USCIS should be privatized

[jarta 24]

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.

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.

what you are basically telling me is that, the government hires people to do the bare minimum at the USCIS so that there will be backlogs. this is so wrong! a competent private company will be able to do the work of USCIS without creating a false backlogs and will also be able to maintain a good number of adjudicators who will be work efficiently. there are mathematical assimilation (linear programming)that can help with these kind of problems. why is the government doesn't want its works to be efficient in dealing with the people who pay taxes that are used to pay them?

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Do we always have to draw the specter of socialism into political debates nowadays? "All animals are equal, but some are equaler," is a pretty slippery sentiment whether it's in the employ of Marx or Malthus. 

It's already inequitable treatment under the law once we arrive at the stage of debating how much we should pay for a right that other Americans get for free (assuming family visas here). Does it really need to be harder on those who already struggle the most with the fees currently in place, as everybody more solvent jumps the cue?

Your taxes, a relative sum of money, are higher or lower than the rest of the population based on your income, another relative sum of money. Since love and money are unequal currencies (except in certain establishments in Vegas), perhaps some kind of conversion system ought to be devised, based on how much you love that spouse or child, to determine how much you ought to pay to get them back, and how quickly.