What Is Still Wrong with U.S. Visa Policy: The Case of the Indian Scientist

During his visit to India this week, President Bush may encounter questions about the case of Indian scientist Goverdhan Mehta. If he does, it will be an important opportunity for him to rise above the rhetoric on U.S. visa policy and take steps to address this serious obstacle to his efforts to ensure that the United States presents an open and welcoming face to the world.

The difficulties experienced by one of its most eminent scientists in obtaining a U.S. visa has prompted outrage in India, a rapidly emerging economic powerhouse that is the biggest sender of foreign students to the United States. The United States subsequently rushed to grant the visa, but that is not the end of the story. Dr. Mehta’s experience, and his decision not to come to the United States, has an impact far beyond this incident. The U.S. Department of State has made concerted efforts to improve visa processing, especially for academic visitors. The agency has touted measures aimed at improving the efficiency and transparency of the visa application process, and U.S. leaders regularly insist that the welcome mat is out. But the reality is that serious issues related to visa processing remain unaddressed, leading to such high-profile embarrassments as Dr. Mehta’s report of a “degrading” experience at the consulate and the United States’ apparently inadvertent shut-out of an internationally renowned scientist.

The faulty policies and procedures that led to this incident—and have likely affected many other visa applicants who did not benefit from the media spotlight—are fairly clear and straightforward. Fixing them would enhance security, not detract from it.

No overarching visa policy

In the absence of a clearly articulated policy that operationalizes the State-DHS slogan “Secure Borders—Open Doors,” any control seems good, and delay or denial is still seen as the safest course. Those who adjudicate visa applications need a policy that guides them in finding the crucial balance between control and openness. If such a policy had been in effect, it is unlikely that an overworked visa official would have felt that he or she had to presume that this apparently nonthreatening person might be a threat.

Visa interview requirement

It is not apparent why an eminent, internationally renowned scientist, all of whose work is in the public domain, should have to sit for a personal interview at the consulate simply to be able to travel to the United States for a few days to deliver a lecture. The legal requirement of across-the-board interviews continues to lead to millions of seconds-long interviews of dubious security value that clog the system while precluding serious scrutiny where it is needed. Consulates need the discretion to grant waivers of personal appearance based on risk analysis, subject to State Department policy guidance and approval. This was a recommendation of the State Department Inspector General in December 2002. If this policy had been in effect, in all likelihood Dr. Mehta would not have been interviewed, and this incident would not have happened.

Lack of refinement of controls on science and technology

It is likewise not apparent why a person who was not coming to the United States to do research should have been subject to an additional security procedure (the “MANTIS clearance”) designed to prevent people from countries of concern from gaining access to advanced U.S. technology. But in the post-9/11 environment, visa officials routinely require scientists to undergo such a review, because they are afraid not to. The MANTIS clearance should be returned to its original intent of controlling access only to advanced technology, and consular officers should feel that they can exercise discretion on nonsensitive applications where neither the applicant nor the applicant’s country present concerns. If this policy had been in effect, Dr. Mehta would never have been told that his research was suspect and ordered to produce voluminous additional data.

Repetitive processing of frequent, well-known visitors

Requiring visitors who are known to us and have repeatedly successfully received a visa to run the same gauntlet as new applicants is a waste of resources and creates an unnecessary hassle for applicants. Such people should benefit from a presumption of approval. By his account, Dr. Mehta has visited the United States dozens of times. If some form of “trusted traveler” policy had been in effect, he would have been presumed to be a friend, not a threat, and an international incident would have been avoided.

Our country’s efforts to reach out to the world, whether to recruit scarce talent or to improve our image abroad, are ill-served by the visa system that is currently in place. Some serious problems have been addressed, but others linger and continue to discourage people from traveling to our country. Dr. Mehta’s high-profile case prompted a quick correction on the part of the U.S. government; potentially thousands of other applicants do not get such consideration. What’s more, we have no way of knowing how many other scientists, students, business people, and other visitors never even bother to apply, wanting to avoid the tangle of the visa process and the possibility of less than welcoming treatment in our country. This situation is simply not consistent with our national interests. Our visa system must work in tandem with other strategies that foster a welcoming and collaborative climate for the exchange of knowledge and ideas and support our capacity to attract the best in talent from around the world.