Participant nations in the Visa Waiver Program

WASHINGTON — The House passed a bill that would restrict the travel of Iraqi and Syrian nationals to the United States, even if they are natives of nations whose citizens can enter the United States without obtaining a visa.

The bill, which overhauls the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), was denounced by activists and civil rights organizations. It passed by 407 to 19. The program allows citizens of 38 countries— which include most of western Europe— to stay in the United States up to 90 days for tourism or business.

The Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015 excludes citizens of participant nations who traveled to Syria, Iraq, Iran or Sudan over the past 5 years. Residents of the 38 nations who also carry dual citizenship in one of those four countries would require a Visa to enter the United States if the bill is signed into law. 

The legislation would also increase security coordination between the United States and participant countries. 

Critics say some provisions of the bill are discriminatory and ineffective. They pointed out that the legislation punishes aid workers and journalists who have traveled to Syria and Iraq, as well as Muslims who went there for religious purposes. Iraq and Iran are home to Muslim shrines that some Muslims visit yearly. 

Most of Michigan’s Congressional Democrats voted against the bill.

In a joint statement, Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn), John Conyers, Jr. (D-Detroit), Dan Kildee (D-Flint) and Brenda Lawrence (D- Southfield), who voted no on the bill, stressed the importance of keeping Americans safe, but acknowledged the civil rights concerns voiced against the legislation.

“I voted against this bill because it could result in discrimination against people simply because of their nationality or because they have visited a particular country to visit family or to do humanitarian work,” Dingell told The Arab American News via email. “People should be evaluated on the specific security risk they pose – not where they are from.”

The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the House of Representatives describing the exclusion of Syrian and Iraqi nationals from the VWP— even if they have never been to Syria or Iraq— as an “extraordinary discriminatory measure.”

Iraq and Syria automatically grant citizenship to children of their citizens, even if the children were born abroad.

The ACLU cited a British reporter, Swiss social worker and a Belgian human rights investigator as examples of individuals who are not a security threat but would require a visa to enter the United States if the bill becomes law.

The letter said the legislation broadly scapegoats groups, based on nationality.

“(The legislation) would fan the flames of discriminatory exclusion, both here and abroad,” the letter read.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Human Rights Watch and the League of United Latin American Citizens also denounced the bill.

“The bill intentionally discriminates against Arabs and engages in profiling based on national origin, forcing dual citizens to have to relinquish their identity to be provided the same benefits that all citizens are afforded in their own country,” ADC said in a statement.

ADC also criticized the bill for not including a “sunset provision” that would make the bill expire and allow for reviews when discussing its renewal.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national civil and human rights advocacy organizations, said the effect of some of the legislation’s exclusions on national security is negligible.

“While Iraqi or Syrian dual nationals, or people who have visited those countries, could still apply at a U.S. consulate for a nonimmigrant visa, they would be subjected to a process that raises concerns about ethnic and national origin profiling and other arbitrary practices,” the organization said in a statement.

Ali Hammoud, the president of the Arab American Political Action Committee, denounced the bill as “disturbing.”

Hammoud said the legislation is an extension of Donald Trump’s call for banning Muslims from entering the United States.

He added that the bill received bipartisan support because the entire political spectrum in the country is shifting.

“Senior Democrats are supporting the bill along with Republicans because the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that some Democrats are moving to right of center to appease voters in future elections,” he explained. 

Nabih Ayad, the founder of the Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL), said the legislation is a knee jerk reaction that does not make Americans safer.

Ayad added that the bill plays into the hands of terrorists who want to do harm to the United States by raising fears and suspicion of Muslims. 

“It’s absolutely not legal; it’s discriminatory against a certain group of people simply because of their ethnicity or religion,” Ayad said. “You can’t do that in this country. We call ourselves the beacon of freedom in the world. We have the Bill of Rights. But when it comes to actually putting the Bill of Rights to the test, we’re failing miserably.”

Ayad said there’s no point to the bill’s provisions relating to nationality. He pointed out that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States by individuals from Syria, Iraq, Iran or Sudan.

“It’s just playing to the general public fears,” he said. “We cannot be a nation of leaders and then play to those fundamental fears that are out there.”

Ayad said restricting business travel is “bad for business”, as it discourages investors from coming to the United States.