Dear Editor,
As a Zambian living in the diaspora, I have watched with growing concern the recent changes to United States visa regulations affecting Zambian citizens.
Every sovereign nation has the right to protect its borders and determine who enters its territory. No reasonable person disputes that.
However, the introduction of visa bonds ranging from US$5,000 to US$15,000, together with stricter interview requirements and the suspension of certain immigrant visa processing, raises questions that deserve honest discussion.
What troubles me most is not simply the financial burden these measures impose on ordinary Zambians, but the timing. They come at a time when reports indicate that Zambia rejected attempts to link the renewal of a vital US health and HIV assistance programme with a critical minerals agreement that would have granted American companies preferential access to Zambia’s copper, cobalt and lithium resources.
The Zambian government insisted that health cooperation and mining negotiations should remain separate, arguing that no foreign nation should receive preferential treatment over another.
Officially, the United States has denied any connection between these negotiations and its immigration policies. Yet many ordinary Zambians cannot help wondering whether the coincidence is just that—a coincidence.
For thousands of hardworking Zambians, a refundable visa bond of between US$5,000 and US$15,000 is simply beyond reach.
In Zambia, US$5,000 translates into approximately K90,000, a sum that exceeds the lifetime savings of many families. Such a requirement effectively excludes teachers, church leaders, entrepreneurs, students, researchers and tourists from travelling, despite having genuine reasons for visiting the United States.
The policy also appears to treat every Zambian applicant as a potential immigration offender unless they can prove otherwise through a substantial financial guarantee.
That is difficult to reconcile with the long-standing friendship between our two countries.
As someone living abroad, I know many Zambians who have travelled internationally for decades without overstaying visas or violating immigration laws.
It therefore seems unfair that an entire nation should shoulder the burden because of the actions of a small minority.
Equally concerning is the suspension of interview waivers, forcing even previously compliant travellers to undergo fresh interviews.
While security considerations are understandable, blanket measures often punish those who have consistently respected immigration rules.
The unfortunate consequence is that these restrictions may weaken the very ties both countries have spent decades building.
Business partnerships may decline. Academic exchanges could reduce. Families may remain separated longer. Churches, cultural organisations and community groups may find it increasingly difficult to maintain valuable people-to-people relationships.
If these visa measures are indeed unrelated to the minerals negotiations, then both governments should continue engaging openly to dispel public suspicion. Transparency builds trust. Silence allows speculation to flourish.
Zambia has every right to negotiate agreements that protect its natural resources in the best interests of its citizens, just as the United States has every right to safeguard its borders.
These two issues should never become intertwined, whether directly or indirectly.
I sincerely hope that diplomacy, fairness and mutual respect will prevail. The friendship between Zambia and the United States has endured for many decades and should not be overshadowed by policies that leave ordinary, law-abiding citizens feeling unfairly targeted.
Travel should continue to serve as a bridge between our nations, not become a privilege reserved only for those wealthy enough to afford an expensive financial guarantee.
Yours faithfully,
A Concerned Zambian in the Diaspora
