A regional airline Captain took exception to approach control's 'cavalier' attitude regarding his declaration of 'minimum fuel'.

Narrative

Our flight was placed in a minimum fuel position after experiencing delay vectoring. ATC was notified on three separate occasions of this fact and until the third time when I told Approach we needed to go to our alternate. He replied by saying there was a 25 mile final and would that be acceptable? This would have required us to fly an additional 50 to 60 miles as we were mid field downwind at this point. I told him no; and he then asked what do you need to get in? I said NOW! ATC ignored my request to go to the alternate; and instead pulled another aircraft off the approach and turned us in around 8 miles out side the FAF. I talked to the Approach Control Supervisor after getting on the ground and what was relayed to me was that ATC did not consider an additional 50 to 75 miles on an extended vector at low altitude an undue delay. Not considering that a Jet aircraft have its highest fuel consumption rates at these approach altitudes. Additionally the ATC Supervisor stated that 'you pilots declare minimum fuel all the time' and that if I had declared a fuel emergency I would have gotten in immediately. This statement scared me to my core! This ATC facility appears to have a cavalier attitude towards potential fuel issues and will only act when it becomes a dire situation.Policy of minimum fueling of aircraft and the apparently new policy of zero contingency fuel being allowed even into airports with long histories of traffic delays or congestion issues. Captains fuel not being authorized in this situation as it would have necessitated the removal of revenue; ATC not taking a minimum fuel report as a serious condition; ATC ignoring the request to depart the downwind after an extended up-wind vector for the alternate airport.