Talk:Visa policy of the United States

Help with table

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_visas&oldid=102243439

I can't get the table in the right spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazmier (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Does somebody know how to fix this table? The editor shows it as part of the "Select List of the Various Types of Visas" section, but in my browser (Firefox) it appears after "External links". TiffaF 06:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice that the table starts with {| class="wikitable". It has to end with |} or it won't work properly. Fixed. -FunnyMan 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Visa Waiver Program?

• I suggest this article should be merged with Visa Waiver Program. TiffaF 06:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

is this correct?

"The immigration visa process is even more stringent and costly. After all processing fees have been paid, most immigration visa applicants pay well over $1,000 to become permanent residents in the United States and are forced to wait several years before actually immigrating to the U.S."

Is this definitely correct? and how long does it roughly take?

Anyone who has any info plz help because i am confused and the answer is extremely important to me.

thanx Igorndhaswog 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Nonimmigrant Classifications, Visas, Statuses

This article would be more accurately entitled "United States Nonimmigrant Classifications" and have other links such as "United States Nonimmigrant Visas" and "United States Nonimmigrant Statuses" point to this article. This article does not cover United States immigrant visas, and technically speaking the content of this article is about the various nonimmigrant classifications, which is what INA 101(a)(15) defines, and not about the visas. A valid nonimmigrant visa, issued by the U.S. Dept. of State, is only a permit for an alien of the U.S. to seek entry into the U.S. in a certain nonimmigrant classification. If the alien is admitted into the U.S. by the Dept. of Homeland Security, the nonimmigrant alien will then acquire nonimmigrant status in the classification indicated on the visa. —Hindernis 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though the article discusses E, H, L, K, V classifications which may lead to eventual acquisition of immigrant status by the alien, these are still nonimmigrant classifications under the INA, 8 CFR, and 22 CFR. When I said above that "this article does not cover United States immigrant visas", I meant it does not specifically describe the various immigrant visas such as the family-based immigrant visas and the employment-based immigrant visas such as the various EB, SK, SD visas. —Hindernis 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Types and Visa Classifications

There are three types of U.S. nonimmigrant visas (diplomatic, official, and regular) and the visa type is normally based on the type of passport held by the alien. The classification of a nonimmigrant visa is the designated purpose for which the visa may be used (A-1 for diplomats, B-2 for tourists, etc.) This distinction is made in the laws and regulations, but not in the information provided to the public by the U.S. Dept. of State. The illustration in the main article shows a "regular B-1/B-2" visa. —Hindernis 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Asterisks under the photograph

Does anyone know the meaning of the asterisks beneath the vistors photo on a US Visa? On the example in the article there are 2 but I hear there can be 0 to 3 of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.94.14 (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

EB-n Visas

I remembered reading about the "EB-n" visa online, I'm surprised they're not listed in the table (unless the sites I was reading had woefully inaccurate data on them). The list only has the EB-5 visa but there's the EB-2 visa for holders of Advanced Degrees http://www.workpermit.com/us/employer_eb2.htm which I suppose gets people around the H-1B rush. Should they be added to the list? W3bbo (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of visa users in 2007

The reference does not discuss visas, and seems to claim 37,149,651 foreign visitors (page 65). "171 million" is the number of boarder crossings. Many or most of the 37 million would still not have visas. (I'm new and afraid to change anything until I learn a bit more) Sanphaka (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The State Department issued 6,603,073 non-immigrant and 470,088 immigrant visas in 2008. The total number of visas in 2008 is 7.073,161, not 171 million! This is of course not the total number of visitors, only those requiring visas. http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html Sanpaka (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the first link in the External links section...

working...???--222.64.214.26 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SK-3?

The table mentions as SK-3 visa, yet it isn't included as one of the ones listed. Kevink707 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Visa requirement doesn't make sense

The first paragraph says:

A foreign national wishing to enter the U.S. must obtain a visa unless he or she is

• a citizen of one of the thirty-six Visa Waiver Program countries,
• a citizen of Canada or Bermuda, or
• statutorily ineligibile for visa-free travel (e.g. criminal records).

So the last of those says "A foreign national must obtain a visa unless he is ineligible for visa-free travel." That doesn't make sense. If you are ineligible for visa-free travel then you must obtain a visa. Rpt0 (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. There are a number of minor laws that afford visa-free travel to a small number of people (for example, compacts of free association with several Micronesian nations), so I added a generic statement about that instead. This should probably be researched further and sourced from an official US government source. But I thought a catch-all statement would be better than the obvious mistake pointed out by the previous commenter. Stian (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

H1-B anti-immigrant bias

The H1-B article discusses several problems with the H1-B program that allow employers to bring in H1-B workers under conditions contrary to the intent of the H1-B program. I did not remove these paragraphs because some of these criticisms may be accurate, but they are also unsourced and full of weasel words.

A more serious problem is that the section only discusses perceived "loopholes" and has a strong anti-immigrant slant. Problems facing H1-B workers -- including the difficulty in qualifying, the quota limits that turn the program into a lottery even for qualified applicants, the 6-year limit on H1-B status, the lack of a path to permanent residence for H1-B workers, the power H1-B employers have over H1-B employees and other such factors are not mentioned.

It is this editor's opinion that a political discussion of the pros and cons of the H1-B program should be relegated to the full article, and that care should be taken to achieve a more balanced point of view. However, since I recognize I may myself be biased (having previously lived in the US as an H1-B worker), I've restricted myself to tagging the issues instead of attempting a rewrite myself. Stian (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Map?

There should be a world map of U.S. visa policy as most other countries have. Go here to see that most countries have a map that serve as a great visual guide and quick reference. Wingedbeaver (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's very useful for our readers and it's now been  Done BushelCandle (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Trapped in the U.S. ?

The U.S. is highly unusual in allowing people to enter without a passport but not allowing them to leave without showing a valid passport.

Where would be the best article to mention this, if not this one, please? BushelCandle (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Visa policy of the United States. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527093723/http://kingston.usembassy.gov/waiverprog_visas.html to http://kingston.usembassy.gov/waiverprog_visas.html

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} 14:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Mangled English?

1)     Does anybody (besides User:Twofortnights) think that
A number of visitors from overstayed the maximum allowed stay on their B-1/B-2 visa
is preferable prose in our article to
A number of visitors overstay the maximum allowed stay on their B-1/B-2 visa
?

2)     Does anybody (besides User:Twofortnights) think that
The top 20 countries of nationality by the number of suspected in-country B-1/B-2 overstays
is preferable prose in our article to
The top 20 nationalities by the number of suspected in-country B-1/B-2 overstays
?

3)     Does anybody (besides User:Twofortnights) think that
The top 10 countries of nationality by in-country B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate are:
is preferable prose in our article to
The top 10 nationalities by in-country B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate are:
?

4)     Does anybody else (besides User:Twofortnights) think that there is any discernible semantic difference between
The Department of Homeland Security published a report for 2015 that lists the number of violations made by passengers who arrived via air and sea. The table below excludes statistics on persons who left the United States later than their allowed stay or legalized their status and shows only suspected overstays who remained in the country. and
The Department of Homeland Security published a report for 2015 that lists the number of violations by passengers who arrived via air and sea. The table below excludes statistics on persons who left the United States later than their allowed stay or legalized their status and shows only suspected overstays who remained in the country.
?

The reason I ask (what some may think are plainly rhetorical questions with patently obvious answers) is that User:Twofortnights has now twice reverted to the versions in red above - the last time with an edit summary of "if you have a better way of putting it then do so, but do not remove information - the table does not show "overstays - period". It shows air/sea overstays and excludes those who had left the country after committing a violation"

5)     Can anybody (including User:Twofortnights) explain to me exactly what was the useful & pertinent "information" that I "remove"(d)? BushelCandle (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle, would you be so baffled if you'd read my edit summaries? Here it is again, you are cutting the article content, trying to simplify English you also remove information which is important. So suddenly a table that shows only overstayers who are still in the country and who arrived only via air and sea - as simply "overstayers"? Well how is that acceptable? I told you - if you wish to write it in a nicer language, go ahead. But simply cutting information out of a sentence has nothing to do with better prose. To give you an example - "After buying 2 apples John now owns them" can be rewritten to look nicer and still mean the exact same thing as "John bought 2 apples". But "John has some items" does not tell us a thing about 2 apples that was there in the first place. In this article it means that if for example the table is about only air/sea arrivals, you can't remove that information, that's not improving the prose, that's unexplained removal of information that makes the article inaccurate.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Twofortnights: do you have vision that is able to distinguish between red and green text? If not, I can try and help you understand in a different way.

What exactly is the important information that I have removed? Spell it out! Don't paraphrase or use analogy! Do take the time to read out loud (with meaning and feeling, as if trying to deliver a speech) the differences I have provided above. Please use my numbering of the topics from 1 to 5 in your reply, where necessary. BushelCandle (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all there is no need to get hysterical, I am not yelling at you nor sending you multiple questions marks. All the snarky comments make you look really bad.

Now I see that you are right, the reason why I thought you removed it was that you did something with new lines which put your edit on one line in line with a different on in diff so it looked like you removed them through editor. Now I've checked in regular editor and you are right. But still I don't see the reason to yell.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for such a gracious apology.

I assume you will now self revert and be more careful with reverting multiple times the edits of others in future? BushelCandle (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks--Twofortnights (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Such as calling other editors "hysterical" or "snarky"? Farewell. BushelCandle (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that is a fact when you make comments using caps lock turned on and with a dozen question marks and bold text and all in condescending manner.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

added clarification references and cleaned up language

The edits I made today were reverted without explanation. My edit was in the interest of improving the article and I rewrote it, in case the changes were unclear. 81.64.61.5 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• We need to talk about your edits. So let's chat.

Firstly, the changes you made to the lead. In response to what you posted on my talk page, you are generally correct that some require entry visas while some do not. However, it is important to point out that most foreign nationals do have to meet requirements to attain a visa. The nationals that do not (i.e. those from countries covered in the Visa Waiver Program) are much fewer in number. Think of it this way: citizens of 38 countries (that's less than the majority of the world) are eligible for visa-free entry. Citizens of the other 100+ countries around the world are not visa-free, and must apply for a visa and meet said requirements. To say that the requirement applies to "some" foreign nationals implies that it's about 50-50, which it isn't. The requirement in fact applies to most foreign nationals, so a general tone in the article's lead is more appropriate. If the French are confused or "misinformed," as you say, I would say that they should be referring to the U.S. government's official websites regarding visa requirements and not some article on Wikipedia for their information. Twofortnights, any comment?

Secondly, you are clearly engaged in an edit war with Twofortnights. The proposed edits originate with you, and as he reverted it on policy grounds (namely OR), the burden is on you to discuss the edits here on the talk page and explain why you believe they do not violate WP's policies. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is an editor's responsibility to explain the reasons why he or she believes the text being removed is a violation of WP policy. I asked for an explanation why a referenced text could be understood as OR, and there was no response, aside from a post that I was vandalizing the page, which is clearly not the case as my edits are in good faith and referenced.

About the first sentence of the page, I do not disagree that the pargraph could be better nuanced. But the US policy is that some aliens require entry visas. Some does not imply about 50-50. It means an unspecified amount. There are over 38 countries and over 500 million people who don't need visas, which is a significant amount. The phrasing should indicate the policy without any ambiguity. (13:01, 7 June 2016)

FWIW, as I'll explain here about each point that was removed without explanation:

1) The term interview or exam. An interview is when people meet for a consultation, while an exam involves a detailed investigation and inspection. I would imagine the term exam appears in the reference because a visa adjudication is a close inspection of a person's intentions, economic and social status, among other things. There is also an uncertain outcome. The use of this term is referenced throughout.

2) "In order to receive a visa, each applicant must pass an in-person exam at the consulate or embassy with jurisdiction over their place of residence (this may be in another country)." This phrase is referenced and I am not sure why it was removed.

3) "Most nonimmigrant visa exams last between 60 and 90 seconds." It's also unclear why this was removed.

4) Section under visa denial: I am not sure why this section was removed, as it's referenced and the content is relevant to the entry.81.64.61.5 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't removing some established information that was in the article for a while and for which there was consensus. I removed patent non-sense that was copy-pasted from some bitter blog on that very day, practically immediately after it was included in the article.

First of all there are no exams for visa applicants as you claim, no matter what some obscure blog claims. Simply there aren't, you need to look into the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before adding such misinformation into the article.

Apart from that the whole "The term interview or exam. An interview is when people meet for a consultation, while an exam involves a detailed investigation and inspection. I would imagine the term exam appears in the reference because a visa adjudication is a close inspection of a person's intentions, economic and social status, among other things. There is also an uncertain outcome. The use of this term is referenced throughout." is nothing but a serious violation of the WP:NOR policy. The official term is interview - [1] so not only that claiming anything else is pointless, it is also nothing but your analysis and that's original research.

Second of all, the fact that Muslim majority countries require a visa is not a visa policy (and check the article name again now). The US visa policy is based on very clear legal criteria and religion is not one of them. In addition, you suggest how a region called "Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas, Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands" does not require a visa. Those countries have absolutely nothing in common.

You also added some random letters and moved a section without any explanation.

As for the lead, I agree with GabeIglesia. What you are trying to enter into the article is not an accurate representation of reality.

Finally you continue undoing other editors without engaging in a meaningful discussion which is a problem.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

University World News is an international publication and a reliable source, not a blog. Using the State Department term instead of what appears in other references is OR and perhaps POV. Regardless of how the policy is expressed by the State Department, all citizens of Muslim majority nations presently require a visa, and this is referenced. The State Department policy is that some aliens require visas. Stating that is indeed an accurate representation of reality.81.64.61.5 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is technically true that "all citizens of a Muslim majority presently require a visa," this isn't necessarily additive to the main article, which is meant to be an encyclopedic account of the visa policy of the United States. I would refer you to Wikipedia:But it's true!. I would also refer you to WP:UNDUE, particularly the section that says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The source that you provided is a lone source that does not necessarily justify its inclusion in the article just because one article clearly said it.

As for your earlier comment about "some require" being a more accurate representation of reality and being "less ambiguous," if anything that actually makes it more ambiguous because it begs the question "so who exactly?" A more general tone (Requirements for foreign nationals, as opposed to "some" foreign nationals) is more clear, because the exemptions (again, which are globally in the minority, not a majority) are clearly outlined later in the article. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• • this the same as the other poster but another number ID popped up here.** This has been reverted because the explanations have not addressed the material within wikipedia policy--despite mentioning some policies. But it's true says: "on Wikipedia, article content must be verifiable in reliable sources." As the edit is referenced, it's still unclear why it was removed. There is no explanation about precisely what text you feel is outside neutrality. There is no viewpoint stated in the material from the reference, it just recounts information like the length of the exams and that certain nationalities require visas. Also, while wikipedia policy states that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources, this edit is among the only secondary sources on these topics in this article. It should have a more central role in the page until there are more secondary sources added on the exams, denials, and other material. About the lede, "if anything that actually makes it more ambiguous because it begs the question "so who exactly?" I agree, and this is why the edit should be "some" (perhaps asking oneself at the same time "who exactly?, which is cleared up in the next phrases) - so the reader understands from the first phrase of the article precisely the US government's visa policy: that some aliens need a visa.82.127.22.47 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules give precedence to reliable sources. In case it's not clear to you, on visa policy of the US - the state department is a reliable source. User 82.127.22.47 is not.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but wikipedia policy states that articles are to be "based mainly" on secondary sources. The repeated removal of this material is disruptive.82.127.22.47 (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I can only copy paste what GabeIglesia wrote and what you chose to ignore - "I would also refer you to WP:UNDUE, particularly the section that says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The source that you provided is a lone source that does not necessarily justify its inclusion in the article just because one article clearly said it."--Twofortnights (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The arguments of Twofornights and GaeIglesia do not explain why they feel the edits do not meet wikipedia policy. Explain further your opinions as to why the reference is not reliable. I do not think the table should be included but the wording of the visa policy in the first sentence, that "some visitors" should clearly be the wording in the article. The table, with Muslim Majority and Africa, needs more discussion. The use of "exam" should be mixed with "interview" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.91.222.243 (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we've made our explanations very clear and exhaustively. We have cited a number of policies very clearly and have explained why they aren't satisfied (WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE). You, on the other hand, have not explained clearly why the content does not violate policy and have continuously re-added your content thinking that it does satisfy policy. The burden is on you, not us, to defend your proposed content and to justify that it does not violate the policies that we have highlighted. You must understand that it was you who first came to add this substantial change to the article. Our removal of this content is in response to your initial addition, and you are not in a position to add it back as if it is some untouchable, agreed-upon part of the article when (based on the extent of this discussion) it clearly isn't.

Thus far, you have responded by justifying that the source (University World News) is sufficiently reliable. But you still have not yet grasped that that one source (even if it is true and "reliable") is not sufficient in an entire inclusion of information that is not additive to the lead of the article. In fact, I would argue University World News is not even appropriate as a source for your content as a newspaper that primarily reports on higher education, not on foreign policy. If I were you, I'd go find another reputable source such as Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs that explicitly states the Muslim visa percentage stuff that you seem so keen on adding in.

Regarding the whole "some foreign nationals are required vs. foreign nationals in general are required" business again, I'm going to iterate this one more time and that I still disagree with your view, because "some" is unnecessarily ambiguous. You can look at plenty of other visa articles, such as Visa policy of Australia, Visa policy of Russia, Visa policy of Canada, Visa policy of the United Kingdom, Visa policy of India, Visa policy of Japan, Visa policy of Egypt, Visa policy of Brazil with similar language. In these various articles, there is no indication of "some." It is generally assumed that there are visa requirements for visitors, but with a few exemptions. Exemptions (hence the term - "exempt" is defined as "being free of an obligation that is imposed on others") are few, not many, and thus it is more ambiguous to use the term "some" when really the word "most" is more true.

• "The visa policy of Australia deals the requirements which a foreign national must meet."
• "The visa policy of Russia deals with the requirements which a foreign national must meet."
• "Visitors to Canada must obtain a visa...unless they are exempt."
• "Visitors to the UK must obtain a visa unless they are exempt."
• "Visitors to India must obtain a visa...unless they come from one of the visa-exempt countries."
• "Visitors to Japan must obtain a visa...unless they come from one of the visa-exempt countries."
• "Visitors to Egypt must obtain a visa...unless they come from one of the visa-exempt countries."
• "Visitors to Brazil must obtain a visa...unless they come from one of the visa-exempt countries."

In re-adding your content, you have also violated the three-revert rule, which has led to administrative action being taken to temporarily protect the article. Please take a moment to consider our viewpoints, as we have considered and responded to yours. GabeIglesia (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing much to add, GabeIglesia explained everything perfectly and I applaud the patience required to write the same thing once again. So, dear IP user, unless you have any new compelling arguments I believe this discussion is closed.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

While the table is not WP:NOR, WP:NPOV or WP:BIT, it is inappropriate because the data therein discusses the effects of visa policy, not the policy. Given the amount of material in print about the unfairness of the US visa policy, there should be a subsection on criticism, and that table could go in it (WP:EXP). Certainly Brazil’s policy of charging US citizens fees in reciprocity and India’s formal complaints to the WTO are extensively covered in the media and not here. Both “exam” and “interview” should appear regarding the adjudication process. Using interview exclusively overweighs one viewpoint and is therefore WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:NPOV. The direct quotes from adjudicators about denials add detail and context. To say that the first sentence should read “a foreign national wishing to enter the United States must meet” when this isn’t true is WP:CB. Both WP:IAPD and WP:IAR refute the examples offered. There are two editors trying to control the page who are on the attack; one IP who made the edit, and two editors who partially support some of content. The discussion should be about merging, not deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.63.253 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Reading that GabeIglesias believes that "some" has a meaning that "implies that it's about 50-50" and Twofortnights believes the citation is from a blog and published the day before the edit, it's hard to take these editors seriously--even if this was just carelessness on their part. This is clearly an Ownership of Articles WP:OWN and WP:GANG issue. All the material should stay, and the sections mentioned should be expanded. I wouldn't be against adding a criticism section.81.128.173.188 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you won't get anywhere with simply linking to a wide array of wiki policies, essays and guidelines. You need to address the issues raised here.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

History section?

One thing that has concerned me is how the article contains no historical perspective on US visa policy.

It would be of great interest to know:

File:Asiatic Barred Zone.png

The Immigration Act of 1917 established the "Asiatic barred zone" (shown in green), from which the U.S. admitted no immigrants.

• origins of US policy re foreigners entering or wishing to enter the country temporarily
• how the modern US visa (nonimmigrant) system came into being and if it had predecessors what they were
• when and why the various visa types were created
• whether nationalities barred from immigrating to the United States by the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924 were also denied nonimmigrant visas?
  • if the US did grant (some types of) nonimmigrant visas to nationalities forbidden from immigrating, which types were allowed
  • for instance, did any nations within the Asiatic Barred Zone maintain or develop diplomatic missions in the US after 1917, and what restrictions on the movement of their diplomats existed (whether by law or custom)?

luokehao, 29 March, 2019, 04:45 (UTC)

Adjusted visa refusal rate missing column headings

The Adjusted visa refusal rate table does not have any headings for the columns. I presume these represent the rates during consecutive years, but which ones? Jpatokal (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

American Samoa for Poland?

I'm not sure if Poles since joined VWP still can't visit American Samoa like other VWP countries. As sources there are used two lists, but I think they weren't updated in last days. It should be checked more accurately. --Kamilhrub (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It will likely take a lot longer than that to get an updated list for American Samoa.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kamilhrub: Poland was finally added to the waiver list for American Samoa on 19 October 2023. Heitordp (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hungary visas

This article says that Hungarian citizens need to be born in Hungary in order to be eligible, but there is no mention of this on the embassy's website. https://hu.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-waiver-program/ I think this information is wrong. Stidmatt (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stidmatt: That page on the website of the US embassy in Hungary is outdated. It still mentions the previous ESTA fee of $14 (it was increased to $21 in 2022), and it doesn't list North Korea as one of the countries in which previous travel or dual nationality affects eligibility (it was added in 2017). The restriction about Hungarian citizens not born in Hungary appeared in 2021, and it's mentioned by the Hungarian consular service, which is referenced in the article. It was also mentioned by some news articles in 2022.[2] Heitordp (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thuvvrs (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thuvvrs (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Summary table colors

@NightWolf1223: The purpose of the colors in the table is simply to display each type of text in a different color, for example yes/green, yellow/police certificate, no/red. The colors are not supposed to convey any additional meaning beyond what the text already does, as recommended by the Wikipedia manual of style. The only exception that I see are the first three rows, whose yes cells are blue instead of green. I had made them all green when I first made the table, but someone later changed them to blue because the visa exemption for nationals of these countries allows them to remain indefinitely and work in the US, unlike the other visa exemptions that have a limit on the period of stay and usually don't allow work. So I propose either changing the text of the first three rows to "unlimited" or something similar, or changing their color back to green. After this change, is there anything else in the table that you find unclear? Heitordp (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heitordp Thanks for clearing that up. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@ 185.213.230.47 (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)