Lawmakers Rethinking the Visa Waiver Program
This week the House Homeland Security Committee will consider legislation to change background checks requirements of the Visa Waiver Program for individuals who come to the United States, amidst growing concerns about extremist groups like ISIS.
What is the Visa Waiver Program?
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) has been in place since 1986, and allows citizens of participating countries to travel to the United States for as long as 90 days without a visa. Among others participating countries include Japan, South Korea, France, the United Kingdom and Germany. Travelers using the program to visit the United States are still required to undergo screening, but are not subject to the lengthy in-person consular interview process via applicants go through. For more details about the current program please click here.
What is discussed on the Hill?
Recently the VWP has also drawn criticism from lawmakers who believe it could be used to allow foreign extremist fighters to enter the United States using passports from countries that participate in the program. Lawmakers from both the Democratic and Republican parties have introduced bills that would modify the program by either suspending it entirely or just for countries that have been identified as having passport holders fighting for terrorist groups. Other proposals would allow the United States to exclude countries that do not provide sufficient information.
Some warn the United States must be careful not to distance friendly countries that provide similar reciprocal travel benefits to U.S. citizens. They say restrictive visa policies could deter tourists from visiting the United States and lead to loss of revenue. Others have even argued for expansion of the program, provided that screening and other safety measures remain in place. The U.S. Travel Association has said expanding the visa waiver program to include more countries would increase U.S. tourism by 600,000 visitors and add $7 billion to the U.S. economy.
The committee is likely to discuss a bill introduced by Rep. Candice Miller (R- Michigan), which would improve the databases used to conduct background checks on individuals who enter the United States through the waiver program and allow the Department of Homeland Security to suspend a country’s participation in the program if it doesn’t provide sufficient information regarding potential threats.
In a recent interview regarding the bill Rep. Miller said “Although DHS continuously vets all visa applicants against our terrorism databases, we do not routinely get the critical information we need to identify and stop foreign fighters bound for the U.S. from our overseas partners in the program. This poses a serious threat to our homeland and must be addressed.”
Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also suggested last week during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that legislation could provide additional safety assurance. At the Committee hearing he said “Constructed in a way to powerfully reduce vulnerabilities in our immigration and travel system, it is my belief that the visa waiver program offers significant benefits to U.S. national and economic security and should not be pulled back in a time like this, but further evaluated for ways that can strengthen our security and the benefits it may yield.”
We continue to monitor the legal developments in the Capitol Hill. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can review your case, answer any questions or schedule a consultation. We also invite you to subscribe to our free weekly immigration newsletter to receive timely updates on this and related topics.
Related News and Articles
The Capitol Immigration Law Group has been serving the business community for over 15 years and is one of the most widely respected immigration law firms focused solely on U.S. employment-based immigration. Disclaimer: we make all efforts to provide timely and accurate information; however, the information in this article may become outdated or may not be applicable to a specific set of facts. It is not to be construed as legal advice.