US airport immigration is known for many things: a âcharmingâ welcome (usually a grunt of âWhat are you doing here?â), invasive questions and long queues (which seem only to make the officers grumpier). The abrasive attitude is globally infamous (see here, here, here, here and here) and has been repeatedly condemned by the US travel industry for its negative impact on return visits to America. As I wrote back in 2014, US Customs and Immigration presumes youâre guilty before (you hope) warily accepting you might just be innocent (although youâre still a nasty, suspicious, foreigner).Â
A large number of âaliensâ visiting the United States enter under the Visa Waiver Program, an initiative of the US government that allows citizens of certain countries (disclaimer: my own included) to visit the United States for tourism or business, without first having to apply for a visa at an American diplomatic post. Since it was first implemented in 1988, visitors to the United States entering under the program have contributed significantly to the national economy. In 2010 alone, VWP travellers supported the over 8 million Americans who work in the hospitality industry and are estimated to have contributed between US$6.9 billion and $10 billion to the US economy through direct spending.Â
And yet this month the US government began to implement restrictions on the VWP that have the potential to hurt this substantial source of income. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Congress set itself the task of tightening visa and VWP regulations alike, preparing and passing legislation at a speed that would be welcomed for other pressing matters facing America.Â
Letâs be clear: economic concerns cannot trounce a countryâs need for security. But what must be challenged is the faulty logic behind these congressionally-mandated changes, the most onerous of which concern visits (or affiliation) to five countries:  Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria. Citizens from VWP states who have visited the âoh-no-you-didnât fourâ since 2011 must apply for a visa, as must VWP citizens who are dual-nationals of these countries (regardless of when their last visit took place).Â
This is nothing more than guilt by association.Â
And it will do nothing to make Americans safer. In a joint open letter, the European Unionâs ambassadors to the United States commented:Â âa blanket restriction [does] little to detect those who travel by more clandestine means overland.â Rather than pass legislation that tackles the real problem of drugs, weapons and human trafficking across the US/Mexico border, Congress decided to focus on the (largely low-risk) VWP traveller. Their (and President Obamaâs) myopia will almost certainly make travel for US citizens more difficult in the long term. Whereas in the past European governments (and the EU) accepted American security escalations without responding in kind, this time may well be different.Â
âFive EU member states,â writes Politicoâs Nahal Toosi, âare [already] unhappy because they are not included in the visa waiver program.â This comes as the European Commission is expected to release a report this spring reviewing the EUâs own visa waiver policies and some commentators suggest that the EU may answer Americaâs antagonistic stance in kind: for instance, they might oblige US citizens to get fingerprinted and photographed in the same manner as VWP visitors are today.Â
Legal observers note that the new American stance could trigger an automatic response from the EU, in line with ECÂ regulations, further hindering transatlantic interaction. This will be bad for both sides over time. Instead of close-mindedness, a coordinated and more reasonable security policy across the Atlantic could promote economic integration without forgoing safety. By taking unilateral action, however, the US government proclaims that it does not want to engage constructively with the world.Â
ellievsbear
tangentwithtanner
amandla
discoholicmusic
jimmyeatworldofficial
