scrubbedexpat099

You forgot the magic words UP TO.

Just because a visa allows you to stay at certain amount of time does not mean there is an expectation that most will. The UK allows yanks 6 months, probably the average is one week.

If you want more than 90 days, and can justify it, you have the B2 as an option.

Everybody I personally know who came for more than 90 days worked under the table.

The B2 application process is a bit self selecting

DeanUK2US

Yep, I did miss out those words and remembered them after. But this only raises the question that a B2 stay can be granted for 90 days and no more in theory which is the same time for the VWP. More hoops and cost to get the B2 than the VWP entry.

As have some on the VWP.

scrubbedexpat099

So B2 should be 90 days as well?

I have lost your point.

Having two choices rather that one is one more.

crg

They proposed limiting B-2 admissions post 9/11 but people threw a fit. Realtors in Florida likely led the charge.

S Folinsky

I just looked at 8 CFR 214.2(b)(2) on line -- B-2 admission is still a minimum of six month with exceptions allowed on an individual basis. Also, the "POV" of your dissertation is backwards -- the program does NOT exist for the benefit of the traveler. Rather, it exists for the perceived benefit of the United States. When the United States determines that a country's VWP eligibility is not in the interests of the US, it can be canceled on short notice -- it has happened at least two times that come to my mind.

Bonny Boy

The right of the US to admit who it wishes is not a matter of dispute.

However, I feel it would be better for all if a system was developed whereby not so much emphasis was placed on judgements made at the port of entry - a greater assurance of entry before setting off.

A visa obtained in advance, and after an interview, might be expected to give such assurance in comparison with a visa waiver obtained via a few internet questions.

My circumstances are such that the VWP is my only route into the US so far as I can see. I can satisfy ESTA, but there is a good chance I will be refused entry.

This is because I do contract based work outside the UK. I work hard, long hours, but then take several months off between contracts. I lodge with relatives in the UK during these times and travel. So if I wanted to vacation in the US for a couple of months, demonstrating ties to the UK (or anywhere) would be problematic.

Yet I am 100% genuine, and would spend welcome money into the US economy.

It seems to be a general trend in law these days for the presumption of guilt unless you can prove otherwise (ie immigrant intent in this case) which makes life difficult for those who do not live in a 'conventional' manner.

henryh

There's always the route of
1. Apply for B-2
2. Get denied because you're VWP eligible
3. Apply for ESTA
4. Get denied because of B-2 denial
5. Apply for B-2 again

I'm not sure whether step 4 always "works".

DeanUK2US

My point is that there is the potential overlap of the VWP vs the B2 in this particular example, where one requires very good reasons for staying and the other just ticks some boxes. And both can permit a stay limited to 90 days*.

(* Folinsky corrected me on that score regarding the B2.)

DeanUK2US

"Perceived benefit" of the US? Not quite sure what that means. How is it 'perceived'?

I know that many might immediately disagree, but I personally would rather take the visa route rather than the VWP. The VWP simply offers quick processing of a large number of individuals wishing to travel to the US, and I gather this is what you mean when you say that the program benefits the US over the traveler. When the visa-only route was available, from what I have heard, problems with verifying exactly who people were in terms if their past histories seemed to be more rigorous, which in turn made entering the US for travelers less of a risk in being sent back home again for either the right or wrong reasons.

Secondly, such 'batch processing' of individuals offered by the VWP is clearly less rigorous than that for an actual visa application. Wouldn't it also be in the best interest of the United States to return to the visa-only method to improve national security? This benefits both the US and the traveler.

DeanUK2US

I feel your pain. Although it is marginally more likely (I would imagine) that you could be refused entry, I think that you will have to present reasons for them to look into your ties at the POE. I'm yet to have my ties checked with my knowledge.

DeanUK2US

Yep, that's another oddity!

Bonny Boy

Well, I'm not exactly in pain. I will just look at going to other destinations.

The issue, as you are putting forward, is why can't there be a visa equivalent to the waiver, in terms of what is allowed, but more rigorously reviewed prior to issue in order that the traveller has greater certainty at the POE because the details and evidence have already been looked at.

It does seem that the US presents a much greater risk for the (genuine) traveller who doesn't fit into the mom, dad and 2 kids for 2 weeks in FL model, to be turned away despite having a visa/visa waiver in hand than is the case for other countries.

ian-mstm

That was not my interpretation of Mr. Folinsky's post. I believe the perceived benefit is that those from VW countries do not, generally, have the intent to do harm in the US. There's a reason why none of the "T" countries are on the list. I'm not saying that nothing ever happens with respect to people from the VW countries... but that, generally, nothing does. The risk to the US is minimal - and that benefits the US.

Ian

ian-mstm

It's true that applying for a visa does give the US a chance to more thoroughly review the applicant's eligibility... but visas are issued by the Department of State. Border entry is controlled by Customs and Border Protection. While both seem to do the same sort of thing, CBP answers to the Department of Homeland Security... the DoS doesn't. So even if a visa is issued, CBP has the ultimate (and greater) responsibility to allow or deny a visitor entry to the US.

If it was your job to protect the US, would you trust that protection to some unknown person working in a US consulate overseas? If you think the answer is "yes", then you really don't deserve to be in a position to protect the US. You would be abrogating your responsibility.

Ian

Lissbovavd

It seems to me that the only way to minimize the risks for non-US citizens to be unexpectedly turned back at the US POE´s would be to adopt the current pre-clearance US customs/immigration facilities in operation at Canadian airports and at Shannon and Dublin airports in the Republic of Ireland.

This would obviously be an uphill task for many various reasons.

So what are we left with?

I personally believe that the more onerous, unpleasant and uncertain the customs/immigration process at US POE´s is becoming, a steadily decreasing number of foreign visitors to the US will be the end result.

Granted, one-off tourists to the US will, generally speaking, be fine using the VWP, but for the many "aliens" with personal connections to people living in the US, be they family, friends or romantic partners, visiting the US is increasingly becoming a non-option, or at best a theoretical option mired in ever-expanding uncertainties and the all-important current mood of each individual, all-powerful CBP agent at the POE´s.