Talk:Visa Waiver Program

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Passport requirements 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is only applicable to the United States.  It is not a multilateral agreement. JAJ 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it only applicable to United States 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with [[United States visas]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Map of VWP waiver countries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Arrested or Convicted"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moral Turpitude

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further Info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Visa Waiver for EU citizens 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Australia? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Croatia? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Vatican 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename or Divide This into Multiple Articles? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Fee included in ticket? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Economic situation of programme countries 

message: 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" 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)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Some relevent information can be found here, [], 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)

text: 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)

text: 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) []XavierGreen (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jay Indians

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map is not up to date. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Argentina 2012 

message: It's safe to say Croatia, Peru and Malaysia should be included on the list? therewillbehotcake (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nominated and road map countries update 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, I've updated the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unless travelling by road, necessarily from Mexico or Canada ... 

message: 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: 
From Microstate: Warrington, E., 1994. Lilliputs Revisited. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 16(1).
From Saudi Arabia: 
From United Arab Emirates: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Visa Waiver Program]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Visa Waiver Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070901005505/http://www.visitguam.org:80/airtravel/?pg=entry to http://www.visitguam.org/airtravel/?pg=entry
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091009111944/http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/asgpage.htm to http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/asgpage.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100310204843/http://kingston.usembassy.gov:80/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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Visa Waiver Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070613080816/https://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1164919987951.shtm to http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1164919987951.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080604015538/http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1212498415724.shtm to http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1212498415724.shtm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overstay rate 2015 inconsistent with source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623123943/http://www.eta.immi.gov.au/ETAAus1En.html to http://www.eta.immi.gov.au/ETAAus1En.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/1-documentary-requirements-nonimmigrants-19609010
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626154124/http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/whti-ivho/menu-eng.html to http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/whti-ivho/menu-eng.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717071839/http://kolonia.usembassy.gov/visas/fsm-citizens.html to http://kolonia.usembassy.gov/visas/fsm-citizens.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508060526/http://www.palauembassy.com/Bulletins/200510051.htm to http://www.palauembassy.com/Bulletins/200510051.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Random dots in the first picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with adding the hidden text. Heitordp (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning in external links section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are not yet part of the Schengen Area. Heitordp (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I wasn’t aware of this. Itamarm10 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schengen Area countries eligibility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  cultists groups in terrorisms.