Shout Out Loud Or It Will Get Much WORSE

[Al422 221]

Thank you for your input. The Haitian stuff concerned me too. I thought i was politically correct enough, being careful to make sure the Haitians were "safe and secure" before denying them anything. But I will certainly take another look at it. I will, however, wait for more feedback, as I want to revise it only once.

[villaspurs 65]

I disagree with you on many levels.How can you say that it is a privilege? I dont think any institution has he right to bar families from being together. Keep in mind we are citizens not foreign nationals but citizens. I pay taxes, I follow the laws of the land, and if I want to marry someone who is from another country that is my RIGHT not privilege because the government doesnt own this land. The people who live here own it and I am one of those people. This is my land as much as yours and the same way I can not tell you who you can marry nor can you tell me. So the goverment has no right to do this to people. Let not forget the constitution, have you ever seen the word privilege used in it? No, only the word RIGHT is used. That is because as people we have rights n ot privileges. A goverment who only alows privileges is not a democratic government and does not follow the laws of this land. What you are saying is dangerous think about it.

Disagree all you want with me--I'm not the one reviewing your petition. As Jim so eloquently wrote above, this is the position the government (and thus USCIS) takes. If it's my fundamental right to marry whomever I want and bring them to the U.S., does that mean I should be allowed to marry a known terrorist and bring them in? Your exact words: "I don't think any institution has (t)he right to bar families from being together." By that logic, they can't tell me that I can't bring my terrorist spouse in, or one who has been convicted for molesting children, or one who I've never actually met before but am convinced is the love of my life--anyone *I* feel should be granted residency and thus citizenship in the U.S. should get it, as long as he or she is of the opposite sex and unmarried (as far as anyone knows, of course). Your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

Again, the government doesn't tell you that you can't marry the person you love. They have no stance on that. All they are saying is that you have to follow procedures to get permission for that person to move into our country. You are more than welcome to move to their country if you like--thus, your "right" to marry whomever you want is not violated. At all. If you choose to not move to their country, or you can't afford it, or you can't leave your kids, or whatever other reason you have--not the government's problem. You want this person to live here? You go through the immigration process.

[smunie 5]

Well stated and I can understand the frustration, but I don't believe the 'crusade' will work. There is a lot more involvd than you guys seem to think.

Sorry, but the 'crusade' attitude is just wearing on me. I'd prefer to just be patient. But that's just me.

Wow...I and wondering if you even know what a crusade is...because people standing up trying to hold their government accountable is not even close to a "crusade". I am held accountable at my job...as I would suspect most people are...why can't the government be held accountable?

[TBoneTX 45,159]

Stored permanently in the blackest recesses of my mind are these exact words from the top aide in the Dallas office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, when I finally got through after two desperate days of trying: "The Senator has far more important things to do than to concern herself with one K-1 application." This is verbatim. The Internet can't transmit the haughty snootiness with which the comment was delivered.

[KiwiBird 132]

Wow...I and wondering if you even know what a crusade is...because people standing up trying to hold their government accountable is not even close to a "crusade". I am held accountable at my job...as I would suspect most people are...why can't the government be held accountable?

They should, but unfortunately, it is difficult to hold the government accountable. Simply put, they have no competition. And you have to get a LOT of people to stand up before something is done. And even then, it takes a while.

As for the 'crusade' attitude, I was going with:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crusade

Third definition.

"any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc."

I would say this counts as a 'vigorous, aggressive movement' for the 'advancement of' a 'cause'.

[Rwlaird 18]

Al – Good points in your letter! I only saw a couple of suggested edits.

Just not to waste any time confusing a staffer -- the Director of USCIS appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee – Appropriations, not W&Ms

Petitions sit and sit, particularly at the Vermont Service Center, none of them get processed – none? Maybe very few would be a little more accurate and not in order received.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

[yohino 22]

Disagree all you want with me--I'm not the one reviewing your petition. As Jim so eloquently wrote above, this is the position the government (and thus USCIS) takes. If it's my fundamental right to marry whomever I want and bring them to the U.S., does that mean I should be allowed to marry a known terrorist and bring them in? Your exact words: "I don't think any institution has (t)he right to bar families from being together." By that logic, they can't tell me that I can't bring my terrorist spouse in, or one who has been convicted for molesting children, or one who I've never actually met before but am convinced is the love of my life--anyone *I* feel should be granted residency and thus citizenship in the U.S. should get it, as long as he or she is of the opposite sex and unmarried (as far as anyone knows, of course). Your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

Again, the government doesn't tell you that you can't marry the person you love. They have no stance on that. All they are saying is that you have to follow procedures to get permission for that person to move into our country. You are more than welcome to move to their country if you like--thus, your "right" to marry whomever you want is not violated. At all. If you choose to not move to their country, or you can't afford it, or you can't leave your kids, or whatever other reason you have--not the government's problem. You want this person to live here? You go through the immigration process.

I'm so happy someone else took the time to explore the points I was trying to make, but got hounded before I could make, in this thread.

I'm amazed I apparently was the only one who got "witch-hunted" by saying the same thing, maybe because it was early on in the thread.

I believe it needs to be more transperacy in this whole progress but it should still not be a "Right" to immigrate here just because you are a spuose if a USC/LPR.

[Ally & Rach 24]

Here is my letter. I re-wrote it from scratch. I welcome critique to improve its forcefulness, but please don't tell me that it is immoral or not nice to the Haitians (unless you think it would turn people off in the halls of Congress). I'll worry about St. Peter when I get to the pearly gates. For now, I am interested in results.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a petitioner in a proceeding pending before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to bring my fiance, ********** here to the United States for marriage. Towards that end, I filed an I129f Petition, which seeks approval for a K-1 fiancé visa.

There are no problems with my own petition, at least not yet, but there are multiple problems with the entire K-1/K-3 system that are causing needless hardships and delays for thousands of K-1/K3 petitioners and their beneficiaries, throughout the United States: First is that the delay in getting our petitions processed is totally out of line with any reasonable USCIS or other governmental need, and second, when a petitioner contacts the service with a legitimate inquiry about his/her case, he/she is met with no information, disinformation, and frequent hostility and rudeness by USCIS personnel.

I realize that the USCIS is an administrative agency, under the jurisdiction of the President of The United States, but it is the Congress that funds the operation, and the Congress has a right, as well as a responsibility to ensure that the public monies that the Congress appropriates to USCIS are properly and wisely used.

I regret to inform you that this is not the case. Almost a year ago, the Director of USCIS appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee seeking his appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year, promising to deliver excellent service and excellent public communication with those monies. Instead, USCIS has delivered poor service, poor public communication, and an endless plethora of excuses as to why it can’t do what the Director promised the Committee it would do.

Up until recently, the system worked well in that a petitioner could expect a decision on his/her petition in a reasonable amount of time, typically 30 to 60 days. But lately, that time frame has totally broken down such that the typical delay is now over 6 months and, in some cases, more than 7 months.

And to make matters worse, when a petitioner inquires about the status of the case, even after what USCIS deems “normal processing time” (5 months), he/she encounters a brick wall of bureaucratic insolence and often downright hostility. We are given an 800 number to call, with operators who have no idea what they are talking about and no better information than a member of the public can get off the USCIS web site. And that website is less than helpful, merely telling you that your case is “being processed”, without any hint as to how close USCIS is to a decision. The only thing the operator offers is a “service request”, which, when issued, gives no information but merely instructs you to call back in 30 days.

Lately, delays in I129f petition processing have gotten totally out of control, and USCIS communication with the public has, as well. Petitions sit and sit, particularly at the Vermont Service Center, none of them get processed, and backlogs just grow and grow, with no end in sight. Nobody at either Service Center is willing to tell the public what is going on, almost as if they are doing something wrong and have something to hide. I hear more and more stories about rude and obnoxious service personnel who are mean and nasty to the very petitioners who are the source of these people’s jobs, even hanging up on them.

There is no excuse for USCIS to be secretive. As a governmental agency whose function it is to serve the public, its operation should be as transparent as glass. And there is certainly no excuse whatsoever for any USCIS personnel to ever be rude and hostile towards the members of the public they are paid to serve.

This is no way to run a governmental agency. The United States of America deserves much better.

Keeping families separated for months and months, with no end in sight, poses great hardships on these families. And mind you, these are not indigent people looking for handouts. These are families consisting of United States citizens who paid good money to have their petitions filed and who commit themselves on paper to support their new spouses out of their own funds, and foreign fiancés who get thoroughly screened for illness, criminal history and other undesirable attributes.

This failure by USCIS does not only hurt these petitioners and their beneficiaries. It hurts the family unit as well, the very fabric of the strong society the United States is built on. This is not my own thought. It is, instead, the thought of the drafters of the Utah Compact, a wise and thoughtful group of individuals who were concerned about our broken immigration policy and how it is tearing our society apart. You can read about the group here: http://www.utahcompact.com/

While I cannot be certain as to why the USCIS is delaying I129f petitions for as long as they do since they are so secretive, I have a reasonable idea: USCIS, in their implementation of the Help Haiti Act of 2010, took it much too far. Instead of protecting Haitians legally in this country from having to return to the post earthquake chaos in their native land, USCIS is using the act to give all Haitians, even illegal aliens, broad based priority service, very much at the expense of fee paying United States citizens and their fiancés. Haitian citizens who are already here legally are safe and secure and in no need of any sort of priority. I12f petitioners and their fiancés, on the other hand, are forcibly separated and enduring long and substantial hardships while their petitions collect dust on USCIS shelves.

In November, 2010 alone, there were 21, 557 I129f cases pending, meaning that there were 21, 557 fee paying United States citizens and their fiancés forcibly separated, awaiting USCIS action. Yet, during that month, the USCIS processed only 2, 719 of those cases. At that rate, it would take nine months to process the backlog existing at that time without even considering the new petitions that would surely be filed during those 9 months.

Yet, in that same time period, USCIS processed 87, 312 Haitian TPS cases, including illegal aliens who do not deserve it, and legal aliens who were already in the United States and already safe and secure and who therefore did not need the priority that USCIS gave them.

While USCIS may deny processing TPS claims from illegal aliens, the New York Times discovered otherwise. Here is a link to their article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/world/americas/16immig.html?_r=2

Now, despite the deadline for TPS petitions having passed, our i129f petitions are still collecting dust, at least in the Vermont Service Center and going nowhere, and our fiancés are still exiled in their countries of origin, effectively banned from their rightful marital homes, with no end in sight. I do not know what USCIS is doing with its time, maybe more TPS petitions, or maybe something else. But I do know what it is not doing: Attending to its responsibilities to U.S. citizens.

During the upcoming budget cycle, the Director of USCIS will no doubt make his annual appearance before the House Ways and Means Committee, requesting his appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year. I ask that you refer this correspondence to the members of that committee so they can ask the director what the citizens of this country want to know. Ask him why his agency has failed United States citizens so miserably. Ask him why delays in attending to the needs of United States citizens have been spiraling out of control. Ask him why USCIS personnel refuse to communicate with fee paying petitioners and give them any meaningful information, not to mention proper courtesy and respect. Ask him why his agency is allowing families to suffer needless months of separation and hardship while persons already safe and secure in the United States get pushed to the front of the line. And ask him when he intends to make his agency responsive to the needs of the public it is supposed to be serving.

I thank you for reading my letter and wish you to know that I will be tracking the budget process as it pertains to USCIS to see if the changes that agency desperately needs become implemented.

Yours truly, etc.

Nice one Al.. very well put as usual.. I think by the time you get your visa Vermont will have relocated to Area 51 just to get away from you..;0)

All the very best.. I hope you get a positive response..

[RICARDO4EVA2 194]

when it's all said and done.. I agree.. citizens .. including residents (lpr) should have priority over TPS for any illegal group etc or expedition of their cases - ive some of the visas to someone those families waiting in the F2A, F4 categories etc..?

[Al422 221]

Al – Good points in your letter! I only saw a couple of suggested edits.

Just not to waste any time confusing a staffer -- the Director of USCIS appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee – Appropriations, not W&Ms

Petitions sit and sit, particularly at the Vermont Service Center, none of them get processed – none? Maybe very few would be a little more accurate and not in order received.

Thank you for the correction. Feedback like this is exactly why I posted my draft here.

I will wait for the rest of the weekend for more feedback and post my next draft on Sunday night. I would like to send out the finished product on Monday.

They should, but unfortunately, it is difficult to hold the government accountable. Simply put, they have no competition. And you have to get a LOT of people to stand up before something is done. And even then, it takes a while.

That's exactly what we are working on. It certainly does take time, but the sub-turtle speed of VSC tells me that we have all the time we need. I am sure you can see that the slower VCS moves, the more people here agree with me, including on many of the points you and I have been debating.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Al422

[George & Gina 29]

[rika60607 215]

The majority of the people in the US think that being married to a US citizen gives one an automatic right to come to the US without any further paperwork. If they want the rules to be more strict than that, it is not surprising. When an average US citizen learns what is actually involved in immigration, they are usually outraged.

(Of course may be they are just being polite)

...and the majority of people in the US today don't want to see any immigration law reform that's going to make it easier for people to come to the US. The majority of people want to see the current laws enforced much more strictly.

Good luck!

[Palladin 18]

Did I say anything about this being MY point of view about this?

I'm just stating how the USCIS sees it.

You have the right to leave the US and move to your spouse, that is also a RIGHT the US gives you. So that's not them keeping you apart.

I have no idea why you feel the need to attack me for a simple statement about how the Rights/Privilege things is divided when it comes to marrige and immigration.

And BTW, I'm the immigrant in my relationship, and if I would have been denied, we would have found a different place to live so we could be together. Would it have sucked, sure, but it wouldn't have been the end of the world.

What the USCIS sees is wrong. You don't have a right to leave the US and move to your spouse's country either. You do NOT have a right to get out of the USA, unless you prove to Uncle Sam you no longer owe him any tax moey. And you do NOT have a right to move into a foreign country, unless that foreign country permit you to do so: it's their sole decision so it is a priviledge for you to go to a foreign country.

If every country holds the same attitude like USCIS or US immigration policy, then you do NOT have a right to go any where to live together except for the moon. Doesn't it seem very odd that you married or engaged with a Chinese girl, and now you think you can just go visit her in China any time you want, they always grant you a Chinese visa, no question asked? What if the Chinese consulate deny you a visa, saying that you do not intent to just come for a visit, you intend to go to China and just stay illegally, because you want to be with your girl and you can not bring her to the USA! What if the Chinese consulate deny you a visa to China saying you do not have a bona fides relationship with your girl, and a whole bunch of other BSs. But that is precisely what the US policy is, to aliens who have a US lover.

So folks, be grateful that other countries do not hold the same policy we have. We can go to foreign countries any time we want, to visit or stay with our loved ones. But our lovers can not come to visit us. There is something very asymmetric here. The US government is the one infringing on basic human rights of its own citizen in bringing in a loved person, in pursuit of happiness. Foreign government never had such a problem.

[Palladin 18]

Well, Robby, what are you going to do about it? *shrugs* I understand it's no fun waiting, but those are refugee petitions. I could see being ticked off if the cases ahead of yours were, say, Microsoft importing employees.

No those are NOT refugee petitions. Not at all. Those TPS applicants are Haitians illegally living in the USA. They are NOT refugees. They suffered nothing from the Haitian Earthquake. They already live in the USA, illegally BTW, there is no need to hurry their cases. But USCIS is processing the rush of TPS applications generally within one or two months, and leave K-1 petitioners wait for 5+ months. That is just not right. They have resource to approve a quarter million TPS cases a month, but they can not complete more than one thousand K-1 cases in the same month?

I am all for expedited applications of true humanitarian refugees. That would be folks currently in Haiti, and their cases will be processed in the US consulate inHaiti, not in USCIS, therefore such refugee applications would not have take resources away from normal K-1 processing whatsoever.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Palladin