Trump urged to review U.N. immunity, lax visa rules amid national security concerns, critics say

"A 1947 agreement outlining obligations as host of the United Nations continues to give employees and their family members relatively unfettered access to the U.S.

At a time of increased national security fears and immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, experts are urging a re-examination of the host nation agreement with an eye to the functional immunity granted to U.N. staff and the limited vetting given to those with U.N. visas.

‘The United States appears to have taken a relaxed view of the individuals entering the country associated with the U.N., either as employees or as representatives of various country missions. And yet we know that U.N. employees have had, and continue to have, close, direct relationships with terrorist organizations, like UNRWA and Hamas,‘ Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky said there is ‘a disconnect between the welcome routine and the significant harm to American interests. Hosting the U.N. does not require the host country to facilitate or endure threats to its national security.’

The federal government grants G visas to employees, spouses and children of international organizations, including the U.N., who reside in, or are visiting, the U.S. According to the State Department’s website, ‘if you are entitled to a G visa, under U.S. visa law, you must receive a G visa. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited.’ The Department of State also explains that ‘Embassies and consulates generally do not require an interview for those applying for G-1 - 4 and NATO-1 - 6 visas, although a consular officer can request an interview.’

Hugh Dugan, a senior advisor to 11 U.S. former ambassadors to the U.N., told Fox News Digital that it ‘appears to me that the issuance of the G visas for [U.N. employees] is a relatively rubber stamp exercise.’ While not requiring interviews of personnel has ‘become a matter of convenience, frankly, we should always be able to assess a threat to our country.’..."