More history of visas

I was talking about America's bonkers immigration system on my last post and I want to go in more detail about how the current systems came to be this way.

American citizens have the 8th most powerful passport in the world. This is a wonderful thing. But travel freedom has been declining globally over the last 20 years as governments have created a new class of visa in a number of countries for citizens of their allies. This is an alarming trend which should concern us all.

Countries with such policies are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US, and next year the European Union will roll out a similar program. The claims these governments make is that such programs reduce crime. I addressed in my previous post that the US VWP was started in response to the 9/11 attackers, but the main problem with this claim is that no one who was even involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way would have been covered by the VWP because they were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE, all of which are most definitely NOT covered by the VWP.

So let's see the evidence that has caused so many governments to increase visa restrictions on other democracies, and which the EPP government of the European Union will follow through and copy next year.

Well, the first hit on Google Scholar is a little more broad and they studied whether increasing immigration enforcement in the United States reduces crime. Turns out that in fact, the Secure Communities program, an expensive system in the United States used to identify immigrants in jails, does not reduce crime and is a glorious waste of taxpayer money. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/680935

Do deportations reduce crime? Well, not according to FBI data which found no statistically significant relationship between deportations and crime rates. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/upshot/deportations-crime-study.html

Will new machine learning models reduce crime? Could we potentially use this to more selectively and accurately screen people crossing the border without the need for visas? Well, the evidence so far shows that such models which have been used rely on faulty data and usually create biased models which don't actually reduce crime. https://www.science.org/content/article/can-predictive-policing-prevent-crime-it-happens

All of these expensive policing and machine learning programs are less effective than just adding green space it appears, which is effective and relatively inexpensive. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972201097X

So make cities worth living in perhaps? That can't be right. That goes against the entire cultural norms of the United States today where we just need to spend more money, put more police on the streets, increase border security, and all of these other solutions the government has been putting into place since Nixon was President.

It is very difficult to find any evidence on why the ESTA program was created online, and even harder to track down proof that it actually reduces crime. There is a report by the Congressional Research Service where the author points out that the real reason the Visa Waiver Program was created not because there was a lot of crimes being created by European Tourists, she doesn't state their were not frequent crimes created by European tourists, but she doesn't state that there were. If there were frequent crimes done by European tourists in the United States, trust me, that reason would be stated, and the policy would be understandable. But she doesn't state it, because it wasn't a problem.

The reason the author points out is that there was a fear that terrorist organizations would use nationals of European Union countries to get into the United States and commit crimes here. It wasn't based on any actual evidence that the terrorist organizations were going to use Canadians to get into the US and commit crimes.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Visa_Waiver_Program/fYv5-cIBkBIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=visa+waiver+program+impact+on+crime+from+europe&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover

Another, more recent report, with similar findings:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200401_R46300_ba7d75b06ca2e23a0a39706b36e5dee8bce5a6cf.pdf

Oh yeah, meant to say Europeans there, but there is no reason why terrorist organizations can't just use Canadians and totally bypass the Visa Waiver Program. But they don't. That isn't a problem. So I don't believe there is any actual reality-land based reason on how the Visa Waiver Program actually makes America safer. If there was, it would have been mentioned in at least one of the several Congressional Research Service reports I have read while researching this. But it wasn't mentioned, because there is no evidence for it. I cannot find any solid evidence the program actually has a significant impact on crime. If the government could prove that it did, they would tell us.

This needs research from independent researchers from universities on whether ESTA is actually effective. If it is indeed ineffective, as I suspect, it needs to be abolished.

What actually would have stopped the terrorists?

So to analyze this we have to look into two things, 1. What was the visa status of terrorists who actually attacked the United States, and 2. how frequently are terrorist attacks done in Europe?

Well, if we look into the history of any of the 9/11 attackers we find that they had a few things in common:

1. None of them would have been caught by ESTA, because none of them were citizens of Visa Waiver Program countries.
2. All of the 9/11 attackers went through customs legally using valid visas which were granted to them by Colin Powell's State Department.

The only connection to any VWP country was the Hamburg Cell, but the United States and Germany had no evidence connecting them to al Qaeda when the terrorists lived there in 1998 and 1999. So we did nothing, because we couldn't. ESTA would not have caught these individuals because they did not possess German citizenship.

Abdulaziz al-Omari used the Visa Express program, which is a company which helps facilitate expedited visa processing into the United States. It still means you go through the same process as any other standard B-visa, it just means you get your appointment sooner. This process still exists, and the company still exists.

Hani Hanjuor was the only 9/11 attacker who had studied in the United States. He was a Saudi citizen which means the VWP would have done nothing to catch him.

The first thing which the US government and our allies could have done is that when the NSA intercepted a call between two known al Qaeda associates in 1999, and felt that something nefarious might be afoot, they could have followed up and worked with the Malaysian authorities to monitor those al-Qaeda members at the time. But the NSA, FBI, and other agencies who literally exist to do this job of monitoring dangerous international criminals decided it wasn't their job. But if the FBI's job isn't to monitor terrorist organizations which had already attacked the United States, what exactly is their job? Multiple participants of the 9/11 attacks could have been apprehended if the FBI and CIA were just competent and after seeing red flags had acted on them.

Data sharing between agencies, which is one of the good things the PATRIOT ACT does, would have worked. Or the State Department could just do their job and do a proper investigation when someone from a country like Saudi Arabia applies for a visa to make sure they aren't connected to terrorism, a country which already was known as a source of terrorists like Osama bin Laden. But is that really the job of the State Department?

It actually is their job and has been their job for over 200 years. Otherwise why bother having visas at all?

The actual solutions to stopping terrorism include:

1. Democratization is a long term effective strategy. Terrorists typically come from authoritarian countries which are either actively spreading extremist views or low income.
2. Properly vet people coming from countries which are known to have high levels of terrorist activity.
3. Properly vet tourists from countries which are not democracies.
4. When there is a legitimate concern or a tip off that an individual is tied to a terrorist organization, the government needs to followup and not grant them visas.

The expansion of visas to people from democracies however, is not an effective method at stopping terrorism, and needs to be independently audited, and if the audit finds it is ineffective, it needs to be abolished.

Europe and America, what we can learn from each other.

I got home last night from Europe, spending some time with my German family as well as doing touristy things around London, Wroclaw, Prague, Munich, and Reykjavik. There are things both the US and Europe can learn from each other to make our homes more free and more livable.

All of these ideas are from talking with real life Europeans and spending time there. Consider this my travel blog.

Things America needs to learn

Health care, this is the obvious one. Everyone talks about it, and our system needs more reform. Despite some backsliding in Germany, which is why the CDU is no longer in power, the US pays way too much for worse results in health care compared to our OECD allies. The US needs more health care reform so more people have access and so we can save money. The sad reality is we could establish a single payer health care system without increasing the amount we already spend on health care by governments. After this we can eliminate most private health care spending while getting better results and universal coverage. Germany needs to rollback the changes Merkel made and rebuild their health care system back to where it was.

Our college is way too expensive. We need debt free college. Elizabeth Warren's plan comes the closest to solutions which countries in Europe have already figured out. We are leaving too many benefits on the table, and our current system costs us dearly.

Our city design is mostly terrible. We need to allow densification. It makes cities which are better for your health, better for the climate, and better for building community. Most American cities are far too car centric, and this is because of poor or non-existent public transit.

Our railroads perform terribly. We are closing too many rail lines, we need more passenger rail, and we can do this without sacrificing freight, but by actually having more freight rail. We need to nationalize our railroad, and Germany is one of the best models. Bring back Conrail and expand it across the country. Private passenger carriers will be allowed, and AMTRAK will be allowed to operate wherever they want. States and local governments will have every right to create regional passenger services separate from AMTRAK. Passenger has priority over freight. This is simple stuff. As long as we don't do this we will continue to have too many flights over short distances, too many people will be forced to drive, it is bad for the environment, and it is a drain on our economy. Nationalize the railroads, bring back Conrail.

Our customs, airport security, and immigration systems are just completely awful. We need to overhaul this wasteful system and run it the way they run customs in the European Union. Do the same thing with TSA which is also completely terrible, and I have no defense for them. Why not make Global Entry and TSA Precheck pointless by just having a safe, secure, pleasant, and good airport customs and security system? Is America not good enough? I don't believe that.

We spend way too much on police without any benefit for the massive amounts of money spent. Reduce spending on police and spend it on programs which actually work.

4 weeks paid vacation and paid sick leave need to be legal rights. My European family rightfully see our lack of worker's rights as backwards. This won't hurt our GDP and will create jobs in the tourism sector.

There is no legitimate reason for us not to aim for membership in Schengen with Canada. Schengen will create jobs in the tourism sector and be a boon for our economy.

Things Europeans can learn

There are higher costs of creating a business in most European countries than is necessary. If someone has an idea, they should be able to file a business license for a reasonable cost, perhaps a higher cost if they want a more complex business model like a S or C corporation, and then start working. It is easy by global standards, but there is room for improvement to help Europe be more competitive.

Things we both need to improve on

The biggest expense for European governments is spending money on maximum benefit pensions. The United States is going to have the same problem with Social Security, and many local governments already do. This cost is out of control, inefficient, and drains the economy. Moving towards a mandatory superannuation system will create a more vibrant economy which works better for everyone.

 

Racism is a major problem in both areas. This is deeply complex and deserves its own book.

On travel we are going backwards

In 2009 the US setup the visa waiver program, which implemented visas on tourists from American allies after the 9/11 attacks. The issue with this is that none of the 9/11 attackers would have been caught by the visa waiver program, as they are from countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia which rightfully don't have visa free access to the US or Europe because they are hotbeds of terrorism and terrorist financing. Egypt and Saudi Arabia should continue to need visas as long as their internal problems with terrorism remain. There is no evidence that the visa waiver program has actually prevented any attack, and if there was any evidence the government wouldn't let us forget. There is absolutely no one in prison in the United States or anywhere in the world today for violating these laws because they were planning to commit a terrorist attack in the United States. Literally no one.

On top of this, the cases of tourists from visa waiver program countries committing serious crimes while visiting the United States before the beginning of the program simply wasn't a thing.

This being said, despite the absolute lack of evidence that anyone from the countries which are covered by the Visa Waiver program, or will be covered by the upcoming ETIAS program in Europe has even attempted a terrorist attack in any of these 35 countries over the last 20 years, the European Union is planning on implementing their own expensive program which will likely catch no terrorists, since there have been absolutely zero attempted terrorist attacks by any citizen of any country which will be covered by ETIAS over the last 30 years.

It is an expensive bureaucratic program which will curtail freedom and provide no additional security. No lives will be saved because the number of Europeans losing their lives to people who are able to travel visa free to Europe is zero.

A much better, faster, and less expensive solution is to just share criminal records between our countries, which we already do, and if someone has committed a crime which is serious enough to warrant not being able to travel, we put them on the no fly list, which is what we already do. If we need border agents to have access to better public-record criminal record database which can be automatically searched, then this is not a violation of our rights, and a reasonable measured action to prevent crimes like sex trafficking. https://www.backgroundchecks.com/blog/does-border-patrol-do-a-background-check-when-crossing

The no fly list is a highly effective and inexpensive tool to prevent terrorist attacks. Requiring every single American or European tourist to go through a bureaucratic procedure would cost significant amounts of money, and solve no problems.

It is a problematic policy in search of a problem to solve.

If it is just designed to be reciprocity for the visas the US has put on European tourists, then there are far better ways to get the US government to see that the Visa Waiver policy is a waste of taxpayer money which harms our economy. The European Union can instead make it inconvenient for embassy staff and politicians to enter the European Union, putting limitations on how long they can stay per year, and putting them through extensive mandatory questioning and enhanced screening whenever they cross the border. They can also use their media to frequently complain about the ludicrous policy to their American readers, and eventually this would make it change.

In the best of all worlds, the ETIAS system will get the American government to end ESTA and move back to a world where free peoples can travel between democracies freely. If there was an actual problem to be solved, which there isn't, then expanding visas to citizens of democracies would make sense, but it is not a problem, so our policies are a step backwards.

 

I feel like this is a major step backwards, it is not trivial, and moves the Overton Window in the wrong direction. Policies like these are never the endpoint, and it will likely get worse before it gets better.

Plus, any system you put in place will have bugs. Unless if there was an actual problem to be solved, which there isn't, then adding in new systems will inevitably implement new problems which are unexpected.

Not only that, but the bill which outlines the reasons to create this policy claim it is for gathering data, but even the authors of this bill are unable to pinpoint exactly where tourists from visa free countries have harmed European Union citizens, because it isn't a problem. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1240&rid=9

They claim that the new ETIAS system will automatically search through databases and provide an immediate response on whether the person has a criminal record. But here's the rub, and there is the same problem with the programs in the US, Canada, and Australia... don't we already do that when you are going through customs? If the customs agent's computer isn't automatically checking these databases for safety and security... than what exactly is the point of customs? Because I am confident their programs already search these databases when I cross a border where I don't need a visa. If the computer is having trouble automatically clearing an individual (which is what ESTA and ETIAS does) then we can just bring the person to a side room, apologize, and do a more thorough search as the person waits for the bureaucrats to ensure the person is not a risk to society.

Because this is what customs agents already do. ESTA and ETIAS are pointless and expensive systems which add no security over what we already have in our customs systems.

A final nail in the coffin in how this system is utterly pointless is if you look at the Canadian system ETA which was implemented by Stephen Harper, and is identical to these other systems. It is very similar to the US system and exempts US nationals. Why would it be that US citizens, a country which a higher homicide rate than any Schengen member state, are not a risk compared to someone from Luxembourg, a country with almost no homicides who would now need a visa? This is a program which the Privacy Commissioner of Canada expressed concern over when it was implemented.

The only half reasonable conclusion is these policies have nothing to do with security. They have to do with control.

A Brief History of Visas

In 1931 the Deutsches Reich implemented a Reich Flight Tax in order to prevent rich people from leaving Germany with their money. This was later expanded by the Nazi government as a form of societal control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Flight_Tax

They were repealed in 1953, and Europe moved towards the opposite approach to tie their defense together under NATO in 1949 for mutual defense. They started to tie their economies together starting with the Coal and Steel Community in 1952, in 1947 the European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy Community were formed, in 1965 the European Communities were formed, Schengen began in 1993, and the European Union began with the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May 1999.

Despite all of the fearmongering then and now about "immigration is killing our jobs" and a bunch of other lies, the countries of Europe successfully integrated their economies to where anyone who doesn't support Schengen today is pushed to the margins of politics. This happened after literally centuries of history of war between the predecessors of every European country made it the most violent place in the world for over a millennium. But nowadays the thought of a war between France and Germany is utterly unimaginable.

The free travel between EU countries has strengthened all of its members as they have improved and developed strong durable democratic institutions which rank as the freest, least corrupt, and wealthiest countries in the world. I am doubtful this would have been possible without the European Union, even though this is a counterfactual, I believe these institutions have strengthened European states.

This makes the conservatives furious, and there is nothing they can do to stop it quickly.

 

Ten years ago we saw moralizing about debt as a major tool of the right wing in Europe, but after some pain the economies of southern Europe recovered, and none of them attempted to leave the European Union, or even the Euro. This thinly veiled attempt failed at tearing apart modern European democracy.

The second attempt came from thinly veiled Russian media and the conservative party of the United Kingdom to tear apart the European Union in the form of Brexit. I believe a major reason for this was a directive by the European Union to start to fight against money laundering in 2015, one year before the push for Brexit began. It is not a coincidence that London happens to also be awash with Russian money. Get a subscription to the Economist, it's worth the price.

I worked in politics long enough to snuff out any belief in coincidence. There are too many very intelligent people in politics for something this utterly blatant to not be a major reason for Brexit. The inability of the Labour-Conservative majority to give a clear reason why they are for Brexit, plus this glaring reason why corrupt politicians and corrupt bankers would want to leave the European Union is obvious.

On this side of the pond we have basically accepted the PATRIOT ACT. We have accepted that airport security is an arduous and ridiculous affair. We have accepted the government will illegally wiretap our communications. We have accepted many policies which should be considered to be outside the bounds of a modern free society since so few politicians in the US are willing to clearly state why the PATRIOT ACT is a highly flawed piece of legislation which never appropriately targeted the real problems for why we were attacked in 2001, instead focusing its effort on expensive, mistargeted, ineffective solutions to fight global terrorism.

Again this comes back to how politicians are not stupid. There are too many intelligent people working in the government for this to be a mistake. I believe very strongly that when a decision or policy does not achieve their stated goal, the stated goal was never the real goal from the beginning. The utter lack of legislation to undo the PATRIOT ACT over the last 20 years means that the claims which were made on why the PATRIOT ACT was passed were lies, and the real objectives have been accomplished.

I also believe very strongly that travel is critical to the maintenance of a free society. The free spread of ideas is critical for people to see how to improve their homes, and how to share ideas on better methods on how to do government and other important tasks. This is why scientists of all fields travel around the world every year to see each other face to face, because there is a certain interaction and bonding which can happen face to face which simply cannot be accomplished in any other way.

 

Just like how scientific research relies on face to face communication at conferences, democracies rely on face to face communication and direct experience of how other democracies work so we can all notice the differences in our societies and learn how we can improve our homes. I know of no better way.

 

On top of this, no policy is ever going to be the end-all and be-all of a set of policies. The Overton Window is always shifting, and every policy we pass moves that Overton Window closer or farther away from a just and safe democratic society.

I do not believe freedom and safety are contrary ideas, in fact, if you look at the world, the safest countries are also the most free. This false dichotomy which has been spread in order to pass extremist policies like the PATRIOT ACT is, and always has been, a lie.

 

This leads us to the realization that behind Brexit and the austerity crisis is a deeper reason for the policies of the last 20 years. The right wing know that they can't just infringe on people's freedom in a durable democratic society to the extent they desire, but they have to whittle away at it. Make it harder to travel. Increase unwarranted surveillance. Make the internet a pain to use. Make it more difficult to start a business. Each of these laws by themselves seem innocuous to the untrained eye, but when you start to see them together it becomes clear that they are all part of one giant trend coming from the right wing.

I believe that what we are seeing is the slow whittling away of democratic norms by a gradually more relevant anti-democratic force in our democratic societies. Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and Viktor Orban are the most clear examples today of the anti-NATO, anti-European Union rhetoric we see, but they are not alone. The policies they implement seek to divide us from our friends, and create more autocratic societies.

We are fortunate the institutions which were created by the Greatest Generation have lasted as long as they have, and they have given us time to protect our freedom, but this slow whittling of freedom is becoming serious between Brexit being here and ETIAS on the horizon. Brexit wasn't the end, and neither will ETIAS be the last step in reducing freedom. The Visa Waiver program used to be free, but it isn't anymore. This will grow unless if it is stopped now.

It is up to us, the citizens of free democracies around the world to demand better policies from our governments and oppose all policies like ETIAS and ETA.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

The hardest country to enter with an American Passport is the USA

Once again the hardest border to cross with an American passport is when you are entering the United States.

How it works in Europe

If you are a European you enter by scanning your passport, it checks your biometrics against the detail stored in your passport, if there is a match, you are in, no problem. Report to customs if you have anything to declare, otherwise welcome home.

If you are entering the UK it works the same way, but also for EU, US, Canadian, Australian, and a few other nationalities the UK has working agreements with. There is no need for a system like Global Entry to move their citizens through customs quickly because it is already efficient for everyone.

If you are going through security in the EU and you are not a citizen, they are sufficiently staffed, there is plenty of room to unload your luggage, and it is quick and easy at Munich airport, the 6^th busiest airport in the European Union. Reykjavik is the same way. No reason to shill out more money only to get the same efficient service. That would be dumb.

But let’s say you are American and you want to go home.

Confusing Republican System

This all started with the immigration restrictions started by the PATRIOT ACT which protects our nation from the global menace of socks and sandals, and does nothing to curb the flow of money from Gulf States to terrorist organizations.

Well, first of all, the DHS website presents you with several options. They are:

• TSA Precheck (speedy security)

• Global Entry (speedy customs, comes with TSA precheck)

• Nexus (which states that it comes with both TSA Precheck and global entry on their website)

• SENTRI (may include TSA Precheck)

• FAST (truck drivers going between US, Canada, and Mexico)

Now we end up with a very confusing setup on the TSA website, which confused me today.

Our first screenshot is from ttp.cbp.dhs.gov:

Our second screenshot is from https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/nexus

Our third screenshot is from https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/global-entry/frequently-asked-questions:

Now we have a big question for the government… As a NEXUS holder, If I were to fly between London and Toronto with a connecting flight to Chicago, I can use the Global Entry kiosks for my connecting flight. If I were to fly directly from London to Chicago, I cannot use the exact same kiosk because its in the USA.

How does this make any sense?

The wording for NEXUS is also confusing because basically it is expedited immigration into Canada, as well as simplified security procedures at all major Canadian airports.

What gets even more confusing, is you can add the program for another tax (fee) to your already existing Nexus card, since the Nexus card application already includes all of the required information for Global Entry (obviously, since it works in Canada), but this is not available to all US Citizen Nexus members!

This is a system designed to confuse and get people in trouble. It is difficult to know which program to apply to, and you basically have to know all your travel plans for the next 5 years in advance to know which one to go for. This is absurd.

There are a few directions the US government can go from here.

• Make it so that there is only one program. It will be TSA Precheck and Global Entry. If we have given you a background check and gotten your biometrics once, you shouldn’t have any restrictions on which program you want to use! If you want to go for NEXUS your application is also approved by the Canadians and they also receive your biometrics so you can use their kiosks just like the Global Entry kiosks. This is the conservative non-confusing option.

• Just do what the Europeans do and since we already have biometrics with your passport, we can just use the same technology the Europeans already use for their own citizens. Their borders are just as secure as ours. This would make global entry redundant.

• Do what the British do and use the exact same technology for all citizens from countries which have biometric passports and share data with us. Their borders are just as secure as ours.

• Make TSA fast and secure by default like it already is in Europe perhaps? This would make TSA Precheck redundant.

• Maybe join Schengen, and use their already very efficient security apparatus which is superior to ours because having customs between the US, Canada, and the EU is very silly. This is the default in Europe, and it works just fine, they are safer than the US.

Because seriously… George Bush really screwed up our immigration. It’s time to make it better.