Just something to think about...

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Hello VJ,

I don't know if this is the place to post this but I will try:

I know I am new to this process and I don't have a lot to offer in the way of immigration advice. This journey has just started 2 months ago and even though I miss my wife terribly, my heart goes out to those on here that have spent 8 months up to 4 years away from their loved ones. So I really can't complain too much.

I was thinking about writing someone or talking to someone about the immigration process that we currently have in the US. I know we have a great country but there is something wrong with the system if it takes 2 years to determine if someone can come here to be with their spouse. I don't know if I am pipe dreaming or could something be actually be done, if anyone can point me in the right direction, any assistance would be greatful.

Thanks

[LIFE'SJOURNEY 970]

Excercise your right to vote. Vote and put the right person in office to make a change. This has more power than letter writting.

[rsn 135]

Nothing is perfect. The system as is works very well for the most part. Changes to the existing system may have unintended consequences.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

It's a matter of math, really.

The USCIS is 100% self-funded, and being a taxpayer I like it that way. So if they have 1,000,000 cases to adjudicate each and every year, there are 3 ways to make this quicker:

1) Hire more immigration officers. Since they will have to be paid, cutting the processing times in half would increase the associated fees by about 100%. AOS then will cost $2,140.00. But we can do faster. How much money are you willing to spend?

2) Make fast processing an option. Thus, if you want expedited service add 100% of your fees. I think that may not be a bad idea. Since it gives the wealthy a favorable treatment, it fits nicely in today's American Way.

3) Reduce the amount of applications by making the application process more difficult. So, for example, not 125% of the poverty level, but 200%. Beneficiary must have at least a certain professional degree. He or she must pass an English test in their country before applying, and so on. The sky's the limit. Applications can further be limited by requiring at least a 5-year "cool off" period between becoming a US citizen and the ability to petition for somebody. I also like the idea of limiting petitions to 1 per lifetime per US citizen. This would stop those who act as immigration portals by importing one hot chick after the other.

A combination of these 3 options is possible. Frankly, I'm all for reducing immigration in these hard times right now. I would make it considerably harder for people to petition foreigners, and thus I would reduce the amount of applications while at the same time making the process quicker.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It's a matter of math, really.

The USCIS is 100% self-funded, and being a taxpayer I like it that way. So if they have 1,000,000 cases to adjudicate each and every year, there are 3 ways to make this quicker:

1) Hire more immigration officers. Since they will have to be paid, cutting the processing times in half would increase the associated fees by about 100%. AOS then will cost $2,140.00. But we can do faster. How much money are you willing to spend?

2) Make fast processing an option. Thus, if you want expedited service add 100% of your fees. I think that may not be a bad idea. Since it gives the wealthy a favorable treatment, it fits nicely in today's American Way.

3) Reduce the amount of applications by making the application process more difficult. So, for example, not 125% of the poverty level, but 200%. Beneficiary must have at least a certain professional degree. He or she must pass an English test in their country before applying, and so on. The sky's the limit. Applications can further be limited by requiring at least a 5-year "cool off" period between becoming a US citizen and the ability to petition for somebody. I also like the idea of limiting petitions to 1 per lifetime per US citizen. This would stop those who act as immigration portals by importing one hot chick after the other.

A combination of these 3 options is possible. Frankly, I'm all for reducing immigration in these hard times right now. I would make it considerably harder for people to petition foreigners, and thus I would reduce the amount of applications while at the same time making the process quicker.

Sadly your logic makes sense, but it would basically only allow wealthy men to petetion, and not love. But I agree to a point, this is my second marriage, but I didn't go "shopping" for a foreign wife, I was overseas stationed and it just happened that way, I met my first wife in Germany since I was stationed there for 3 years, my second one is Malaysian since I was in Japan. Instead of once per lifetime, a waiting period of a couple years would suffice.

Hiring more help would definitely help out, like I said in my fix immigration post, there is no excuse for someone's petetion to take over 6 months without knowing what's going on. I look at some timelines, and I am shocked when I see 2 years at USCIS.....

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Sadly your logic makes sense, but it would basically only allow wealthy men to petition, and not love. But I agree to a point, this is my second marriage, but I didn't go "shopping" for a foreign wife, I was overseas stationed and it just happened that way, I met my first wife in Germany since I was stationed there for 3 years, my second one is Malaysian since I was in Japan. Instead of once per lifetime, a waiting period of a couple years would suffice.

..and therein lies the rub. Every solution from this and the other thread would affect one of us that are reading and making posts. Everyone here has read another persons story and shaken there head and thought "I smell problems with that one a mile away, no way that should get through".. We are all guilty of looking at our own situation and creating rules that would not affect us but restrict some of others peoples cases we have read about on here and did not approve.

Some of us think the co-sponsors should go away and the minimum earnings requirement should be raised - but then those here that would be effected scream unfair. Same thing with requiring English, or minimum visits and time together, or limiting the number of people a USC can bring in or lengthening the time between petitioning, or only allowing naturalized citizens petition, etc, etc.

Want to make the process faster and not spend more money? No problem! You just have to decide: Do we error on the side of letting in fraudulent claims or crushing innocent peoples dreams? All we have to do is have very hard and fast rules and take the decision making away from people... A new petition comes in, facts are checked, and based on our rule-set we instantly deny or reject the petition and send it on to the next stage. Very very strict rules would weed out most of the fraud but reject probably half the innocent people.. A week rule-set and fraudsters would slice right though any obstacle - Any rule-set that keeps most of the fraudsters out will affect a large percentage of the innocent.

The more I read the other thread (and this one) the more I am inclined to believe the best we can do is to have a well trained CO at every embassy that knows all the local traditions and fraudster tricks.. Each case is unique.

For the record: I am not going to loose sleep because of an influx of "hot chicks" being imported. There are worse things.

Edited August 5, 2011 by OnMyWayID

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think if your wanting to get rid of fraud and speed up the process, the co-sponser rule will not have much of an effect.

Why not require people to have had residency in their spouses country. Thats the way to go.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Sousuke

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I think if your wanting to get rid of fraud and speed up the process, the co-sponser rule will not have much of an effect.

Why not require people to have had residency in their spouses country. Thats the way to go.

Did you involve a co-sponsor and did you have residency in your spouses country?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Did you involve a co-sponsor and did you have residency in your spouses country?

No co-sponsor but yes I did have residency in my wife's country. (I wouldn't actually suggest it mind you. I was taking your last post to heart in a way.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Sousuke

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

..and therein lies the rub. Every solution from this and the other thread would affect one of us that are reading and making posts. Everyone here has read another persons story and shaken there head and thought "I smell problems with that one a mile away, no way that should get through".. We are all guilty of looking at our own situation and creating rules that would not affect us but restrict some of others peoples cases we have read about on here and did not approve.

Some of us think the co-sponsors should go away and the minimum earnings requirement should be raised - but then those here that would be effected scream unfair. Same thing with requiring English, or minimum visits and time together, or limiting the number of people a USC can bring in or lengthening the time between petitioning, or only allowing naturalized citizens petition, etc, etc.

Want to make the process faster and not spend more money? No problem! You just have to decide: Do we error on the side of letting in fraudulent claims or crushing innocent peoples dreams? All we have to do is have very hard and fast rules and take the decision making away from people... A new petition comes in, facts are checked, and based on our rule-set we instantly deny or reject the petition and send it on to the next stage. Very very strict rules would weed out most of the fraud but reject probably half the innocent people.. A week rule-set and fraudsters would slice right though any obstacle - Any rule-set that keeps most of the fraudsters out will affect a large percentage of the innocent.

The more I read the other thread (and this one) the more I am inclined to believe the best we can do is to have a well trained CO at every embassy that knows all the local traditions and fraudster tricks.. Each case is unique.

For the record: I am not going to loose sleep because of an influx of "hot chicks" being imported. There are worse things.

Like letting in ugly chicks?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I think if your wanting to get rid of fraud and speed up the process, the co-sponser rule will not have much of an effect.

Why not require people to have had residency in their spouses country. Thats the way to go.

The only problem with this is if you are in a job that you can't relocate from, then you are stuck. I am in the military with about 4 years left before I retire, getting out now would be ludicrous, even though I love my wife to death.....