This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
working...???-- 222.64.214.26 ( talk) 00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
The first paragraph says:
A foreign national wishing to enter the U.S. must obtain a visa unless he or she is
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
luokehao, 29 March, 2019, 04:45 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 185.213.230.47 ( talk) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
working...???-- 222.64.214.26 ( talk) 00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
The first paragraph says:
A foreign national wishing to enter the U.S. must obtain a visa unless he or she is
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
luokehao, 29 March, 2019, 04:45 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 185.213.230.47 ( talk) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)