U.S. Finally Starting to Close Visa Waiver Loophole?

By Michael Cutler

I found out about this NY Times article, "U.S. Seeks Closing of Visa Loophole for Britons," when I was called by a senior producer for the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) in England who asked me if I was aware of the article. He asked if I would be willing to do an on-air interview about the article and about the fact that it would appear that the United States is seeking to end the Visa Waiver Program for British Nationals of Pakistani origin. I did the interview and I believe that I did a good job of explaining why the Visa Waiver Program is dangerous to our safety in this perilous era. I have been I have been extremely concerned about the Visa Waiver Program for quite some time. In fact, on May 11, 2006, I was called to testify at a Congressional hearing by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who then chaired the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on International Relations on the topic, "Visa Overstays: Can We Bar The Terrorist Door?" I raised my concerns about how the Visa Waiver Program negatively impacts national security.

I would like to take you through that article so that you can understand my concerns and also so that you can appreciate the fact that it would appear that our government is finally taking a small step in the right directions where this dangerous program is concerned.

The article makes note of two statistics that should make it clear that the Visa Waiver Program has inherent risks that need to be eliminated. The fact is that 800,000 British citizens are identified as being of Pakistani origin. The article also points out that each year British citizens of Pakistani origins make some 400,000 trips to Pakistan. It is important to first understand that there are many citizens of Pakistan who are not terrorists and are peaceful people who want nothing to do with terrorism or violence. It is also important to understand that there are Pakistani soldiers who have been helping our troops fight against terrorists in their part of the world. The problem is that, as we saw on September 11, 2001, a group of just 19 terrorists were able to take over four commercial airliners and use those airliners as missiles to bring down the World Trade Center complex, do significant damage to the Pentagon and, but for the courage and valor of the passengers on one of those four airliners, would have undoubtedly created still more destruction at another location.

Another critical piece of information contained in the article concerns the fact that Pakistan issues passports to British citizens who are dual nationals. This is a disturbing situation. When an individual has two separate passports from two different countries, it becomes quite easy for that person to travel to various countries without letting the inspectors at ports of entry know the full itinerary of his trip. For example, if a traveler who possesses both a British passport and a Pakistani passport wants to conceal the fact that he traveled to certain countries in the Middle East such as Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, the Sudan or other such countries known to be involved in terrorism, he simply uses his British passport to travel to a country such as Germany on his British passport and then continues on to the other countries by presenting his Pakistani passport once he leaves Germany. The entry and departure stamps in his British passport would only reflect that he traveled to Germany while his Pakistani passport would bear the other admission and departure stamps from the other countries he traveled to but wanted to keep the British or even United States officials from knowing about. When such an individual travels back to Great Britain or to other countries such as the United States, he only shows his British passport and thus it would be difficult to for the British officials or, our CBP inspectors, for that matter, to know that he has been making trips to countries that are identified as being involved with terrorism. This could help a terrorist conceal his movements that would call attention to him and his attentions. The goal of a terrorist is to do everything he can to stay "under the radar."

If I had my way, I would end the Visa Waiver Program altogether so that we could properly screen aliens seeking entry into the United States. While the visa requirement is not fool proof, it does give our law enforcement and intelligence officials a potential tool in the war on terror. During my on-air interview with the correspondent for the BBC this afternoon, I was asked about the potential that the implementation of visa requirements might cost both England and the United States money from tourists who decide not to travel. My response was that after the attacks of September 11, 2001, a number of airline companies were economically hammered as were a number of travel and tourism-related industries. It is my contention that a well-run public relations campaign explaining how the visa requirement enhances safety might well have the opposite effect, encouraging those who are concerned about the specter of terrorism to fell more secure and travel. The thing to remember is that since the attacks of 9/11 travelers boarding airliners in the United States are thoroughly screened, we have to remove our shoes because Richard Reid, the so-called "Shoe Bomber" (a British national) concealed explosives in his shoes. It used to be that a traveler could arrive at an airport 30 minutes before flight time and now we need to arrive at least two hours before flight time. This is the price of safety. The visa requirement could further enhance our efforts to prevent terrorists from gaining access to our country and murdering innocent people in the United States.

Our nation must be willing to take the reasonable and prudent steps to secure our safety and our nation's security.

TrackBack