By Zach Watson

In response to what happened in Paris and California, the House last week passed legislation that changed our Visa Waiver Program. After talking to my fellow Seattleites, I’ve learned that many don’t know exactly what this program is. And why would they? It isn’t something that any of them will ever use.

But I tell you, it is still important.

The Visa Waiver Program uses the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) to eliminate the need of a visa for people from partner countries, thirty-eight of them in all including Western Europe, Japan and Australia. People from those countries go on the ESTA website, pay a small fee and answer security questions. Then sometime in the following day(s) they are granted permission to enter the U.S. for three months without having to apply for a visa at a consulate or embassy, a process that can be lengthy, arduous and expensive.

The new bill, according to CNN.com, would bar those from Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, and any traveler from the partner countries that has visited those countries in the last five years from entering the U.S. without a visa.

Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan were never part of the program, so people from those countries always needed a visa to enter. No big change there. The people this mainly affects are those with which we have strong solidarity, like France, which was also the catalyst for the urgency of this bill. How ironic.

But, okay, this doesn’t completely bar someone from the country. It just stops them from using the Visa Waiver Program. And it’s hard to argue that increased screening, for let’s say a Frenchman who has been to Syria in the last few years, even if it seems draconian and robotic, would be bad. After all there is a war going on.

But there is also a provision in the bill that allows the Department of Homeland Security to revoke program status if a partner nation doesn’t share adequate traveler information with them, something that the European Union has already warned could have a backlash for U.S. travelers.

Many countries have reciprocal visa policies with the U.S.; if we require an expensive, lengthy visa process for them, sometimes they require the same for us. So if we revoke the non-visa status from Europe that could mean if we want to travel to France it would cost us money and time. There is also the possibility that they might turn us away for something that we’ve done in the past or for somewhere that we have gone on vacation that they don’t like.

They will have all of our information on a screen.

We share criminal information with Canada and they share it with us. For instance, if you want to hop across the border to Vancouver for a fun weekend and you’ve had a DUI, they most likely will turn you around.

CanadaDuientrylaw.com says that a not guilty verdict for a DUI may cause a U.S. resident to be turned away because sometimes all the border staff sees is the original arrest record.

It’s a curious thing to be stopped from entering a neighboring country because of something that you weren’t even found guilty of. Could something similar start happening every time we try to leave the U.S.? What if a DUI you haven’t even been convicted of stopped you from being able to enter every country in the world?

Our perception has been put through a cheese-grater, and we think that this legislation is mild because we have Trump on the far, radical right -- on the far nuts -- screaming to keep all the Muslims out. Meanwhile Senator Feinstein and Senator Flake are proposing a bill that would have people get Biometric screening in an embassy before they applied for entry. Could you imagine traveling to Europe and having to get a biometric screening before going?

After the countless domestic acts of terrorism, Obama and our Congress push to change border laws. Then the laws that they do change mostly affect U.S. allies and potentially U.S. citizens.

Let us step back, polish our lens and start asking questions.

What does this mean for humans as a whole and their ability to move around the globe freely? Is travel a luxury, and by traveling, do we put ourselves in the position to be scrutinized? Do these laws help the war on terror?

I know that we are trying to protect ourselves and that it is a dangerous world out there and all are enemies are waiting for us in the darkness ready to pounce when we make a mistake, but fear can be powerful and it can cloud our judgment.

Let’s be careful not to trade liberty for security.