Talk:Visa Waiver Program

I would be interested in learning the history of the visa waiver program, especially with regard to countries that were on the list and then taken off (if any), etc.

-- Argentina was on it and then removed. I think after their economy collapsed around 2002. Not sure when it was on the list.

The program is run by the Office of International Enforcement in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Easter European Countries

I heard that some european countries such as Hungary, Poland, Latvia, etc, will be included in the VWP in a couple of years, shouldn´t they appear as candidate countries then? I hope somebody has an answer for this. Thank you very much,--Philip200291 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Passport requirements

I have changed the section about passport requirements. Apparently not only the date on which the passport was issued, but also on which it was extended (if applicable). I didn't find this information anywhere online, but airlines won't let you fly to the US unless you meet these requirements. 129.187.100.22 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This information is crystal clear here: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html :

1. Machine-readable passports issued or renewed/extended between 10/26/05 and 10/25/06 – requires digital photograph printed on the data page or integrated chip with information from the data page.
2. Machine-readable passports issued or renewed/extended before 10/26/05 – no further requirements.

Dantadd 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't your country also have to have commenced issuing machine readable passports which include a digitzed photograph (or biometric data) for you to be eligible for the Visa Waiver Program?

Example: The French passport printing agency's workers went on strike just as the new rule went into effect and thus all French had to apply for a visa (which resulted in very long queues) until the French passport printing workers ended their strike and France issued everyone who needed a new passport a passport with a digitzed passport picture and/or biometric data. --Soylentyellow 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it only applicable to United States

I understand that this is applicable to all countries which signed VWP 1986 agreement. Citizens of any countries which signed VWP 1986 agreement can travel between those countries without any valid visa. (For example citizen of Australia can travel to Belgium without visa and citizen of New zealand can visit Spain etc etc. Article gives the impression that this is applicable only for United states.--Indianstar 08:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only applicable to the United States. It is not a multilateral agreement. JAJ 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with United States visas?

• I suggest this article should be merged with United States visas.
• This article reads like a cut-and-paste from a US government release. E.g. "27 countries participate in this program". The countries don't do anything, this is purely a US government entry regulation. Suggestion "The US government permits citizens of 27 countries to enter the US under this program".
• This article is lacking a criticism section. For example, visa waivers are usually reciprical (if country A abolishes visas for citizens of country B, then B also abolishes them for citizens of A). The US does not abide by this rule and, for example, requires visas for Greek citizens, wheras US citizens are allowed to travel throughout the Schengen area, including Greece, without a visa. See European Union visa lists. TiffaF 06:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with merger as the VWP is important in its own right and has a number of specific conditions and requirements not usually found in equivalent programs for other countries. But feel free to change the wording to a more NPOV style if you wish. JAJ 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of VWP waiver countries

Greenland should be colored blue as Greenlanders are Danish citizens. In fact, virtually all the overseas territories of Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and the Netherlands should be highlighted as VWP eligible. Canada and Bermuda should arguably be highlighted too, although in a different color. JAJ 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to be a British Citizen, nothing else. (Bermuda has its own rules.) A passport indicating that the bearer is a British Subject, British Dependent Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, British National (Overseas) Citizen, or British Protected Person does not qualify for travel without a visa. Source: US Embassy in London. 86.143.52.79 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since 2002, people from the British Overseas Territories (except the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas) hold full British citizenship. Similarly, the overseas territories of the other countries mentioned hold full citizenship. JAJ 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and all other U.S. dependencies should be colored dark blue as they fall under U.S. immigration. Some exceptions such as Navassa Island and U.S. Antarctic territories should not be colored because one will require special permits to enter these territories.--XLR8TION 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Martin/St. Maarten, Curacao, Bonaire and New Caledonia should also be colored.They are considered parts of France and the Netherlands--XLR8TION 06:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Arrested or Convicted"

This phrase is bizarre: "Arrest" is just the first step in a long series of events leading to possible conviction. A convicted person will therefore - at some stage - have been arrested, so the "or convicted" is redundant.

But the more important question is this: Is a wrongly arrested person ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program, even after the truth comes to light?

Moral Turpitude

The actual phrasing is "...arrested or convicted of an offence or crime involving moral turpitude". The word "turpitude" comes from the Latin turpis, meaning "base or vile". There is considerable disagreement about what it means in this context: Some believe it is deliberately ambiguous, giving officials freedom in how to interpret and apply the rule.

I have added a ful article on this, including the text of the US State Department's definitions, and linked it from this article. I hope it's useful! Medconn 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Info

Hi, I found more information on the WP and some new chnages that will be implemented in the near future. Please read carefully:

U.S. proposals on visa rules raise fears in Europe

Measures moving through Congress, including a requirement for travelers in some countries to register travel plans online 48 hours before departure, have raised fears in Europe of disruptions in the trans-Atlantic flow of business and leisure travel.

The requirement, proposed by the Homeland Security Department, would apply to people in 27 mostly West European countries who are now able to travel to the United States for up to 90 days without visas. It would also apply to new entrants to the same so-called Visa Waiver Program, a status sought by 12 countries, many of them eastern and central European states new to the European Union that have placed enormous stock on getting in - for business, tourism, family links and plain national prestige.

Poles need "proof that this is a fair relationship," said Janusz Reiter, the Polish ambassador to Washington. "I'm afraid that if we fail, we may lose a generation."

Poles, who can now travel and work across the EU, would turn against the United States, traditionally regarded as a friend, Reiter said.

The existing European members of the waiver program are not thrilled by the 48-hour requirement - a potential hardship for business people, who often change travel plans at the last minute - nor by some other tightening of standards for their airports and passport handling.

Nathalie Loiseau, the spokeswoman at the French Embassy in Washington, said that European officials, with full French support, were working with Congress to help "enhance trans-Atlantic relations and not to put more obstacles before people who wish to travel to the U.S."

But a U.S. official this week said that the online registration would be a "convenient" process, taking five minutes or less, and causing no one to miss a flight.

While the mechanics of the online registration are yet to be set, said Russ Knocke, the Department of Homeland Security spokesman, in practice, online registration could be done less than 48 hours before departure.

"The concept is that whenever the ticket is purchased, there's a quick 'ping' to give us advance notice on who's going to travel to the U.S."

Earlier information on travelers' identities, he said, should mean fewer flights delayed - or even turned back in midair - for security reasons.

"Whether done on the Internet from someone's office while packing up the laptop to catch a flight that day, or when they're in the hotel the night before and need to change their flight and come home early, it can still be done," Knocke said. The process would involve sharing no more data than from a passport, he said.

U.S. officials have long seen the waiver program as politically vulnerable.

If someone entering the country from a visa-waiver country should launch a terror attack, Knocke said, "the rush in Congress to shut this program down altogether would be fast and furious."

Thus the tougher standards set by the proposed change could make it easier to bring in new countries, he said. "What we're working with Congress to accomplish is to strengthen the integrity of the overall program through, for example, the electronic travel authorization process, so the program itself is stronger and potentially more inclusive."

Along with online registration, the updated program would require new and existing member countries to improve data-sharing; more rigorously report lost and stolen passports (not just blank passports); and guarantee they will repatriate nationals if those people are ordered out of the United States.

"It's really a 21st-century model," said James Carafano, a Heritage Foundation analyst who specializes in homeland security. "It'll all be done electronically and biometrically. And it really doesn't compromise your privacy."

But tied in to legislation that has passed the Senate and been introduced in the House is the question of the entry standards for countries eager to join the program.

Current members are judged as among the most reliable U.S. travel and business partners. Membership requires, among other things, a record of extremely low rejection by U.S. consular officials of the visa applications from a country's nationals - less than 3 percent of the total.

In the past, a low total mainly reflected a small probability of a country's nationals overstaying visas. But since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, terrorism concerns have played a growing role.

"Most of the refusal rates have gone up since 9/11 because consular officers have been much more cautious," said Carafano.

The new EU member countries tend to have rejection rates far higher than the 3 percent threshold. Estonia had a rejection rate last year of 7.1 percent; the Czech Republic 9.4 percent; Hungary 12.7 percent; and Poland 26 percent, according to State Department figures.

Both the Senate bill and a House version seek to give Homeland Security greater flexibility. Candidate countries would merely have to show a "sustained reduction in visa refusal rates," as Poland, for example, says it can do.

But an amendment to the Senate bill would set 10 percent as the maximum refusal rate for member countries. The House version proposes no such change.

The European Union has urged Congress to extend the waiver program to all EU citizens based on individual eligibility without regard to nationality.

The candidate countries say they support tighter security measures but they see the refusal rate standard as arbitrary. "Even American experts recognize that granting a visa is an arbitrary decision" based on how an applicant acts during a consular interview, said Daniela Gitman, the Romanian chargé d'affaires in Washington. "The way they sweat, the way they discuss. This is not a good way" to decide.

As new members of the EU, they say they merit better treatment.

Entry to the program, said Foreign Minister Adrian Cioroianu of Romania during a Washington visit, "for us will be a sign of appreciation for our participation in the war against terror."

Reiter put it differently: "This is not so much about practical importance. This is much more about symbolism, about the emotional side of the relationship."

"The asymmetry we are having between the U.S. and our countries, including Poland, is becoming more and more an instrument for those who say this is not a fair relationship," he said.

Applicant countries say U.S. officials are living in the past if they are worried about a flood of East Europeans entering - and not leaving.

"Many people in the U.S. seem to believe it is a natural instinct of every Pole, Hungarian or Slovak to want to stay in the U.S.," Reiter said. "This is totally wrong today."

The countries now in the waiver program are Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain.

from the International Herald Tribune (74.134.122.112 03:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Missing reasons about Greece

The reasons why Greece is still outside of the VWP are not explained at any moment. Does anyone know why so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.85.250 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason, as far as I know, for Greece being excluded is that up until recently Greek Passports were issued by Prefectures and not the Greek Police. Thus U.S believed that those passports were not as credible as they would if issued by the Police. This has now changed, old passports are no longer valid and all new passports are issued by the Greek Police. Thus it is exprected that soon Greek will enter the VWP. I think this should be added in the article as well as an extra info. 77.83.43.254 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)