USCIS should be privatized

[Julie y Pat 67]

If you ask around here, of course people will agree that things can or should be done to make this process quicker. Go ask a bunch of strangers on the street if they think it's a good idea to privatize the immigration system so more immigrants can get here quicker.

[LBeachey 45]

Setting aside whether privatization would actually be more efficient, if it is not already obvious to you the government does not want this process to be streamlined. It is bureaucratic by design.

In the case of spousal immigrant visa, the US government is granting a significant and much desired benefit based upon criteria (i.e a bona-fide relationship) that is essentially impossible to prove/disprove to anywhere near 100% confidence.

So the strategy is to make it hard, make it bureaucratic, and make it time-consuming to test the commitment of the couple. If you are willing to pursue this process to the end, it shows true commitment of the couple.

In the other immigrant categories, there is a blood relationship that should be easy to prove. Even in those cases, due to quotas it is a long multi-year process.

The long wait is part of the test and part of the proof. Taking an objective view of the process, it is not that unreasonable.

And while it seems reasonable for every other case, it just seems so unfair and unreasonable for my case since my case is obviously legitimate

[Justine+David 218]

I don't agree with it, but I would LOVE to be able to fire some of the embassy officers who treat beneficiaries like ####### and stop the God complexes (we have enough surgeons for that!)

Edited September 6, 2011 by Justine+David

[Rufus2012 175]

I'm not a fan of privatizing a government function like this, but I'd like the option to pay for expedited processing. When I see military folks get NOA2 one week after NOA1, I get really pissed off. Not at the USC or their fiance, but at the system. Their quick turnaround proves that the USCIS doesn't need a lot of time to do the actual work, they've just done an atrocious job of resource allocation.

As to the idea that it's bureaucratic by design, I think anyone telling themselves that is just trying to find a way to tolerate this ridiculous wait.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Setting aside whether privatization would actually be more efficient, if it is not already obvious to you the government does not want this process to be streamlined. It is bureaucratic by design.

In the case of spousal immigrant visa, the US government is granting a significant and much desired benefit based upon criteria (i.e a bona-fide relationship) that is essentially impossible to prove/disprove to anywhere near 100% confidence.

So the strategy is to make it hard, make it bureaucratic, and make it time-consuming to test the commitment of the couple. If you are willing to pursue this process to the end, it shows true commitment of the couple.

In the other immigrant categories, there is a blood relationship that should be easy to prove. Even in those cases, due to quotas it is a long multi-year process.

The long wait is part of the test and part of the proof. Taking an objective view of the process, it is not that unreasonable.

And while it seems reasonable for every other case, it just seems so unfair and unreasonable for my case since my case is obviously legitimate

There were times when petitions were processed as quickly as a few weeks. The mid 2000s had periods like that.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I'm not a fan of privatizing a government function like this, but I'd like the option to pay for expedited processing. When I see military folks get NOA2 one week after NOA1, I get really pissed off. Not at the USC or their fiance, but at the system. Their quick turnaround proves that the USCIS doesn't need a lot of time to do the actual work, they've just done an atrocious job of resource allocation.

Not true. They aren't reallocating resources in order to expedite petitions from military petitioners. They are moving the petition to the head of the queue to be adjudicated much sooner. The length of the queue didn't change, nor did the number of adjudicators working on the queue. Expedited processing for military petitioners is a courtesy the US government extends to members of the military, and I happen to agree with it. Anyone who voluntarily agrees to get shot at in order to protect the US or it's interests abroad deserves my respect, and I'm more than willing to let them cut in front of me in any line.

On the other hand, expedited processing for a fee is something I strongly disagree with. I don't believe someone who can afford to pay more deserves better treatment than everyone else. This isn't a gourmet restaurant or an exclusive night club. Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of the constitution.

FWIW, I could afford to pay for expedited processing if it was available. I just don't believe it should be available.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't know if it's true or not, but I read on the one forum that actually reviewing case between NOA1 and NOA2 takes really short time. Most time of waiting our cases just being in a long queue till somebody in USCIS will take envelope from shelf, clean dust and will open it to see if it's something wrong there or not. So I read that waiting for a 4-5 months doesn't mean that all the time case is processing. It does mean that for a few months our cases just getting to be covered with dust on shelves more and more without anybody working about it. I want to reinsure - I don't know it by myself, I got this info on forum. It's Victor from Russia writing.

I know for myself.

About 20 minutes. We have friends that work for USCIS at the VSC. Alla does interpretations for them. That includes the background check. Adjudicators (including our friend Lena, a Russian woman and K-1 beneficiary now a US citizen) process 20-24 cases in a 10 hour shift. Start to finish.

The wait time represents the current backlog of cases and that is all. Our case was approved in 58 days at VSC

Privatization would only reduce waiting times if the private firms increased staff (and fees)

[PantomimeGoose 59]

"The long wait is part of the test and part of the proof"

I know there's a certain amount of sarcasm in your post, but it still blows my mind that that's how people think the government is handling this, and that that's somehow not unreasonable. How many real relationships fall apart because married couples aren't supposed to spend the first year or two of their marriage squandering their savings on trips to visit their spouse, or working a full time job and then staying up until 2 am every night for a chance to talk with their spouse on skype? How many couples in our situation miss seeing a child born? How many of our number find themselves in the hospital or even die untimely deaths, far away from the person they love while the government is proving the relationship is real? Not every challenge we face in life is some kind of useful, character-building teamwork exercise.

As others have pointed out, processing times have varied over the years. I worked a government job with more intensive clearance than USCIS requires. 2 months to complete a background check was 'lengthy'. Obviously more staff/efficiency would go a long way to fixing the problem of 'shelved' applications, which rumor has it is the main hurdle through USCIS. So what's keeping staffing and/or productivity low at USCIS? Funding? Apathy? Seasonal hiring sluggishness? What can we do to change that?

Is privatization a better solution? Well oddly enough, in the last five years or so I'd say there has come a tipping point, when I find I would rather spend an afternoon at the DMV than deal with my Internet service provider, my private insurer, or the airline that I'm indentured to for an hour. Seems to me that private companies have recently discovered that they don't actually have to engage in capitalism if they can just make sure you can't break some 'contract' you never signed, ensuring that once you put your money into their invaluable service you can never get any portion of it back out, somewhat irrespective of whether or not they ever rendered a reasonable facsimile of the service agreed upon.

I'm not sure what that would mean for visas were the experience translated, but I'm pretty sure it bodes ill on many levels.

[Anh map 2,098]

I don't know if it's true or not, but I read on the one forum that actually reviewing case between NOA1 and NOA2 takes really short time. Most time of waiting our cases just being in a long queue till somebody in USCIS will take envelope from shelf, clean dust and will open it to see if it's something wrong there or not. So I read that waiting for a 4-5 months doesn't mean that all the time case is processing. It does mean that for a few months our cases just getting to be covered with dust on shelves more and more without anybody working about it. I want to reinsure - I don't know it by myself, I got this info on forum. It's Victor from Russia writing.

That's part of the unique nature. Timing is everything. Light workload should equal faster. Time on a shelf or time on a desk is still time spent in the processing stage.

[TBoneTX 45,305]

I would LOVE to be able to fire some of the embassy officers who treat beneficiaries like #######

There's so much more to say about this, but I'll add only my opinion that the more severe problem in the family-based immigration process is on the DOS side, not USCIS/DHS.

[jarta 24]

If you ask around here, of course people will agree that things can or should be done to make this process quicker. Go ask a bunch of strangers on the street if they think it's a good idea to privatize the immigration system so more immigrants can get here quicker.

Good idea. But the problem is this - the average stranger walking on the street may knows nothing about immigration. i seen shows on TV where people have gone around and asked on the streets who the president of the US is and in many cases most people don’t know who he is but they know who Britney Spears is. That is okay, because the things we love are the things that we pay attention to. My sample space is pretty good I think. If you want me to go and talk to people on the street, I would need to give them a good understand of how the immigration process works without a bias angle. Its very difficult for people to give an unbiased point about an issue when they have very strong opinion about that issue.

I think i am talking to the right group because they know and understand the process. Contrary to your believe that, people here will get on my bandwagon, most of the people responding do not agree with me. The people in my sample space are pretty smart and logical

I still think you raised a good point though

[Rufus2012 175]

"Not true. They aren't reallocating resources in order to expedite petitions from military petitioners."

Strictly speaking they are, since the adjudicator is looking at a different file then he would have been had the queue been followed. But as I said, and perhaps didn't make clear enough, I have no objection to military (active or veteran) folks getting to move to the front of the line. My point was that the fast approvals demonstrate that most of the time for adjudication is just waiting for the backlog.

"On the other hand, expedited processing for a fee is something I strongly disagree with. I don't believe someone who can afford to pay more deserves better treatment than everyone else. This isn't a gourmet restaurant or an exclusive night club. Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of the constitution."

Expedited processing would inject additional funds into USCIS. If done correctly, it might speed things up for everybody; if they smartly hire additional adjudicators for the fast track petitions, that could free up adjudicators for everyone else. The passport office must be doing something similar. As for the question of equal treatment under the law, I think that everyone having the option to purchase faster processing is equal treatment - that some are not able to afford to do so is a separate matter. Just consider that even though we are "equal" under the law, you and I likely pay different amounts of income tax every year (and yes, I have a problem with this, but that's a much broader discussion about economics that doesn't belong here ).

[jarta 24]

"Not true. They aren't reallocating resources in order to expedite petitions from military petitioners."

Strictly speaking they are, since the adjudicator is looking at a different file then he would have been had the queue been followed. But as I said, and perhaps didn't make clear enough, I have no objection to military (active or veteran) folks getting to move to the front of the line. My point was that the fast approvals demonstrate that most of the time for adjudication is just waiting for the backlog.

"On the other hand, expedited processing for a fee is something I strongly disagree with. I don't believe someone who can afford to pay more deserves better treatment than everyone else. This isn't a gourmet restaurant or an exclusive night club. Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of the constitution."

Expedited processing would inject additional funds into USCIS. If done correctly, it might speed things up for everybody; if they smartly hire additional adjudicators for the fast track petitions, that could free up adjudicators for everyone else. The passport office must be doing something similar. As for the question of equal treatment under the law, I think that everyone having the option to purchase faster processing is equal treatment - that some are not able to afford to do so is a separate matter. Just consider that even though we are "equal" under the law, you and I likely pay different amounts of income tax every year (and yes, I have a problem with this, but that's a much broader discussion about economics that doesn't belong here ).

really really really good points. i was thinking about the same things. the problem is that government tries to make everyone equal when in actual fact that is not possible. there is no way we can make people equal. trying to make people equal only leads to socialism..good point bring up the taxation issue.

Edited September 6, 2011 by jarta

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

"Not true. They aren't reallocating resources in order to expedite petitions from military petitioners."

Strictly speaking they are, since the adjudicator is looking at a different file then he would have been had the queue been followed. But as I said, and perhaps didn't make clear enough, I have no objection to military (active or veteran) folks getting to move to the front of the line. My point was that the fast approvals demonstrate that most of the time for adjudication is just waiting for the backlog.

Your semantics are slightly off. The time for adjudication is less than an hour. The time waiting for adjudication is because there are petitions waiting in front of yours. Anyway, I confirmed this in an earlier post.

"On the other hand, expedited processing for a fee is something I strongly disagree with. I don't believe someone who can afford to pay more deserves better treatment than everyone else. This isn't a gourmet restaurant or an exclusive night club. Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of the constitution."

Expedited processing would inject additional funds into USCIS. If done correctly, it might speed things up for everybody; if they smartly hire additional adjudicators for the fast track petitions, that could free up adjudicators for everyone else. The passport office must be doing something similar. As for the question of equal treatment under the law, I think that everyone having the option to purchase faster processing is equal treatment - that some are not able to afford to do so is a separate matter. Just consider that even though we are "equal" under the law, you and I likely pay different amounts of income tax every year (and yes, I have a problem with this, but that's a much broader discussion about economics that doesn't belong here ).

USCIS doesn't need additional funds. They are already almost entirely funded by fees paid by petitioners, employers, and immigrants.

You're presumption is also probably false. They wouldn't hire additional adjudicators. They would simply reallocate some of the existing adjudicators to handle the "fast track" petitions. You're presuming USCIS actually wants to eliminate the backlog. As I stated in my earlier post, they want to maintain a reasonable backlog to ensure that the adjudicators are always working, and they remain fully funded. Because the backlog varies, they don't hire more adjudicators until the backlog becomes unreasonably long, in their assessment, and they are reasonably certain that it isn't going to ease up anytime in the near future.

If they completely eliminated the backlog then there would be adjudicators sitting on their hands waiting for petitions to come, and not enough incoming fees to pay those adjudicators. USCIS doesn't hire and layoff with the changing trends. They try to maintain a steady workforce. It takes too much time and money to train adjudicators, and there isn't a supply of trained adjudicators waiting to by hired at the whim of USCIS.

[Rufus2012 175]

"It takes too much time and money to train adjudicators, and there isn't a supply of trained adjudicators waiting to by hired at the whim of USCIS."

We, as private citizens, are expected to correctly fill out the paperwork in accordance with their guidelines. Generally, most people get it right. With no training except from what we can cobble together from the USCIS's documentation and from great resources like this website.

Based on that, why is it so difficult and expensive to train adjudicators? A few weeks of formal training followed by some mentorship with more experienced individuals ought to suffice. As in any office, when difficult cases arise, junior employees can turn to their more senior peers for guidance. This isn't rocket science, so I do not accept the notion that the USCIS can't respond to an increasing backlog with additional staff, even if hired on a strictly temporary basis. They sure find people to cash your fee check quickly, don't they?