See, I don’t think it’s really possible for the US to do that with respect to the visa waiver program. The way the program is currently set up, the citizens of certain countries have access the waiver, and the US cannot further put conditions on the sort of citizenship awarded by other countries.

At most, as a result of this sort of thinking, the UK may be forced to flag some of their non-UK born citizens as “special”, which may be sufficient to allow the US to suspend the waiver program with respect to those “special” individuals.

Such changes would be political suicide for whichever administration pushes them through, IMO…particularly in the UK. That’s why it won’t happen. The only options are either to maintain the status quo, or eliminate all visa waivers.

If the visa waiver program should go away, then it should be without reference to race or ethnicity, i.e. a blanket withdrawal for all British passport holders.

nope not going to happen. the most that will happen is a clause like “people born in south asia are not eligible for the waiver program” or variation that includes “origins in south asia”. that makes it better—you are targetting non muslims as well (in fact more), so it is not a religion thing. or “non uk-born people”, but the collateral damage may not be acceptable.

or a pressure on the uk to restrict immigration, which seems much more likely. or a policy to track the “unwanteds” on US shores. some combination thereof.

Camille:

If you look to your right, you’ll see Michael Chertoff is your strange bedfelllow:

The United States fears that the next September 11-style attack on America could be launched by Muslims from Britain or Europe who feel “second-class citizens” and alienated by a “colonial legacy”, according to the US Homeland Security chief. Our Muslim population is better educated and economically better off than the average American. So, from a standpoint of mobility in society, it’s a successful immigrant population. To some degree, the whole country is a country of immigrants, and therefore there’s no sense that we have insiders or outsiders. In some countries [in Europe], you had an influx of people that came in as a colonial legacy and may have always have felt, to some extent, that they were viewed as second-class citizens, and they’ve tended to impact and be kind of clustered in some areas.”

Nation states are a relatively new phenomenon. - I would say about less than 300 years. - I am not sure that Nation State concept has peaked, but it is definately been chalanged big time due to globalization. - Pre-Nation states era was also the era when human movement was severely restricted. - Human tribal need to belong to a group is basic in my opinion and will remain so, but with EASE of MOVEMENT dwelling amongst your tribesmen may not remain as important as it has been in past. - One last point, the EASE of MOVEMENT has a long way to go in terms of development as true EASE of MOVEMENT (and Globalization) came after the creation of the JUMBO JET in 70′s. So it has a lot more room to improve and as it improves it will put further stress on traditional nation state.

I agree with all of what you said. I have a little more to add on similar lines…

In the far future, the concept of nation state will end up being a primitive idea of sorts. I believe that in about 500 years or so. At least, I dont think the distinctions will be anywhere near as solid as they are today. As much as, or even more so than the jumbo jet, the internet is a great equalizer. I think it will have an effect on a similar scale to the invention of the printing press, whose level of importance in terms of the social political and scientific changes experienced, it is said, is rivaled by few other inventions. The internet has been popular for probably not much more than a decade now(not even a generation), and I expect there will be very fundamental changes to the human society due to this unparalleled ease of communication and information, one of which, could very well be the dissolution/rendering irrelevance to the organization of the world in terms of distinct countries and such.

Camille, are you saying that Muslims were treated differently than Sikhs and Hindus, and THAT explains their greater alienation in the UK? Because I’d be much more likely to pin it on cultural, religious, and attitudinal differences that the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had from the beginning.

What difference does that make? The fact is, the visa waiver is currently race-neutral, and to maintain equity, it would have to continue to be that way. In other words, if the US government is so considered about brown UK types falling through the cracks, then the only way to ensure it doesn’t happen is to jettison the whole visa waiver program.

I don’t think it’s very constructive to concern ourselves with any alleged nefarious intent the original visa waiver policy may have had. The fact is, as of this moment, the waiver applies to all citizens of the UK, including the brown ones.

Did I ever contest the fact that Pakistani Brits are more likely to be a part of the global salafist terror networks than India Brits?

You have created a PC strawman, then attributed that strawman to me and now you have hopped on to your bulldozer to crush the strawman.

I took issue with your implicit characterization of people who protested the South Asian immigration in the 50s/60s as some sort of visionaries who are now proven to be right. No, they have not been proved right. They were not right because the current problems were not the reasons they were opposing the South Asian immigration in the 50s/60s. They were also dead wrong about opposing immigration from India and other countries.

If you want to look at them through longing eyes as wise old men, please go ahead and do that.