Abolish the Visa Waiver Program
Posted by Moonage on 31 Jul 2005 | Tagged as: Fed Policy, Opinions
We€™ve (you and I) have had this and other similar discussions over the last few years. While we understand the question, I wonder if the implications are widely known. And I also wonder how long it will take for our lawmakers to wake-up to the significant risk posed by the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), at least as it is currently written and implemented.
As highlighted by the recent terrorist bombings in the London metro, because of the guiding rules of the VWP, any British citizen could travel to the United States essentially under the radar.
What is the Visa Waiver Program?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa€¦
Visa Waiver Program - Participating Countries.
| Andorra | Iceland | Norway |
| Australia | Ireland | Portugal |
| Austria | Italy | San Marino |
| Belgium | Japan | Singapore |
| Brunei | Liechtenstein | Slovenia |
| Denmark | Luxembourg | Spain |
| Finland | Monaco | Sweden |
| France | Netherlands | Switzerland |
| Germany | New Zealand | United Kingdom |
Machine Readable Passports
A machine-readable passport has certain biographical data entered on the data page in accordance with standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Doc 9303, Part 1 Machine-Readable Passports. These standards address issues like the size of the passport and photograph, arrangement of data fields, and the two lines of printed machine-readable data that appear at the bottom of the page. Machine-readable passports can be read by scanning the two lines of printed data through special readers. Below is an example of how the biographical data page in a machine-readable passport might look:
Travelers should contact their country€™s passport issuing agency or authority if they have any doubts related to whether their passport is machine-readable.
How Many British Bombers Might Have Come Here Without a Visa?
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/07/michael_cutler__4.html#more
…First of all, it is critical to understand that the bombers who savagely attacked London were British subjects. Consequently, they would have been entitled to hop on an airliner with a valid passport and head for the United States without first applying for a visa…
…This is critical because every year thousands of passports from countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program are stolen or are reported missing…
[Another issue is] …the discussion of the guest worker program that is so popular among politicians today. The way that many of these British subjects who were involved in the bombings in London came to be born in London is that their parents had originally come to England seeking to earn some money. It was believed that they would ultimately return to their home countries, but obviously this never happened€¦
IMO, especially in light of the London terrorist attacks, I believe that our law makers, and especially those entrusted with homeland security, should give serious consideration to dramatically revising or totally scrapping the Visa Waiver Program in the name of National Security.
8 Comments »
on 02 Aug 2005 at 2:56 am 1.--H
said …
Storm/Moon:
This is my humble opinion: even though we have “visa waiver program”, I’m 99% sure that DHS has “certain means” to enable some kind of identification processes to flag suspicious visitors.
I don’t think requiring someone who is a potential terrorist to apply for a visa will curb anything because most likely these guys would have their own “certain means” of masking their real identity. If Mr. ABCD is already “flagged” in the UK, for example, as part of the suspect group, why would he apply for a US visa under the identity of Mr. ABCD? And in the case of Singapore, call me overconfident, that country is “worse” (or is it better?) than any dictatorial country in “controlling” their citizens. Honestly, I’m not worried about any Singaporean citizens at all.
Then again, this is my opinion from a person who does not have any knowledge in security.
on 02 Aug 2005 at 8:24 am 2.StormWarning
said …
Sorry “H,” but IMO, you can’t close a loophole half way.
on 02 Aug 2005 at 2:09 pm 3.Bryan Kerwick
said …
Anthony:
I understand your point but disagree with it.
The sole purpose of terrorism is to make us change our way of life. If we do that the terrorists win.
We simply need to change the entrance process slightly so that besides having a visa, we also collect biological date and find out what these people are doing here. We also need to check in on them to make sure they are actually here for their stated purpose. IE- If you are in the US on vacation to see disneyworld, make sure the creditcard transactions and hotel reservations match. If not, we then may have to further investigate.
We also need to get off the ACLU driven racial profiling taboo. White Anglo-Saxons aren’t blowing themselves up, Arabs are. Here’s a hint, check the Middle-Eastern looking people very carefully, especially those between 16-50 years of age. This is National Security and the ACLU needs to get a life.
While we fill our database with biological data, we can also track who is here past their alloted stay and get rid of them as politely as possible.
The real problem IMO is still the Mexican and Canadian borders which must be sealed if we are serious about securing peace on our soil and not visa waivers.
on 02 Aug 2005 at 2:54 pm 4.StormWarning
said …
I so much agree with your concerns about the Canadian and Mexican borders. For quite some time I’ve been a proponent of closing those borders…shut’em tight. Moon has never really agreed with that radical an approach, although it is clear that he and I agree on the issue of the Visa Waiver Program.
The VWP in my opinion represents a literally “open door” to potential wrong-doers that needs to be shut. The odd thing is that the machine readable visa cam along as part of the HR3525 in 2002…The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. 3525 was supposed to ensure security, it resulted in the US Visit Program, and yet, has not overcome some of the many problems facing this country including the creation of a “bullet-proof” entry document system.
IMO, the VWP needs to go…not to the exclusion of fiixng our Northern and Southern borders.
on 06 Aug 2005 at 5:02 pm 5.--H
said …
StormWarning said:
Sorry “H,” but IMO, you can’t close a loophole half way.
—-
IMO as well, you can never close loopholes 100%.
Again, I’ll give you an example: say you and I are both in some countries intelligence database as “suspects”, you know that and I know that. Why would you think you and I will be stupid enough to apply for visa under our real names if we want to visit the US?
The answer is highly unlikely we’d be stupid enough to do that, right? so you and I would try to get British or Luxembourg or Singaporean passport - under different names, obviously - so we don’t need to apply for visa to visit the US, right? Hypothetically, if we both got new identities under those countries’ passports we can visit the US without visa, not much different than if we had got new identities under other countries’ passport which we require visa from.
I agree with what Bryan Kerwick wrote, to paraphrase, if you’re 20-60 of Middle Eastern descents, I don’t quite care what passport you’re holding Pakistani or Lichtenstein, you should - and I think are (despite what the PC crowd shout about) - be “profiled”. It’s not racism or racial profiling, it’s logical profiling. Checking my mom’s shoes - she’s 65ish Asian - is a waste of everybody’s time and resources.
And if we’re weighing cost/benefits in term of “national security”, I’m not even going to worry about people from Mexico crossing our borders to mow my garden. Not that I’m supporting illegal immigration, the emphasis and resources should be put on clamping the system so those illegal immigrants won’t be able to get benefits paid by our taxes NOT on closing the holes to prevent them to come in because it’s just not realistic.
And no, not one country can ever 100% close their loopholes, especially country like ours with gazillion miles of borders north and south.
To me, it’s not the visa that is the problem, it’s the identification (or “profiling”) process rehauls that needs to be done.
on 30 Jun 2006 at 4:39 am 6.Oswald Chong said …
Just to correct your idea on Muslims. Yes, Singapore has 15% muslims but what have they got to do with terrorism? It’s nice to know there has been no bombing in Singapore, because the government is vigilant and able to put things under control. These people would have been stopped at the check point even before they are allowed to get on any planes. If you ever know how Singapore government works.
It’s unfair to stereotype any muslims. Singapore government’s ability to work with Muslims has paid off very well in eroding the base for Islamic fundamentalist movement. I bet Singapore can catch more than what the US border control can… just imagine, Singapore can catch anyone who “smuggle” chewing gum! What’s so difficult to catch a terrorist?
Also, even if you ask people to apply for VISA… it’s not going to stop all criminals. It’s easy to apply for a visitor’s visa, it’s useless to try control and check everyone who tries to apply… it’s better to do at the border control.
So, stop wasting your time on this waiver program… none of the terrorists came in under under waiver…. they need more time and efforts, they need to travel in and out, get driver’s licence etc… a traveler’s visa does not work for them.
on 30 Jun 2006 at 7:12 am 7.StormWarning
said …
Oswald: Aside from the fact that Singapore was listed as being part of the Waiver Program, and I made the point of noting the percentage of the population that was Muslim, what’s the problem?
In the 11 months since the initial post in this thread was written, we’ve seen the upsurge in “home grown” terrorism. We’ve seen new terrorist cells popping up, even when they have no direct affiliation to al Qaeda.
Things change…and jihad is evolving.
on 28 Jul 2008 at 10:13 am 8.Oswald Chong said …
StormWarning,
It’s too naive to think that terrorism can be defeated by any western power alone. If you want to defeat terrorism, you have to work with people who live closest to the heart of terrorism. Since your 2006 comment, I’ve waited till 2008 to reply your posting. Today’s terrorism aims at Muslims too. You need to work with Muslims to target Islamic Terrorism.