cdn1

because American interests are huge in these countries, so they can't (even if they wanted to). Don't forget the relationship between the US and Pakistani military generals is very important. America needs Pakistan ? Why? Cuz Afghanistan

GUWonder

Not necessarily, but it is possible.

As of now, dual-citizens of Iran with citizenship of a GE-participating country are still active Global Entry members.

jms_uk

Would be nice if today's developments got Iran off this list...

GUWonder

It won't get Iran off the list, but the Administration may have no intention of doing as Congress wants when it comes to foreign policy prerogatives.

Blogndog

Neither Iran nor the USA or just about anywhere else is guiltless with respect to political violence. The point is not that Iran is squeaky clean, the point is that Iran is being included but countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for which a case can be made are far worse, are getting a free pass. So the standard for being included on the list is not the risk involved (which is trivial in any event, as most people such as myself who have visited countries on the list have no ties to terrorism) but rather Congress' own biases.

lonelycrowd

Noticed that the State Department announced today that HR 158 is officially being implemented effective immediately with very few waivers - though it looks like a BBC reporter found out the hard way that implementation was already occurring as early as Monday, or at least Immigration Advisory at LHR was considering it to be in force by then. I was a bit surprised that they didn't exempt ESTA nationals with only tourism or family visits, given all the talk about how Obama could issue waivers to minimize effects on Iran. I really want to believe that DOS is acting in good faith, but it sure feels a little sneaky to wait until literally right after JCPOA implementation and the prisoner swap.

Am I naive to be surprised that there's evidently no grace period at all? Not even a week to run to an embassy for those who were expecting some sort of waiver? My impression was that the Iranian-American community was very hopeful of more substantial waivers from Obama, so this sudden mass ESTA cancellation and mandate must be creating a lot of frustration and extra work for IAP and consular staff in countries with large Iranian populations...

I'm also wondering how this is affecting people with active ESTAs who have visited Iran for non-permitted reasons but did not disclose dual nationality on the ESTA questionnaire. Are their presumably still active ESTAs theoretically nullified at this moment, even though thus US would likely have no way of knowing of an Iran visit in the absence of a physical passport stamp?

Now it will be interesting to see what Frontex and other VWP immigration agencies do in response. One hopes that they'll take pity on the Persian people and find some other demographic to impose visas upon if they want to go down the reciprocity route. Not sure how Schengen borders would even positively identify a US-Iran dual national, since they don't (yet) have any equivalent to the ESTA questionnaire...

GUWonder

So currently the ESTAs of British military and diplomatic staff who worked in Iraq alongside the US are supposed to be revoked? Brilliant, just brilliant, DHS.

cdn1

they should just require EVERYONE to get the Visa before travel, since they don't trust anyone at all. That should solve the problem. Waiting for Canadians to be put on this requirement now, probably coming soon?

If British-Iranians can be asked for visa, how about Canadian-Iranians and people like that who're dual nationals?

Himeno

Since they don't trust anyone, then they should start requiring US citizens to get visas.

lonelycrowd

Canadians are normally admitted to the US through their own scheme outside of VWP, and thus the HR 158 restrictions shouldn't apply to a Canadian-Iranian.

The more and more I think about this, the more and more I wonder if the real intent of this bill's sponsors has nothing to do with post-Paris/San Bernardino security fears (though that certainly helped it sail through Congress) and the bill was actually a deliberate effort to either sabotage the JCPOA or to slow down the entry of European firms into the Iranian market, with the affected Syrian and Iraqi dual-nationals being collateral damage. I try not to buy into conspiracy theories, but I simply can't think of any legitimate security interest in going after folks like Rana Rahimpour. Given recent events in the region, I wouldn't be shocked if one found the fingerprints of KSA lobbyists somewhere on this bill...

midlevels

Actual case:

1. British Citizen
2. Holds valid & approved ESTA
3. Has travelled to US on said ESTA before
4. Has also travelled to one of the "forbidden countries" since March 2011
5. ESTA still shows valid as US won't know they have been there, and no automatic reason to invalidate ESTA as there is no link to that country except having travelled there since March 2011
6. As of this time, ESTA website still shows approval as valid, so airline would show passenger as OK to board
7. Passport has entry/exit stamp from forbidden country
8. Pax does not have US visa

What is the most likely scenario if this person travelled today?

1. Airline refuses check in?
2. Airline shows as OK to board, pax travels, denied entry to US & deported back?
3. Airline shows as OK to board, pax travels, allowed entry

Obviously 1 & 2 are bad, with 2 being significantly worse as that kind of thing basically blacklists you forever.

Main difficulty is that no official channels have any information about this at all, so it's all guesswork. Or better to just suck it up and get a visa and delay travel till after visa is obtained?

Fredrik74

This is a plausible explanation. Whatever the merits of placing Iran on this list before the recent negotiations the merits of placing them on the list after negotiations must be to sabotage for someone. Either for Obama's efforts or for European trade.

FateSucks

Is this a reaction for the lifting of sanctions against Iran?

While this policy does not affect me since I am not Middle Eastern, I am ashamed to be American right now.....This policy is discriminatory at its max and the U.S. Can longer claim to be land of free.

I am very disappointed with Obama, a bi-racial man, approving racial profiling at airports and preventing VWP passport holders from coming visa free just based where their heritage came from!!!!

Absolutely, disgusting! I wonder if the U.S. will start doing more scrutiny to any dual national in the future since I am considering applying for Mexican nationality by descent?

Blogndog

On checking the US Treasury web site after "Implementation Day" of the Iran nuclear agreement, I was absolutely stunned to learn that -- with the exception of four specific sectors (from memory, they included energy and passenger aircraft) -- "US persons" are STILL barred from doing business with Iran, but the US now permits non-US persons (nice of them to stop threatening to prosecute people who owe them no allegiance from doing business in a sovereign nation) to conduct business with Iran freely. So it's actually formally a US policy to discriminate against its own citizens, and to threaten them with prosecution if they attempt to compete.

lonelycrowd

It's really impossible to say, and that's part of what's so frustrating to the Iranian-American community today. I'd say it's more probable than not that the third scenario would occur at this moment, especially if the itinerary doesn't involve contact with the AA security theater at LHR. However, I'm just an armchair activist on these issues and can only offer an educated guess...

FWIW, my impression is that sometimes frontline officers are very suspicious of any contact with Iran (I haven't been but my wife is Iranian), but higher-level supervisors and analysts in DHS and/or its contractors consider Iran to be in a much lower risk bracket than Syria and Iraq, or even some of our "allies" in the Gulf region. It seems like it's travel to weak and failed states and conflict zones that is pushing risk scores through the roof right now, not repressive regimes with robust security services. In 20/20 hindsight aided by a recent FOIA disclosure, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Immigration Advisory Program lost interest in me after I finally revealed that I was travelling back and forth to IST to visit a Persian lover (and, thankfully, not a Syrian - that really seemed to be of interest in the inspection report!) Even if spotted, I'd like to think that a more seasoned CBP officer might choose to overlook an Iran stamp unless there has been some specific directive within CBP over the last 24 hours, especially at a POE with some experience in dealing with Iranians like LAX.

As for the motivations behind HR 158, it's good to read that I'm not the only one not buying the official line being reported in the media about counterterrorism! I have a feeling that there's a diplomatic cable out there with some interesting backstory. There's a lot of interests with access to Congress that would like to see the JCPOA fail, from US shale drillers to AIPAC. One of the limitations that the few Iranian-American advocacy groups like NIAC face is that they see cases like Rana's and tend to scream discrimination and Islamophobia, rather than recognizing themselves as part of a larger geopolitical tit-for-tat...