roosevelt, some European countries responded to the global economic crisis in considerably different ways.

In Germany, a string of antisemitic policies were enacted by their newly appointed chancellor, Adolf Hitler. Much of this antisemitic attitude placed blame of the economic suffering at that time on the shoulders of the Jewish people. The United States was aware of this concerning development but wished to remain neutral on European affairs. Thus, the United States government made no declaration on the xenophobic affairs of Germany. In fact, American companies with trade and/or production ties in Germany continued business as usual. The same applied to fascist Italy, run by Prime Minister Benito Mussolini. When Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the United States remained "neutral" but American companies still actively sold Italy the necessary oil to fuel their war efforts. Essentially, the United States policy of nonintervention benefited the growing fascist regimes.

As tensions increased across Europe over the 1930's, many speculated the potential for another major conflict. Some citizens of the United States participated in peace marches while others participated in strikes on college campuses. Many other citizens were wary of another potential intervention into European affairs, believing the first world war was a costly and pointless endeavor. Roosevelt declared the "Neutrality Acts" in response to this speculative conflict. The Neutrality Acts would allow the United States to refrain from direct intervention but would impose an arms embargo on any belligerents, should a war occur.

The situation in Europe would only grow worse. In 1938, Hitler's German forces invade Austria. Over 3000 Jewish denizens were applying for immigration visas a day to flee the invasion, but due to the United States' recent immigration restrictions, the United States could only apply up to 850 of these immigrants a month.

Despite invading and annexing both Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was not until the invasion of Poland in September, 1939, that Britain and France would declare war on Germany. At this point, Roosevelt began to repeal aspects of the Neutrality Acts. His interactions with other world leaders showed sympathy for their cause and soon enough he and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, would form a political friendship.

With the European conflict growing in magnitude, FDR decided that the potential for national emergency coupled with the ongoing difficulties of the domestic economic depression required further executive leadership. He ran for a 3rd term, something no president before had done. At this point the public was aware of a shifting tide that suggested an eventual intervention in the European conflict was inevitable.

In November, 1940, President Roosevelt won his 3rd term and almost immediately launched aid to Great Britain via executive order. Fifty WWI bombers were declared "obsolete" and sent across the Atlantic to Britain. The United States then began a "lend-lease" policy, which allowed supply aid to be granted under a "borrowed" contract. Critics would often poke at this policy, asking how one could "return used bullets." Regardless, it allowed the United States to intervene and indebted multiple countries to the United States.

After several years of of watching the situation across the ocean, the public acclimated to the idea that American intervention was almost certain. Publications across the country promoted a sympathetic European brother, needing the help of the United States as they fought fascism. At that point there was very little coordinated opposition to the war outside the Socialist Workers' Party. Even the American Communist Party, which had opposed the war in 1939, changed their stance as the conflict continued to look more bleak. Of course, any potential organized opposition was fiercely challenged. The FBI and HUAC monitored for potentially "disruptive" groups. There was also the Smith Act of 1940, which took aspects of the Espionage Act and applied it to peacetime, giving the United States more control to silence dissent.

President Roosevelt and the American government continued to aid the war without being "in" the war. Troops were stationed on both Iceland and Greenland to prevent Nazi's from having easy access to either. The defense perimeter was also extended, and the Navy had orders to track German submarines and report their position to British contacts. Eventually the order was changed to just shooting them on sight. The Germans returned the hostilities and engaged in several attacks on U.S. boats and ships, such as the sinking of freighter SS Robin Moor. These attacks made for effective propaganda tools and led to a more outraged and war-hungry public.

Roosevelt and Churchill's political alliance continued. They devised a document known as the Atlantic Charter which detailed a post-war world after an assumed Allied victory. It was celebrated for declaring the rights of nations to self-determination, restoration of self-government, and more open trading. These and more were outlined by the two optimistic world leaders, one of whom was not even in the war yet.

The United States had initially continued trade with Japan despite their invasive and aggressive war with China, providing them with up to 80% of their oil. The United States eventually imposed sanctions on gasoline, iron, oil, and other commodities. This was potentially in hopes of staunching the Japanese and their aggressive strategy, but instead it merely made them desperate. Japan wanted to force the United States to renegotiate over these sanctions but likely did not intend or want a total war with the United States. Their strategies were desperate and short-sighted, however. On December 7th, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy," the Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbor naval base near Honolulu, Hawaii. Four days later Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.

If the United States had hoped to only engage with Japan, then the declarations of war from the other Axis powers made this impossible. Even with three enemies to fight, though, the United States had large advantages. One, it had the advantage of distance. Being so far removed from most of the fighting, the U.S. could afford to be strategic in how it entered the fight. Two, the U.S. also had nearly double the income of Germany, Italy, and Japan, despite the economic suffering of the Great Depression.

The United States had been preparing for this possibility. Rapidly the country amassed the largest army in its history-- smaller than Germany's and less than half of Russia's, but still the biggest army the United States had ever raised. Never before had a greater proportion of the population participated in a war. Eighteen million served in the armed forces, with 10 million serving overseas, and 25 million citizens giving to the war effort through war bonds. Civilians also helped the war effort by increasing farm production, growing backyard "victory gardens" to help with potential food supply shortages, and by organizing scrap and paper drives.

Multiple organizations were established that helped the U.S. shift completely towards the war effort. The War Production Board and later the Office of War Mobilization helped shift large industries to the war effort by focusing on production of war equipment such as tanks and carriers. The Office of War Information was a propaganda agency that helped continue and enforce public support of the war. The Office of Strategic Services, a pre-runner to the CIA, gathered enemy intelligence.

The Allied Powers comprised of many nations, but the three largest were the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. This was an alliance largely made out of necessity. The United States wanted to expand their economic growth across the Pacific and retaliate for previous attacks. The United Kingdom wanted to maintain the European power structure and its hierarchy. Russia desperately needed aid, as they were taking on the brunt of the German army and were almost constantly engaged with infantry fighting.

Even during the beginnings of this 3-way alliance, signs of the later Cold War were there. The US and UK worked with the Soviet Union but did not trust Stalin and his communist regime. Stalin, likewise, likely held resentment and mistrust due to his ally's continued delay/deferral of establishing a second war front. Russians were being slaughtered by the millions but instead of truly helping their ally, the US and UK deemed fighting and maintaining their influence in Northern Africa was more immediately important. Russia was put in a difficult position, with Stalin reaching out to negotiate with Hitler in December of 1942 and in the summer of 1943, indicating Stalin was not certain of victory against the belligerent Nazis. The 2nd front in the European war finally happened in May of 1944.

The U.S. and U.K. engaged in "strategic" bombings of civilian cities in both Germany and Japan. This was to cause national suffering and weaken the morale and will of the enemy nations. In the European theater, this weakened the German offense against the Soviets, as many of their aircrafts were pulled away from the front to defend the homeland and counter-attack the bombing parties.

June 6th, 1944, is one of the most striking dates in the history of the war-- "D Day." It was the convergence of many military forces from allied countries storming the beaches of Normandy, France, which would ultimately lead to the liberation of France. At this point in the war, Italy's forces had all but collapsed and Germany was now surrounded by enemies. The Soviet Union began to reclaim territory and occupied much of the Germans' invaded lands, including Poland. Germany tried to push an offensive to reclaim territory and fracture the Allies during the Battle of the Bulge. Germans tore a 45 mile wide gap in Allied forces, but when the freezing weather conditions cleared, the Germans were surrounded by overwhelming forces. Soviets occupied Berlin, Mussolini had been killed by Italians forces that opposed the war, and Hitler had killed himself. On May 7th, 1945, Germany declared unconditional surrender. Less than a year after D Day, on May 8th, 1945, ("VE Day") the European theater was won.

The United States was not done, of course. The war in the Pacific was still going strong. Troops adopted an "island hopping" strategy to attempt to gain ground on the Japanese combatants, but progress was slow. Initially, the Japanese dominated the Pacific conflict. This would not last. Key strategic victories on Midway Island and the Guadalcanal airfield, coupled with the cracking of the Japanese naval code helped considerably shift the war's favor to the United States.

The United States had the long-term advantage of a thriving wartime economy whereas the Japanese situation grew increasingly more desperate. Despite the ability to out-produce Japan and the shifting tide of the conflict, the Japanese remained a difficult enemy to fight. This was in part because of the jungle terrain often being fought in, but also because of significant cultural differences that affected the Japanese soldier's views of war and surrender. Honor was a highly regarded cultural value, comparable to the way the U.S. people viewed "freedom," and to surrender or fail to fight was a great mark of shame. Thus, many Japanese combatants refused to stop fighting, potentially believing their lives were worth losing for their country's cause.

The Japanese/American conflict sparked vitriolic racist motivations culturally. When the war in Europe was sold to the American people, it was presented a fight against the rise of fascism. The pacific war was presented as a fight directly against the Japanese. Propaganda depicted the Japanese with grossly stereotyped and exaggerated features. This was also demonstrated the other way around-- American POWs in the European conflict had 90%+ survival rates, versus the 1/3rd of them that died under Japanese capture. This hatred fueled anger and the anger fueled fighting. Racial tensions became so pronounced after the Pearl Harbor attack that the American government was fearful of its own Japanese citizens. Executive Order 9906, signed on February 19th, 1942, ordered the constraint of Japanese-American citizens and immigrants into concentration camps across multiple states. These camps would be active for more than 3 years.

By 1945, the Japanese were confined to their lands, held little supply stability, and had virtually no navy left. Japanese leaders began to probe the possibility of peace through Russian contacts, but Japanese militarists continued fighting. The U.S. would take accept nothing less than "unconditional surrender," which put Japan in a difficult and desperate position. It was unclear how long the Japanese could last but even if their fighting spirit lasted to the last man, it was clear they had no advantage left to them.

The Soviet Union was not far along from entering the Pacific conflict due to an agreement with the United States: Russia would enter the pacific conflict 90 days after victory in Europe was declared. If the United States could force a surrender before Russian forces offered support, it would prevent the Soviets a chance to sink their own self-interests in the potential outcome of the fighting. To force this surrender, the United States unveiled the fruits of a years long weapons project.

Dubbed the "Manhattan Project," this weapons project aimed at building powerful bombs using nuclear energy. The United States was not the only country working on achieving the "atomic bomb," but they were the first to succeed. The project had been in development since 1941 and on August 6th, 1945, the United States used it on the city of Hiroshima. Over 140,000 people were killed by a single bomb. Three days later they dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki, killing over 70,000 people. The death toll would grow even worse as the fallout settled and poisoned many survivors of the initial blasts. With these two bombs, the United States shifted the world's view on what carnage was even possible in war. Emperor Hirohito declared the surrender of the Japanese empire shortly after, on August 15th, and the surrender was formally signed on September 2nd, 1945, ending the global conflict.

President Truman (successor to Roosevelt who died of a brain hemorrhage a month before VE Day) never once showed any regret for using the bombs. In fact, Truman's comments on the bombs indicated that he had always intended on using any and all of the weapons at his disposal to win the war. Some historians argue that bleak projections on the potential casualties if a mainland invasion was attempted over the atom bombs, demonstrated that far more would have died. The United States lost many of its troops to the Pacific front and many feared worse loss. Despite this claim, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey would later conclude that the bombing was unlikely a "necessary" strategy.

World War II fundamentally changed the power structure of the western world, shifting much of the power to the isolationist United States. This shift made sense when considering the variables. The United States already had a considerable ability to generate economic production, and the shift to a wartime economy pushed production even further. Countries were granted aid by the United States but usually owed that capital in return. Europe's primary powers were ravaged and needed time to heal after once again losing millions to a global war. The Soviet Union was also set to become a major superpower but was at a disadvantage compared to the U.S. due to their massive war casualties and a comparative lack of initial economic power.

The United States, under Truman's leadership, moved away from its isolationist tendencies and began to more actively intervene in the world. These interventions were framed as being against the "rule of force," justifying these interventions as a necessary good. This new intervention strategy was quickly seen during the Korean War, in which the United States intervened by supporting South Korea while China and the Soviet Union supported North Korea. Proxy wars like this would become more common going forward.

Anti-communist tendencies began to really take hold in daily American life. These anti-communists sentiments were not uncommon before, but with the threat of fascism gone and the United States now poised as a world leader, communism was the next "bogeyman" for a patriotic and fearful population. This fear and hatred towards communism also created a web of community and national identity. This fear served an even greater purpose, though.

With the threat of a potential new enemy, the United States ensured that it could maintain its wartime economy whether it was fighting or not. The military would also continue to grow, enforcing the United States' powerful empire. In 1950 the United States had a total yearly budget of $40 billion dollars with $12 billion dedicated to the military. By 1955 the military budget alone was $40 billion from a total budget of $62 billion.

Other events that followed the war included the alliance of the United States and Saudi Arabia due to oil, the founding of the United Nations with the United States as one of its head leaders, and the issuance of executive order 9835, which enforced searching for "disloyal" persons.

The United States was now, for better or worse, leader of the "free world" after all other powers had fallen behind.

Final Thoughts:

This essay marks a turning point in the history of the United States that I believe will continue to be noticeable in future entries. This is where the United States truly takes its place as an "Empire of Liberty" in the greater world.

I believe that this section is also important in understanding the myth of American exceptionalism. With the United States intervening in the war but skirting by the worst consequences of the war, the United States became, in a way, "superior." It is not surprising then, that the population at large saw itself as a perfect country. The wartime economy also saved the country from the Great Depression and allowed for an economic bliss in the 1950's that no decade after has had in quite the same way.

I will be interested to see how this new position in the world affects the United States going forward and how those influences likely echo in our modern world.

#A Synthesized History #A True History #A People's History #A Patriot's History #Larry Schweikart #Michael Allen #Howard Zinn #Daniel A Sjursen #American History #History

2 notes · View notes