if passports alone provided the kind of security that the gentleman suggests they provide, then of course we would not need visas at all. Why would we impose this particular kind of background check if passports alone gave us the kind of security that we need to make sure that the people entering this country are, number one, who they say they are, and more importantly, that their backgrounds do not show anything that might suggest that they should not be allowed into the country. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to what former DHS Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin recently said: ``We ought to be ending the Visa Waiver Program, not expanding it. There is a reason why terrorists are keen to obtain passports from visa-waiver countries. They don't have to undergo extensive security checks.'' So when you say there is no opposition to the program, I would suggest that that is not correct. There certainly are people involved with the program who feel as I do, that we need to abandon this particular visa-waiver idea.
Tom Tancredo: “if passports alone provided the kind of security that the gentleman suggests they provide, then of course we would not…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the security implications of the Visa Waiver Program.
Share
More from Tom Tancredo
Now, we may think that there is no such thing as voter fraud. The fact is that unfortunately there's an enormous amount of voter fraud.
an article came across my desk earlier today which I believe needs and deserves the attention of this House. It is titled, ``2 Michelles, 2 Americas & Shame v. Pride.'' It was written by Michelle Malkin. She writes: ``Like Michelle Obama…
Accepting refugees would be a colossal mistake, and would very likely violate U.S. law.
on March 25, President Bush pardoned 15 people and granted one commutation to crimes that ranged from falsifying records, conspiracy, bank embezzlement, dealing in firearms, distributing marijuana, conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud…





