immigration debate - family rejected for tourist visa

[Boiler 46,124]

As a matter of interest what possible questions could you ask in a 2 1/2 minutes that would produce valid information to make such a decision?

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

I know each of us thinks their in-laws, sisters, cousins, uncles, etc are different and would never overstay.

The spirit of the law (214b) should not be changed per se. All that would do is create a run on the borders tying things up even more for everybody. The IO's should be trained to allow for the use of reasoning and common sense to allow more people to qualify.

An example about common sense... my wife brought her 2 young daughters with her to the US. She has 2 older kids (both under 18) from a previous marriage that stayed behind (their choice). Now, they want to visit us for a couple of months. They were denied tourist visas (and we were pretty much told to not waste our money re-applying because they have no ties to their country since their mom and siblings are all in US and the father is dead; only tie is grandparents, so they are never getting a tourist visa) but when I asked the IO if he was aware of the fact that my wife being a citizen could get them here legally in under a year, so why would we use a tourist visa and make them illegals? He understood and agreed but said he had to follow the law and they didn't qualify.

So we are forced to file i-130's for them. When they arrive, they will automatically become US citizens and they can choose to live with us if they like or go back. But then they are free to travel as they wish.

Anything that is done wouldn't solve the problem completely, but should help lower it. If we put enough of these in, they could minimze the problem. Here is what I would be in favor of:

1. Eliminate AOS from any tourist, employment, student, etc. visa. Basically, no in-country AOS like a few of you mentioned. You fall in love and want to get married? Go back to your country and wait like the rest of us had to.

2. This is a bit radical but... How about an enhanced tourist visa option where immigrant could get a US citizen to "enhance" their application. Like a guarantee. What this would entail is a lump-sum bond (lets say $10-20K) that the citizen would put up, and if the immigrant overstayed that person loses the money AND the illegal becomes a charge on that person with the gov't. This means that the government would charge the "sponsor" a certain amount per month. If the person doesn't pay, you start garnishing wages and offsetting tax refunds, just like any other federal debt. And after a year, the "sponsor" has to report the whereabouts of the illegal to ICE for immediate pickup or face felony charges of harboring an illegal alien. The "sponsor" would also have to pay for the plane ticket to send the illegal back. I think anybody who sponsors a person under this visa would drive him to the airport personally. And if they sponsor somebody that they can't guarantee will return, they should have their heads examined. If they do, and the person overstays, you made your bed...

Edited July 25, 2013 by Eric-Pris

[Rwlaird 18]

I know each of us thinks their in-laws, sisters, cousins, uncles, etc are different and would never overstay.

The spirit of the law (214b) should not be changed per se. All that would do is create a run on the borders tying things up even more for everybody. The IO's should be trained to allow for the use of reasoning and common sense to allow more people to qualify.

An example about common sense... my wife brought her 2 young daughters with her to the US. She has 2 older kids (both under 18) from a previous marriage that stayed behind (their choice). Now, they want to visit us for a couple of months. They were denied tourist visas (and we were pretty much told to not waste our money re-applying because they have no ties to their country since their mom and siblings are all in US and the father is dead; only tie is grandparents, so they are never getting a tourist visa) but when I asked the IO if he was aware of the fact that my wife being a citizen could get them here legally in under a year, so why would we use a tourist visa and make them illegals? He understood and agreed but said he had to follow the law and they didn't qualify.

So we are forced to file i-130's for them. When they arrive, they will automatically become US citizens and they can choose to live with us if they like or go back. But then they are free to travel as they wish.

Anything that is done wouldn't solve the problem completely, but should help lower it. If we put enough of these in, they could minimze the problem. Here is what I would be in favor of:

1. Eliminate AOS from any tourist, employment, student, etc. visa. Basically, no in-country AOS like a few of you mentioned. You fall in love and want to get married? Go back to your country and wait like the rest of us had to.

2. This is a bit radical but... How about an enhanced tourist visa option where immigrant could get a US citizen to "enhance" their application. Like a guarantee. What this would entail is a lump-sum bond (lets say $10-20K) that the citizen would put up, and if the immigrant overstayed that person loses the money AND the illegal becomes a charge on that person with the gov't. This means that the government would charge the "sponsor" a certain amount per month. If the person doesn't pay, you start garnishing wages and offsetting tax refunds, just like any other federal debt. And after a year, the "sponsor" has to report the whereabouts of the illegal to ICE for immediate pickup or face felony charges of harboring an illegal alien. The "sponsor" would also have to pay for the plane ticket to send the illegal back. I think anybody who sponsors a person under this visa would drive him to the airport personally. And if they sponsor somebody that they can't guarantee will return, they should have their heads examined. If they do, and the person overstays, you made your bed...

Very good points. I'm with you regarding strong penalties - capital punishment, whatever is needed!

I could argue the point either way regarding the 214(b) language. After arguing it back and forth I would probably agree that it doesn't really need to be changed but the agency always uses it as their excuse. If you read closely the IG report that I posted the IG is recommending improvements in the interview process just like you are discussing. The IG is not recommending a change in law as the agency always uses as their cop-out.

Please take a look at my post today titled "parents visa." In your case maybe it should be titled "immediate relative visa."

[Boiler 46,124]

Going rate to get into the US is a lot more than $20k, say $50k?

[Rwlaird 18]

Going rate to get into the US is a lot more than $20k, say $50k?

Please see my other post from yesterday titled "Parents visa." I'm surprised that you haven't attacked it yet. The anticipation has me on the edge of my seat and I would be curious to hear what such a critic would say.

[Boiler 46,124]

I wasn't replying to you.

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

Going rate to get into the US is a lot more than $20k, say

How many actually pay $50k to come here? I would think very few could afford that and most pay little or nothing and thej have to work off the money they owe.

[Harsh_77 718]

How many actually pay $50k to come here? I would think very few could afford that and most pay little or nothing and thej have to work off the money they owe.

you would think ppl pay lot more than that for chance to come to US.

[Darnell 8,479]

6 weeks in to this topic,

and it's time to ask:

Did this family re-apply for a tourist visa, or no ?

and

If no, what's the issue ?

[Boiler 46,124]

you would think ppl pay lot more than that for chance to come to US.

You would be surprised....

[Rwlaird 18]

6 weeks in to this topic,

and it's time to ask:

Did this family re-apply for a tourist visa, or no ?

and

If no, what's the issue ?

They applied 3 times.

[Darnell 8,479]

ah. ok !

[Rwlaird 18]

ah. ok !

They re-applied the first time because we thought that someone must have been having a bad day since the consular officer didn't even consider the fact that they have employment and own property. We thought they should try again since we knew they legitimately do not want to live here but only wanted to visit for a short period. The third time my mother-in-law applied alone in hopes that at least she could come when the baby was born and thought that her husband staying at home would present a very strong tie to her home country. But she still received a quick curt rejection!

[Harsh_77 718]

They re-applied the first time because we thought that someone must have been having a bad day since the consular officer didn't even consider the fact that they have employment and own property. We thought they should try again since we knew they legitimately do not want to live here but only wanted to visit for a short period. The third time my mother-in-law applied alone in hopes that at least she could come when the baby was born and thought that her husband staying at home would present a very strong tie to her home country. But she still received a quick curt rejection!

Ahh.. now since you mentioned you are expecting a baby, did your in-laws mention that during the interview or purpose of the visit on DS-160?

[Boiler 46,124]

So her Parents wanted to come and help with the new born?