2 Shares 0



2

0







On December 8th the United States Congress passed House Resolution 158 by a lopsided 407 to 19 vote. The bill, entitled “The Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015,” alters the existing Immigration and Nationality Act. It has now gone to the Senate where it might be amended before going to a vote that will turn it into law. President Barack Obama will most likely make no effort to veto it as he has already endorsed changes in the Visa Waiver Program and the bill will probably become law before the end of the year.

The Visa Waiver Program includes 38 countries, mostly in Europe. Citizens of those countries can travel to the United States without first obtaining a visa as long as they have a secure machine readable passport. After April 2016 the passports will also be required to incorporate biometric information to inhibit fraud. The program has been in place since 2005 and has generally been regarded as beneficial both for purposes of tourism and business travel. There have been no known security breaches connected to the program.

The House resolution was drafted and passed as a panicked response to the two recent terrorist incidents in Paris and San Bernardino California, though the changes mandated by the proposed legislation would in no way have prevented either attack. The concern expressed by the supporters of the law is that European citizens who have been radicalized and might have traveled to countries in the Middle East known to harbor large numbers of ISIS supporters and might subsequently use their visa waiver passports to freely enter the United States with the intention of carrying out terrorist acts.

The House resolution oddly takes aim at one country that is, in fact, a persistent enemy of ISIS. That country is Iran.

The concern is legitimate, if almost certainly overstated, as an estimated tens of thousands of young Europeans have reportedly joined ISIS, just as they once years ago flocked to join al-Qaeda. At least 5,000 of the ISIS volunteers are believed to hold European passports. But the proposed legislation creates a number of problems both in terms of international law and agreements that the United States government has entered into. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that it will actually prevent terrorist incidents. And it also oddly takes aim at one country that is, in fact, a persistent enemy of ISIS. That country is Iran.

H.R. 158 requires the Department of Homeland Security to designate countries where there is increased likelihood that a visitor might become engaged in a credible threat to the U.S., where there is a significant foreign terrorist organization presence, or where there is a safe haven for terrorists. “Dual nationals” of such countries shall be denied visa waivers even if they are traveling on a passport from a visa waiver country. In addition, other travelers from the visa waiver country who have visited any one of the target countries in the past five years shall also be denied entry under the waiver program. Both “nationals” and those who have visited the target countries will be required to apply for normal travel visas, a process that will include mandatory “sharing of information” with the country that issued the prospective traveler’s passport.

One should note that the definition of a “high threat” country is somewhat subjective, which clearly is intentional to permit constant revision of the list. The House bill demonstrates just how subjective the entire process is by identifying four countries that trigger automatic suspension of waiver eligibility. They are Iraq and Syria perhaps understandably, Sudan considerably less so, and completely inexplicably Iran.

In practice this means that any European passport holder who either visits or is by birth from Iraq, Syria, Sudan or Iran will be denied an automatic visa to the United States. That no Shi’a Muslim, the predominant sect in Iran and in much of Iraq, has never carried out a terrorist bombing or suicide attack against the United States is apparently not appreciated by those drafting the bill and does not enter into the calculation. Countries whose citizens have staged terrorist attacks inside the United States to include Saudi Arabia Libya, and Pakistan, are not on the list of those countries that trigger waiving the waiver, meaning that a European could visit Pakistan or Libya for weapons training and not be flagged but if he or she visits Iran for any reason denial of automatic right to travel to the United States will be enforced. And the ultimate irony is that a law driven by fear of ISIS is thereby targeting one of the leading countries that is actually doing something about it while at the same time ignoring countries like Saudi Arabia that have been conversely major supporters of terrorism.

The U.S. bill is in violation of World Trade Organization rules against “politicizing trade” and abridging the ability of businessmen to travel freely. In this case, visiting Iran would be punished by denying travel to the U.S. so many foreign visitors will avoid Tehran. The law would also be contrary to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement that recently resolved the issue of the Iranian nuclear program. The JCPOA guaranteed that the ability to conduct normal business and trade with Iran would not be impeded.

The U.S. bill is in violation of World Trade Organization rules against “politicizing trade” and abridging the ability of businessmen to travel freely.

The inclusion of Iran in the bill does not, of course, have anything to do with the war against ISIS. The American neoconservatives and their congressional allies continue to believe that Iran constitutes the most serious threat against Israel so it has to be pressured incessantly no matter how it behaves. Recent moves in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seeking to review Iran’s alleged steps taken to develop a nuclear weapon prior to 2003 have regurgitated the same lies that were surfaced back in 2011, claims regarding Iranian behavior and intentions that were based on empty insinuations and forged documents.

Complaints investigated by the IAEA are generally confidential and sometimes even anonymous but it is known that Israel and the United States were behind the latest moves and there also have been stories popping up in the Israel-friendly media claiming that Iran is testing ballistic missiles in violation of United Nations resolutions, allegations that are being exploited in a bit to re-impose sanctions and wreck the nuclear agreement. If one is looking for the story within the story it should be noted that the United States is the principal funder of the IAEA and not from altruistic motives. It works closely with Israel, the world’s most notorious undeclared nuclear power and for both countries having a poodle that can be produced periodically to investigate and confound one’s adversaries is always useful.

Overall, the United States perseveres in a national security policy that is somewhat like the proverbial bull in the china shop. The House bill will undoubtedly be difficult to enforce as many Muslims living in France and Britain were born in those countries and have never traveled to the areas where their families may have originated several generations ago. They continue to be eligible for visa waivers but will inevitably come under suspicion every time they choose to travel to the United States. Their mistreatment by U.S. immigration authorities will no doubt be reported in the international media. And blaming Iran even when it is blameless has, disgracefully, become reflexive action for many in the United States government.

Visa waiver countries offer visa waiving reciprocity to visiting Americans, a practice that could easily be amended to pushback against U.S. policies.

The House Resolution is so transparently offensive and even illegal that many will certainly rise up to oppose it. Visa waiver countries offer visa waiving reciprocity to visiting Americans, a practice that could easily be amended to pushback against U.S. policies. Indeed, David O’Sullivan, the European Union ambassador to the United States, is already warning that “some of these ideas are being rushed through without necessarily thinking out fully the consequences.” How true. And, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the creation of another bureaucratic hurdle for travelers will necessarily make Americans or anyone else safer.