Talk:Visa Waiver Program

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Travel and Tourism Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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)[reply]

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

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.
Machine-readable passports issued or renewed/extended before 10/26/05 – no further requirements.

Dantadd 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I disagree as well. First of all, the countries DO participate. The program has certain requirements, and it is not simply a US regulation. For instance, the participating countries have to notify US when a passport is stolen or lost. As for your second point; the decision of Schengen countries to allow US citizens travel visa-free is solely their discretion, and it does not make sense to suggest that US should lift the visa requirement simply because a country does not require a visa for US citizens. The visa regimes of many countries are not reciprocal anyway. --78.86.126.39 (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. or rename "United States Visa Waiver Program". Other nations have visa waiver programs too besides only the United States. CaribDigita (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them use the name Visa Waiver Program, as far as I know. (And I've vacationed on six continents. Twice.) So the current name is unambiguous. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why are Hungary and the Baltic State countries shaded in red as "future VWP" countries, when there is nothing on this page that says they would meet the new percentage requirement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.154.102 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is right, there must be an explanation on the main article of the memoranda of understanding those countries have signed with the US.--Philip200291 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to reinstate the graphic depicting the participating countries as the overview it provided was more quickly understood than having to read through the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.69.20 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

There is a lot of urban mythology about arrests causing ineligibility to enter the United States, not helped by the I-94W form and information on Embassy websites. The exact law for the VWP (except some additions related to biometric passports) is in Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II. Section 1187 contains the VWP rules. There are no special grounds of inadmissibility so instead it's necessary to look at section 1182 which contains the general grounds of inadmissibility. And in this case it's clear that as a general rule, having been arrested for a crime (but no further action taken) does not make one inadmissible to the United States. Why do the Embassies suggest obtaining a visa? Probably because the Immigration Officer on arrival has discretion to refuse entry (with no right of appeal) under the VWP. JAJ (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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 expected that soon Greece 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)[reply]

Why? Are passports in the USA issued by the police? 194.42.133.227 (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Waiver for EU citizens

Almost each day I hear something new about an EU-US agreement about removing visa conditions for all European citizens, including those currently not participating countries. There is a nice map on the Wikipedia page where some countries are colored red to indicate that those are future participating countries. Is there any single law or official regulation to show when and what countries will be covered? Is there a deadline for anything related? When will it be known what countries will be included and from which time? Thank you, (12.215.115.88 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Since political criteria have started to override common sense and poorer countries whose citizens are more likely to seek unauthorized employement in the USA have been admitted in the VWP, while other more affluent countries that pose much less such risk are still being excluded, don't expect any logic in what will follow! 194.42.133.227 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Period and Insurance Requirement

Must have an insurance for the period of their stay. Having expired the 90-days admission period applicants should wait another 90 days before enter the US.

I can find no reference to either of these "requirements" on either the Department of State page or the Department of Homeland Security page. Can someone provide a reference for these?

Actually, there is no such requirement. In my personal experience, VW status can be given multiple times within 90 days. Also, this source http://www.immihelp.com/visas/visawaiverprogram/restrictions.html claims that there is no wait period.

Australia?

How does Australia fit into visa-free travel when they require the ETA, which would seem to be visa-free travel, the ETA itself is nominally free but there is a $20 "Service Charge", so wouldn't that service charge negate the visa-free travel. I mean let's call a spade a spade, the Service Charge might as well be called "Visa-Fee". 98.28.68.59 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia?

Any new news for croatia? In the article it says "Croatia is expected to join the Visa Waiver program by 2011". Well, now we have 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.120.177 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's 2020 and from what I heard Croatia is supposed to enter the program in 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.4.66 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican

The participation/the non-participation of the Vatican in the VWP is not a mystery as stated in the article. The VWP only applies to Ordinary passport holders, not to holders of Diplomatic or Service passports. As the Vatican only issues Diplomatic and Service passports, it can not be eligible fot the VWP, unless it issues Ordinary passports in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.71.10 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Divide This into Multiple Articles?

This article is titled "Visa Waiver Program" but it clearly covers the larger subject of Entry into the United States. If the article is to keep its current name, then I feel it should solely focus on the Visa Waiver Program. The other sections of the article (i.e. those referring to Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, and the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program) could be their own articles or could be included in a different location. Alternatively, the article could be renamed to better describe the information it contains. However, I do feel that the Visa Waiver Program is significant enough to warrant its own article and should not be merely a section of another article.

I would suggest creating a new article titled "Entry into the United States" or something similar. This new hub article could then include summaries and links to main articles on topics like the federal Visa Waiver Program, entry for Canadian/Mexican/Bahamian citizens, the Guam-CNMI program, and United States visas. Your thoughts? Ayacucho1183 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greece joins visa waiver

I noticed how a number of individuals from greece rushed to include greece in the visa waiver following DHS's announcement. IMHO, greece is not part of the visa waiver until the day when Greek citizens can travel to the US without a visa, which means in a month or so. Adding Greece to the list so early is premature and misleading to travelers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamercon (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. In your humble opinion. However, the opinion of the Secretary Napolitano is more relevant: "With this announcement, Greece joins the 35 nations already participating in VWP."

There is nothing misleading. Wikipedia is not a travel site, but an encyclopedia. The reference to Napolitano's statement is clear enough. Besides, an ESTA is obligatory and those planning to travel, will see for theirselves if and when they will be able to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.233.170 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The opinion of the Secretary Napolitano also contains this: "Greek citizens will be able to visit the United States without visas in approximately 30 days." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.102.1.22 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of ESTA includes Greece,so Greece must be in the wiki list from now

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-Level_Online_Help_1.htm#Which countries participate in the Visa Waiver Program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.187.183 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh ffs we can be in a month, stop whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leladax (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update the map as well to include Greece ? Thanks77.83.196.213 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greece is NOT a member of the VWP until April 9, 2010. The announcement they will join the program clearly states this.

Text from announcement found at < http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1268162593062.shtm >

"With this announcement, Greece joins the 35 nations already participating in VWP—established as a pilot program in 1986 to help eliminate unnecessary barriers to travel and made permanent on October 30, 2000. Like VWP travelers from other countries, Greek citizens will be required to apply for an Electronic System Travel Authorization (ESTA) through the Web-based system. Greek citizens will be able to visit the United States without visas in approximately 30 days.

Announcement was released on March 9, 2010. Today is March 12, 2010. Until April 9, 2010 rolls in, Greece will not be added to the list. There has been mention that Greece will join the program, but until April 9, 2010 rolls in, Greece WILL NOT BE ADDED to list of VWP member nations. Greeks will require visas from today until April 9th. Anything could change before then. End of Story.--XLR8TION (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh wikipedia, and your useless 'it'll be in effect in 2 days' discussions; [i'm greek and i don't care at all whether it's added now or in a month]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.178.85 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be reverted and request for lock protection. Arrogance and ignorance will not get you anywhere.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there no middle ground? Couldn't there just be a mention that Greece has been added to the program and that the effective date is in early April? It could then be updated after the ninth. Does anyone have any objection to that? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that what it says now? "On March 9, 2010, Greece was designated as member of the program. Greek citizens will be able to travel to the US without a visa starting April 5, 2010." That seems pretty reasonable to me, not to mention factual. Bevinbell 02:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox and Bevinbelli, I agree. There is a mention that Greece will join the VWP on April 5th, however, anything could change between now and then. Greeks will require visas until April 5th. Wikipedia should not be misleading. For example, say a Greek citizen were to read this article and jump on a flight to the U.S. tomorrow (March 16th) without a visa, they will be denied entry and will be informed that eligibility for Greek citizens will not happen anytime earlier per the treaty guidelines negotiated by Janet Napolitano and Greek officials.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fee included in ticket?

"For those arriving by air or sea, the cost of the visa waiver is included in the ticket." Does that mean that tickets to the U.S. cost different amounts for people doing visa waiver and those not? Or are all people charged the fee, even if they are not using visa waiver? --131.179.32.214 (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economic situation of programme countries

The introductory paragraph says that "All countries selected by the U.S. government to be in the program are high-income economies with a high Human Development Index and are regarded as developed countries." Is it a fact or opinion to put in the article that a reason for that is because citizens of those countries have an extremely low risk of violating the terms of their stay, e.g. illegally staying in the US and engaging in unauthorised employment? --112.201.25.51 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I note that visa waiver redirects here, but it should not. Other countries use the term to refer to the programs they have in place. South Korea maintains a list of countries it has "Visa Waiver Agreements"[1] with. It is misleading to have this term redirect here and then have the page refer to it as a US only program.--Crossmr (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Turkey

I am realy tired of decelerating That Although Turkey Mostly in Asia rather than Europe,Political issues clasify That country Only in Europe( Becasue country cannot be in Both European and Asian segment)

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/index.htm ( USA Foreign Office)

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-2A74AB0A-742DC2CC/natolive/nato_countries.htm ( Nato membership is Only Open for European and Northen American countries)

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/citizenambassadors/home/thecampaign/contest2010/regional_groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.176.2 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Nato membership is Only Open for European and Northen American countries?" Nato has never made such a decision!
Anyway, you have given four external sources, against which there are many other external contrary sources, along with Wikipedia articles (e.g. this article), that classify Turkey as an Asian country. However, all of the external sources, excluding the source of US Foreign Office, are irrelevant to our Wikipedia article which deals with Visa Waiver Program of US. The only external source relevant to our Wikipedia article (which deals with the Visa Waiver Program of US), is the source of US Foreign Office, but it does not classify Turkey as a European country, but rather places Turkey in the list of European and Euroasian countries, that includes six countries defined by US as Euroasian: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Russia and Turkey.
Our article, which deals with Visa Waiver Program of US, has no such category of "Euroasian" country, so when coming to decide wether our article should classify Turkey as a European country or as an Asian Turkey, one must decide, from an objective point of view (e.g. according to figures etc.), whether Turkey is more Asian or more European, while the figures don't mislead us: Most of Turkish territory and Turkish population, is in Asia rather than is in Europe.

Eliko (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And i realy wonder Eeastern border of Turkey Like Armenia(%100 Asian) or Southern Border Like Cyprus(%100 Asian) can be listed Under Europe But one of the Founder member of European Integration mentality (Council of Europe) could classified under Asia?? and when it Comes to Georgia or Azerbaijan how we will classify that Countries ...You can check the Asia list you are not gonna find Turkey on the list...You need to Ask yourself Where Europe is End It is irrevelant but "Why Armenia and Cyprus considered as a European while Kazakhistan has a Terrority in Europe is not considering European"... I need a Article to let Turkey Listed Under Asia...

as a result You can Extend List to Europe and Eurasia from Europe Just like in US's foreign affairs or can put Cyprus Under Asia..Otherwise Turkey could Be listed udner Europe just like Cyprus ( even more European ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.176.2 (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you ignored our article - I've presented in my previous response. That article (click please) classifies Turkey, along with Cyprus Armenia Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, as Asian countries, because most of each country's territory (and population) is in Asia. Eliko (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources or ideas on why Turkey is removed from roadmap countries? I couldn't find any news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.137.17 (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Edits

I know that NATO membership is not obligatory for the Waiver program and I never claimed otherwise. I was just pointing out the trend when there was already the trend of "Most of the countries selected by the U.S. government to be in the program are high-income economies with a very high Human Development Index and are regarded as developed countries." being pointed out. Munci (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I mean there are only 2 countries (Sweden and Finland) that are currently on the Waiver Program but not an American ally. Munci (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement as membership in ANZUS is not a requirement for Australia and NZ. Most people in the VWP are white, Europeans and are Christians. Do we need to point the fact that the only non-Christian nations that are members of the VWP are Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Brunei? It's not necessary. The VWP membership states that members are must have secured passports that are issued by an extremely secured passport agency, they must have extradition treaties with the U.S., and must cooperate with the U.S. (and vice-versa) in counter terrorism activities. The same is true is for tax evasion and fraud cases. The VWP is mainly extended to members with stable economies and not requirement in regional defense organizations. When a nation economy goes the drain (like what happened to Argentina and Uruguay during the early 2000's) they get kicked out of the program. There is no need to point out NATO membership, nor religious majorities, etc. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I still think the alliance thing is relevant to which countries are chosen. See the part of the article "This development began first with Bill S.2844[26] which explicitly named Poland as the only country to be added to the VWP, and continued as an amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S.2611), whose Sec. 413, Visa Waiver Program Expansion,[27] defined broader criteria that would apply to any EU country that provided "material support" to the multinational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.". And you say yourself "must have extradition treaties with the U.S., and must cooperate with the U.S. (and vice-versa) in counter terrorism activities". Munci (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "white, Europeans and are Christians" no those are not relevant. I'm sure even if Russia had three times the GDP per capita and other things besides, it still wouldn't be on the Waiver Program. Munci (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence "Most of the countries selected by the U.S. government to be in the program are high-income economies with a very high Human Development Index and are regarded as developed countries." kind of repeats itself anyway: HDI is a measurement of development. There's no point saying both "very high Human Development Index" and "developed countries". Munci (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime is a universal problem and it is not something that NATO does not handle. Furthermore, counter terrorism in the U.S. is handled by the Department of Homeland Security. If visit CBP.gov, you will see that ministers from VWP member nations meet with individual U.S. departments in signing treaties regarding cooperation. Military membership is not a membership. If that was the case, how do you explain Switzerland's and Liechtenstein's memberships? Both nations are world famous for their neutrality.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be thinking that I think the alliance thing is a requirement. I know it's not. It's a trend with very high correlation. Same for the economy thing. If it was a requirement to have a stable economy, Greece would've kicked off, if no others. Munci (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Greece became a member this past year. Prior to 2011, Greek citizens needed visas. NATO does not fit anywhere in the VWP's membership requirements. readers should not be confused, nor provided useless facts (e.g. most nations are NATO members, most nations are Christian, most nations are in Europe). Article should be concise and educate/inform, not confuse.--XLR8TION (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"NATO does not fit anywhere in the VWP's membership requirements." You have repeated this many times but I never said otherwise. Clearly, given the Greek example, economy is not a requirement. So should the sentence about economy be removed? But no that is actually relevant even if it is a trend rather than a requirement. Munci (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again putting in too much common traits such as NATO membership can be misleading to the reader. As you can see from the state department's eligibity for VWP members ( http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html#qualify ) border and passport security are paramount for entry, and membership is at discretion of the U.S. Let the article focus on the principles of member eligibility and not common traits most members share.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yeah there's nothing there about economy whatsoever. And there was already a sentence on that in the intro here before I had edited it first. Munci (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that most of these countries are US allies is one of the first things I noticed too. Which is, as noted correlation not causation. Same goes for the economy, which would seem to have more to do with the fact that people from poorer countries are more likely to have their applications rejected. As said above, the only requirements are passport security and visa rejection. I have no objection to providing interesting tidbits like that though, if you can provide a notable secondary source which also found them interesting. Otherwise, it would seem to qualify as original research. --Quintucket (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this [2] says:

"Senator Kirk and Congressmen Quigley and Lipinski said they will introduce the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act in the Senate and House. The legislation aims to update and modernize VWP requirements, ultimately making Poland and other U.S. allies eligible to participate in VWP."

Also, John Shimkus states [3] :

While these countries are short of this amendment's required troop number, it seems to me that the best way to evaluate a country's eligibility for the Visa Waiver Program is to determine whether the country is a good ally and friend of the United States

And here Voinovich says [4] :

On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he [Bush] called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship.

Would those be significant enough for inclusion somewhere? Munci (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once agin, many nations are allies of the U.S. since WWII, and many as I have pointed out such as Andorra, Japan, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Singapore and Switzerland are not part of NATO or another regional security treaty. The article should not lead the reader to believe that NATO membership is a requirement into the VWP program as it is not. Adding references to NATO is not required and can be confusing. --XLR8TION (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I don't think NATO membership is needed to be on the Waiver Program and never have. It is clear from the above quotations however that being an American ally is taken into consideration. It's not necessary, but it helps. Munci (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Indians

The Jay Indians are NOT a sovereign state or entity (like the Sovereign Order of Malta) and therefore are Canadian citizens. STOP adding them to this article as ALL Native American tribes fall under Canadian or American citizenship. The recent case of the Iroquois Nation and their attempted use to use an Iroquois passport (aka Fantasy passport) during the World Lacrosse Championships held in the United Kingdom in 2010 only validated this FACT. ONCE AGAIN THE JAYS ARE NOT SOVEREIGN AND THEY POSSESS CANADIAN PASSPORTS! END OF STORY!

For Educational reference, please utilize this List of sovereign states and the criteria to classify a sovereign state is as follows:

The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood that defines the state as a person of international law if it possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." Debate exists on the degree to which recognition should be included as a criterion of statehood. The declarative theory of statehood, an example of which can be found in the Montevideo Convention, argues that statehood is purely objective and recognition of a state by other states is irrelevant. On the other end of the spectrum, the constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person under international law only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. For the purposes of this list are included all states which either:

(a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory,

or

(b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state

The Jays live on Canadian soil, collect social benefits from Ottawa, do not have an embassy in the U.S. or any other country and live on reservations. THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A SOVERIGN NATION STATE TO ME!!!--XLR8TION (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a soveriegn state is, i helped write the current version of the list of soveriegn states. Some Canadians under the Jay Treaty do not need passports or any other diplomatic document to cross the border. This information is relevent to the article and needs to be added to the article, since Canada is a soveriegn state. Notice in my last edit i said canadians and not indians, perhaps you didnt even bother to read it though...XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again they are special cases where a passport is not require, however, when crossing the border they still MUST show a form of ID such as the Kickapoo people who live both in the U.S. and Mexico. When the Mexican branch of the Kickapoo cross the border they still must show ID. The U.S. will NOT allow even it's own citizens to cross a border without any ID. The citizens of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau are citizens of each respective sovereign state and they still must present a passport to enter the U.S. After 9/11, when Canada was accused of having a lax border and allowing some of the terrorists cross into the U.S., the U.S. made changes to all treaties regarding border crossings. That includes tribal treaties. Jay Indians are Canadian citizens and as citizens of Canada, they swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. They might be able to bypass certain employment restrictions due to treaties, but at the end the only sovereign nation states whose citizens are allowed to the work, live, visit, etc., the U.S. are the citizens of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau.--XLR8TION (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, have you even read the Jay Treaty? Jay Treaty Canadians do not need any indentification other than proof that they are greater than 50% native american. They can go and come at their leasure, are not subject to immigration laws at all, can reside in the USA for as long as they like, ect. They have greater freedom in the USA than citizens of the Compact States. The Jay treaty is not a Tribal treaty, its a treaty between Canada (as the successor state to British North America) and the US. No US department regulation can prevent a Jay Treaty Canadian from entering the USA so long as they prove they are greater than 50% native american (they do not require passports or even birth certificates to cross the border). Likewise Jay Treaty American citizens can move between canada and the us at their leisure. The freedom of movement is a specific guarentee in the treaty. I suggest you actually read the treaty before making false assumptions as you already have. Any example involving mexico is irrelevent, since they are not party to the treaty.XavierGreen (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevent information can be found here, [[5]], Persons that qualify under the Jay treaty do not even need to apply to recieve a green card, they merely need to inform the appropriate agency that they wish one and recieve it automatically without going through the application process.XavierGreen (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sentence clearly. It says "These three nations hold the distinction of being the only countries in the world whose citizens do not require visas or other required documents..." The Jay Indians are not a sovereign entity and their tribal relations with the U.S. is handled by the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada ministry in Ottawa. The U.S. has not recognized the Jay Indians as a sovereign entity and therefore, Ottawa issues passports and identification cards to tribes residing on Canadian soil. I will add the word sovereign to the sentence just to make this point clear.--XLR8TION (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying that Canada is not a soveriegn state? You keep putting words in my mouth, i never stated that the jay indians are soveriegn rather that some canadian citizens have the right of freedom of entry into the USA. And the statement about the Compact States is still incorrect, they need to prove their identity as a citizen of a compact state before they are admitted to the US so there are "required documents".XavierGreen (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said the Jay Indians are not a sovereign state of entity. No need to put words in my mouth. Furthermore, please read the article Tribal sovereignty in the United States. The U.S. Constitution and later federal laws grant local sovereignty to tribal nations, yet do not grant full sovereignty equivalent to foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations" applies to all Native American/First Nations peoples. Tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the federal government, not states, under Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, (1980). Tribes are sovereign over tribal members and tribal land, under United States v. Mazurie (1975). Hence the U.S. will see the Jay Indians subordinate to Ottawa (Canada's federal seat of government) and therefore will only negotiate with the Jay Indians as long as Canada is involved in the talks. The laws passed in 1975 and 1980 supercede all previous laws. Once you're in U.S. soil, U.S. law applies. --XLR8TION (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand has nothing to do with tribal law or laws regarding indian soveriegnty, it has to do with the Jay Treaty between the United States and Canada and the fact that some Canadians do not need a passport or other diplomatic documents in order to travel to the USA. You still havent provided any evidence that proves otherwise. In the United States, treaty Law superseads domestic law. Only Constitutional law trumps treaty law. The Federal government recognizes the right of Canadians who qualify under the Jay Treaty to travel to the USA freely. If you dont believe me read this source from the US Federal Goverment (the canadian embassy website) [[6]]XavierGreen (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map is not up to date.

For instance, Chile is not in the map but is mentioned in the article. --200.83.74.66 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina 2012

Argentine government officially announced that all Argentine passports from now on will be biometric passports. Also, the government has said that the US government will be asked to supress the VISA as a requirement for Argentine citizens to enter. So, I assume there will be some changes going on soon... All this should be written in the article. Thank you.--190.48.81.153 (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source (just in case): http://www.lmneuquen.com.ar/noticias/2012/6/16/presentaron-el-nuevo-pasaporte_151329 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.81.153 (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An electronic passport doesn't mean anything for admission into the VWP. Some European Union members such as Bulgaria and Poland have e-passports and the U.S. has not admitted them to the program because their visa denial rate presently is above 3%. Economics play the most important role for VWP as a strong economy means a visitor from a VWP member nation is less likely to overstay their 90 day visit.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passport Images

This article will maintain a NPOV when it comes to passport images. Displaying a Taiwanese passport appears to be an endorsement that a Taiwanese passport is far superior than any other VWP member states passports. Therefore, any and all passport images will be removed from article. NPOV will be maintained.--XLR8TION (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we know who is in charge, anything else? -- :- ) Don 17:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Further more NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH is allowed. In your change comments you mentioned "research on Wikipedia." There is NO such thing as the research you claimed and original research is NOT Allowed. Seeing that you're a member of the Taiwan project on Wikipedia, that also shows a biased favor for Taiwan. This article is about a U.S. immigration program and NOT Taiwan. NPOV must be maintained.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richtig mein Herr!! Ordnung ist oberste!! Original research should not be included in the Wikipedia. I said research 'on the Wikipedia". You should read this: [7] Then explain to the Foundation how they threw away all that money, on something which does not exist.

I did not put the image there. I simply restored it. If you were going to include a passport image in the article which one would be most appropriate; Canada; Zimbabwe? Do the images in the article Passport meet with your approval? Should they be in alphabetical order or by the dominate wavelength of the reflected color spectrum? -- :- ) Don 19:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT have an effect on article NPOV. By the way I don't speak German and this is an English language site, therefore writing in English on this site is not only proper, but also respectful of the site's language regulations and autonomy. If I wanted to speak a Teutonic language I would move to central Europe and write on the German version of Wikipedia. You don't see me replying in Spanish or Portuguese, therefore, let's abide with this site's language.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm comfortable with the German response to direct order by superiors, and you seem to have a problem with English. I said, "Research shows that more pictures are important to the overall image of the Wikipedia", which has nothing to do with "your" NPOV which appears to be at most a "Point of View". -- :- ) Don 20:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with English? LOL, you really need to get a dictionary to distinguish what research is compared to a Wikipedia talk page. All that dribble on that talk page is NOT research. You're probably one of the few people in the world who mistakes oranges and apples, and possibly Austria and Australia. --XLR8TION (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that you even looked at it. You seem to just rant as a habit. It's not surprising that you have been blocked twelve times. Want to try for thirteen? Having had time to review YOUR page, this page. You seem to think this is your page and you make the rules. It appears that YOU are the one giving preference to Taiwan. Quoting you earlier on Greece:

There has been mention that Greece will join the program, but until April 9, 2010 rolls in, Greece WILL NOT BE ADDED to list of VWP member nations. Greeks will require visas from today until April 9th. Anything could change before then. End of Story.--XLR8TION (talk) 2:18 pm, 12 March 2010, Friday (2 years, 7 months, 14 days ago) (UTC−7)

Just say the word Your Highness and I shall remove Taiwan until November 1, 2012. Or has his Majesty changed his mind so that now, Taiwan can be entered on YOUR page when Greece could not? What happened, a change in your prescription? -- :- ) Don 16:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Croatia is not on the list of the "road map countries"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.8.235 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no verifiable source that lists this country as a road map country.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated and road map countries update

It's safe to say Croatia, Peru and Malaysia should be included on the list? therewillbehotcake (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because those countries expressed individual interest does not make them nominated by the US Government. You need a source from the US Government saying that this or that country is an official candidate or that it had received a road map at some point. Also none of these countries can even be considered for VWP at the moment as they fail at the basic requirement of 3% or less refusal rate which in case of Peru is a whopping 16%.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless travelling by road, necessarily from Mexico or Canada ...

See web page: http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

Under the heading: "Requirements for using the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)"
You must meet all of the following requirements to travel to the United States on the VWP:
(snipped sections already covered in the WP article) then:

Travel Must be on an Approved Carrier
If arriving by air or sea, you must be arriving on an approved air or sea carrier. You must also have a round trip ticket indicating return passage to a country* outside the United States.

---

Admitted, this really only pertains to a very small number of people, using privage boats or aircraft. In my case, as a traveller on a private sailboat ... I cannot enter any US state without a valid B1/B2 visa. Believe me, I've checked. (Even though I'm a citizen of a VWP country, travelling on a passport of that country, I also cannot apply for a B1/B2 while in Mexico, but that's a whole other story.)

Wayne 23:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Visa Waiver Program

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Visa Waiver Program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named ":0":

From Lawrence Gonzi: "House pays tribute to Lawrence Gonzi". The Malta Independent. 2013-05-14. Retrieved 2014-07-23.
From Microstate: Warrington, E., 1994. Lilliputs Revisited. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 16(1).
From Saudi Arabia: Chulov, Martin. "Saudi Arabian troops enter Bahrain as regime asks for help to quell uprising". the Guardian. Retrieved 2015-09-14.
From United Arab Emirates: "UAE, Bahrain say 50 soldiers killed in Yemen attack". Retrieved 2015-09-17.
From Abkhazia: Beradze, T., Topuria,K., and Khorava, B. (2009). "A Historical-Geographical Review of Modern Abkhazia." In: Causes of War-Prospects for Peace. Proceedings of the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung scientific conference on the theme: Causes of War - Prospects for Peace (2008), December 2–3: CGS ltd, pp. 10-12. http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_18802-544-2-30.pdf

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Visa Waiver Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Visa Waiver Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overstay rate 2015 inconsistent with source

I notice the overstay rates for 2015 are wildly inconsistent with what the source says. For example, check Cuba, ~70% vs 1-2%. Am I missing something? Bert Macklin (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Visa Waiver Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110308182743/http://cfr.vlex.com:80/vid/1-documentary-requirements-nonimmigrants-19609010 to http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/1-documentary-requirements-nonimmigrants-19609010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onward travel ticket

An onward travel ticket is not listed as a requirement on the official DHS webpage here: https://www.dhs.gov/visa-waiver-program-requirements And when I called the DHS and ESTA offices this month to make sure, I spoke with three different people who all confirmed that this is not required. My wife is in this case, so I needed to know for sure what is correct. Also, we came in before to the US on the VWP and nobody ever said anything about seeing this ticket. Twice I updated the article and someone reverted the edits. The last time he referenced https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/application.html?execution=e1s1#MOST It is listed as a requirement in a FAQ section. However, it must be an old FAQ answer and not updated to the current policy. The official requirements from DHS are listed here: https://www.dhs.gov/visa-waiver-program-requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.33.59.72 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Undid revision 772016671 by Twofortnights (talk) https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/application.html?execution=e1s1#MOST says nothing about an onward ticket. please check that page again." - I am sorry but that page clearly states under "Who is eligible to submit an application?" the following - "You are eligible to apply for admission under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) if you: [...] Have a return or onward ticket". As for your phone calls, please read WP:V and WP:NOR to realize why it's irrelevant.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I don't think the problem is us. I think the Department is causing the problem because they are contradicting themselves. You referenced something that was in the FAQ, but does not appear at first when you visit the URL you mentioned. The FAQ pages do not have different URLs. But later I looked around and found it, which is why I undid it and redid the edit with what I think is the important point: that FAQ answer is outdated. They must have failed to update it when the policy changed. Not only does the DHS page not list an onward ticket as a requirement, neither does the CBP webpage about the VWP requirements here: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program So two main requirement pages do not list it compared to one FAQ answer that does. In light of me speaking to three officers at CBP and ESTA who all confirmed that this is not required, and having entered the US with my wife under the VWP without needing this (which may not fulfill wikipedia standards, but does help us find the facts), plus the two official requirements pages not listing an onward travel ticket, I think we can safely update the article that this is not a requirement now. We would never have had this confusion if the DHS would have updated their FAQ, ugh. Thanks for your work on this article, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.33.59.72 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, State.gov's webpage regarding requirements for the VWP does not list an onward ticket: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.33.59.72 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot make such assumptions. What if the initial page simply does not contain all information, if it's just an intro. We can't make an original analysis that the FAQ page is outdated. What matters is finding the relevant legislation and seeing what does it say and if there were amendments.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found the relevant legislation - 8 U.S.C. § 1187

(8) Round-trip ticket

The alien is in possession of a round-trip transportation ticket (unless this requirement is waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security under regulations or the alien is arriving at the port of entry on an aircraft operated under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a noncommercial aircraft that is owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations).

So there you go.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already saw that code. The legislation does not answer the question because it is conditional "unless this requirement is waived." So it seems that this requirement has been waived. We have three official government pages all listing requirements for the VWP and they do not list the onward ticket. As I mentioned, three officials confirmed to me that this is not required. Feel free to call DHS if you want to get the answer. And yes I know that this does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines for editing articles, but that is not what I am suggesting. It can help you to get the facts. Does anyone else besides me and twofortnights want to give their opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.33.59.72 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I found out from stackexchange that this is required, but apparently CBP does not typically require seeing it when people enter. However, airlines could deny boarding without it. So it's better to keep this listed as a requirement. http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/90174/when-entering-the-us-on-vwp-are-you-required-to-have-proof-of-onward-travel-wit/90463 http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/81726/is-it-possible-to-enter-the-us-on-a-one-way-ticket?noredirect=1&lq=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.33.59.72 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Visa Waiver Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Random dots in the first picture

What are the seemingly random dots/small circles on the world map in the first figure? Small states?

On land, many of them seemly do not align with the capital or the geographical center of countries (though probably for small countries like Andorra and Monaco). And there are four in or near Italy (Vatican, the city-state of Venice, Monaco, and Malta?). At least it ought to be explained in the article.

--Mortense (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortense: All these circles represent small countries, to make them more visible. This is a very common practice in world maps in Wikipedia. If you don't know a certain country, open the map file in the browser, move the pointer there, and the country name will pop up. Heitordp (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning in external links section

A little while ago I added a hidden text warning against adding spam/promotional links to unofficial travel agency/visa websites in this diff, however it was later removed by someone without explanation in their edit summary. Could I gain consensus on whether we should keep it or not? I've added this warning to almost every single country's “visa policy” related articles on Wikipedia as these sorts of articles are prone to prolific spamming by unscrupulous visa travel agencies. I think it's just better to have it out of precaution. Fork99 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding the hidden text. Heitordp (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Area countries eligibility

If Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are not included in the VWP, why are “Schengen Area countries” listed as eligible countries, and not listed individually? It seems confusing in my opinion. Itamarm10 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Itamarm10: Because Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are not yet part of the Schengen Area. Heitordp (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wasn’t aware of this. Itamarm10 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cultists groups in terrorisms.

There was a serious incidents on 2022 to 2023 date 5 or 6th -Dec.About the reports i composed in the crime which was the following: One name Onyedika or chinyere & husband as suspects in ojira,otukpo,Benue,Nigeria with their groups of cultists in terrorisms. The groups cultists names was among chinyere & husban are Eddy,junior,2 girls names unknown with a man with a bike,mummy teller not her real name that was cultists shop renter in number 5 ochigbo,ojira,otukpo,Benue,Nigeria which committed twice a cultists crimes of trasspass cases of videos coverage saved for purposed of cultists activities included little school children of foundation nursery & primary school videos captured gathered in front of the house where Abel stays in numbers 3 ochigbo,ojira,otukpo,Benue,Nigeria & Abel planning to take case to law court with a lawyers as a developer director staff incharge of crimes related to cultists in terrorisms in all countries.Foundation nursery & primary school children & others travels to tourists 3 days & school abroad can't work out which was dropped waivers & stop immediately because the travel record trafficking,forgeries names with documents & the children ,people & others must be arrest in the airports at home.Auto digital must be use to controls systems borders protections of biometric websites & fingers pastes prescreening with me to shortlisted rejected not among or accepted qualified universities graduates holders with TOFEL pass very well exams to be approve to studies abroad before issuance of travels visas,passports,airlines & others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.88.44.120 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]