Arnie Weissmann
After 9/11, U.S. immigration officers were in a difficult position. Each was responsible for keeping terrorists off U.S. soil, and many adopted a posture toward inbound visitors that was overtly suspicious and skeptical -- well short of welcoming.
For years afterward, examples of negative experiences at the U.S. border spread abroad. In 2006 -- five years after 9/11 -- a group of travel industry leaders, concerned that inbound visitation was being hurt by these off-putting first impressions, formed the Discover America Partnership.
A poll they fielded confirmed their suspicions: Potential visitors feared U.S. border officials more than terrorism or crime.
I've had two experiences recently that shed light on how some visitors, and prospective visitors, are looking at the U.S. right now. I was walking in a suburb of Chicago and, with no traffic in sight, joined a group of people crossing a street despite a flashing "don't walk" signal. But a young South Asian couple remained on the curb. When someone told them it was okay to cross, the young woman replied, "We'd better not. We don't have a U.S. passport."
At least they came to America. Perhaps more concerning, last month I was having dinner in Costa Rica and was seated next to a tourist van driver. He was telling me that he had saved up enough money to go to the States but was holding off because he worried that his Hispanic appearance and accent could get him caught up in an ICE raid.
Add to that the high-profile cases of visitors being detained at the border following an executive order to vet arrivals to "the maximum degree possible," and you have to wonder: Is inbound tourism being regarded simply as collateral damage in efforts to control our borders?
Actually, a case could be made that tourism is being targeted. In addition to maximum vetting, this month the price to come to the U.S. from residents of Visa Waiver countries will double, and Brand USA, whose purpose is to attract inbound visitation, had to let go of 15% of its staff and curtail other activities after its federal budget was slashed 80%. (We'll save the impact of ICE raids on hotel workers for another time.)
Our domestic industry lobbyists and the industry associations relying on government support (e.g., the U.S. Travel Association and Brand USA) clearly believe that they have to be extraordinarily cautious in their public-facing messaging. After announcing the cuts to Brand USA staff and programs, a spokesperson said the organization was "having very positive dialogue with the administration, and they are supportive, which makes us feel very positive about the future."
But when inbound tourism arrivals, predicted in January to rise 3.9% this year, are actually in negative territory (and still below prepandemic levels), one has to wonder whether crafting optimistic messaging is effective.
I'm not singling out these travel groups because they're unusually timid. At this point, even business leaders in other sectors who had only previously shown aggressive macho posturing seem wary about publicly lobbying for their own interests.
Tour operators have been more vocal than most, and another group, the Student & Youth Travel Association, reached out to me with concerns that have implications for the meetings and conventions sector. The association's CEO, Carylann Assante, wrote to me that the Girl Guides of Canada, similar to U.S. Girl Scouts, decided to suspend all group travel to the U.S. The rationale was "uncertainty at the border."
The greatest reduction in inbound traffic to the U.S. has been from Canada. Entry numbers from our northern border are down double digits; July numbers posted the seventh consecutive month of declining numbers. Land crossings were down 33% in June and 37% in July. Air traffic is down 26% year over year.
Assante said the problem goes beyond the general discomfort of facing immigration officers. She pointed out that, within groups such as Girl Guides, there may be people who hold passports from some of the 19 countries that fall under the U.S. travel ban and could be refused entry. Because Girl Guides' principles include commitments to inclusivity and their members' safety, the organization dared not risk going to the U.S.
The Girl Guides situation is especially concerning because, particularly from ages 14 to 21, young people are busy forming perspectives that will shape their views for the rest of their lives. Tourism is soft diplomacy; the world today is filled with ministers at every level of foreign governments who visited or were educated in the U.S. when young, formed their opinions and continue to inform their governments about the reality, rather than stereotype, of America.
Today's reality is that many young people living abroad are coming to see the U.S. as restrictive and insular. The tail to these conclusions may haunt the country for decades to come, and not only regarding tourism. Will our tourism leaders again, as after 9/11, wait five years to form a partnership to sound an alarm?