immigration debate - family rejected for tourist visa

[Rwlaird 18]

Harsh,

You seem to be confused.

1. Yes, you are correct that a sponsor is not required – UNDER CURRENT LAW. Congress passes laws and later can amend such laws. They are currently contemplating and debating amendments to immigration law.
2. I am not advocating removing any language requiring “having strong ties at home.” Such language is in regulation – not in law – and it can remain in regulation. I support that and my in-laws presented evidence of such “strong ties at home” as direct by the State Dept. The “presumption of immigrant intent” language is in law and has proven to be too harsh (at least in its implementation by our State Dept).
3. You are correct that removing certain language in law could have a devastating effect – IN A VACUUM. I am only advocating on one issue but it is in the context of many other issues currently being debated.

Thank you for the dialogue.

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

You should read this thread

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/434352-i-am-a-green-card-holder-my-minor-kids-on-b2-visa/

It is because of blatant abusers of tourist Visas, that make the process so much more difficult for others.

This is hogwash.

Judge applicants on thier individual application and do not profile a section of the population.

I do understand where you're coming from, we all do, but I don't think amending this particular law is the way to go.

Personally I believe the ability to AOS within the US should be removed. There is no immigrant risk if you can't adjust status while in the US. There is always going to be the risk that someone will overstay and try and live here illegally.

Tracking system of entry and exit is pointless. They've (illegals) already found ways around that system.

Honestly I would write to your congressman/senator about help getting a visitor visa for your in-laws, rather than trying to amend the law. But, how do you prove they don't have immigrant intent? You can't. Their child is in the US, their grandchild is in the US.

It might be simpler for her to become a citizen and file for her parents. Once her parents are here then they can return and give up their GC's in favour of visitor visas. This shows they don't have intent and I believe many people had been forced to go this path to prove that there is no immigrant intent, after all, why would someone give up a GC if they had immigrant intent?

I've been saying this all along and if regular citizens can coem to this conclusion why can't those in authority do the same?

Do you know how much does it cost to track and deport an individual, how many hurdles are there in deporting an illegal?

Even with advance tracking its very difficult simple example once illegal immigrant enters the country he can destroy his passport and it would upto US authorities at that point to prove what's nationality this person belongs and if that country would accept him or not.

Definately can understand your frustration with your wife's parents not being able to get the tourist visa but not all tourist visa applicant have been truthful and have blatantly abused the system.

If you really would like to make it easier for tourist to get visa, ask your congressman to amend the law on these things.

1. No adj of status from B1/2

2. No medical coverage for B1/2 (They need to purchase their own insurance before the enter the country)

3. No citizenship to kids born to illegals or on B1/2.

Hopefully things like this would prevent abuse of B1/2.

I beleive that it would help tremendously.

[Harsh_77 718]

Harsh,

You seem to be confused.

1. Yes, you are correct that a sponsor is not required – UNDER CURRENT LAW. Congress passes laws and later can amend such laws. They are currently contemplating and debating amendments to immigration law.
2. I am not advocating removing any language requiring “having strong ties at home.” Such language is in regulation – not in law – and it can remain in regulation. I support that and my in-laws presented evidence of such “strong ties at home” as direct by the State Dept. The “presumption of immigrant intent” language is in law and has proven to be too harsh (at least in its implementation by our State Dept).
3. You are correct that removing certain language in law could have a devastating effect – IN A VACUUM. I am only advocating on one issue but it is in the context of many other issues currently being debated.

Thank you for the dialogue.

Congress is only working on bringing illegal immigrant present in the US into the main stream, I am not aware of any changes that might impact the tourist visa.

[Rwlaird 18]

The current immigration debate should be a holistic approach to all issues - not merely a grant of amnesty for the 11 million criminals in the country.

[Teddy B 17,252]

If "intentions change" then their U.S. sponsor would change from being a lawful citizen to being a criminal subject to pursuit by aggressive IRS agents, wage garnishment, whatever -- whatever penalty is sufficient to preclude abuse. What do you suggest? Thanks.

Holding one person criminally responsible for someone elses crime will never float. Makes no sense whatsoever.

That's also why "invitation letters" hold no water. No ordinary citizen can guarantee that a non-citizen will obey the laws of the country, it's simply out of their control.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Teddy B

[Boiler 46,123]

First time I came to the US as a Visitor I did not know anybody living here, how would I get a Sponsor?

[Martyshk 137]

Personally I believe the ability to AOS within the US should be removed.

It'd be nice, if, for starters, the ability to AOS from the Tourist Visa would be removed.

I know waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many examples when people have circumvented the system (while I refused to do so and we did a legitimate K-1, with AOS after, the way it's supposed to be done).

There's too many loopholes that people can use by just simply getting a visitor's visa, unfortunately....

[Penguin_ie 5,996]

**** One post removed for going against TOS. Debate civilly or do not post ****

[Boiler 46,123]

AOS is not the issue, there are 6 million or so here illegally who entered with a visa, OK out of status.

Not so much this forum, but if you read other forums you would be amazed how many people are confused about tourist visa's, there was once couple who were running a business in the US for 10 years with odd visits 'home'.

I personally know several people who were working on tourist visa's.

The system if you can call it that once people are in they are effectively lost, so the only guard is at the gate.

Could there be a workable system, of course, But not in my lifetime.

[Removed-02242014 19]

Those immigration overhaul laws will not be making it's way through congress soon. This administration is battling too many other 'important' demons. Too bad too because the GWB administration started putting things in motion and it was tabled by the incoming congress.

[Gosia & Tito 199]

I fully understand that abuse of tourist visas is a problem. However, with an improved tracking system, as is included in the legislation currently being debated in Congress, those who overstay can be more easily tracked and deported.

The problem is, your inlaws intentions might be honorable, but many others are not; I personally know recent immigrants moving earth and heaven to get their parents here on a tourist visa for them to stay, they openly decalre that. From time to time we have posts here of people who want to come on a VWP and then AOS.From time to time, there are posts that cite the 30-60-90 day 'rule', even as advised by attorney to go around the process.

Sometime ago there was a heated debate here about whether eliminating the possibility of AOS while in the US, from non-immigrant visas would be the best avenue.

While I agree with you that in many instances, granting or denying a visa seems to follow a capricious process, it seems to be the only one that more or less works. Moreover, it seems more arbitrary at countries that have a higher rate of fraude (I'm assuming here that DOS/USCIS have decent stats). One anecdotal example, Poland, where my wife comes from, used to have a vey high rate of rejections, with the usual crowded embassy, etc. Once Poland entered the EU, you would not longer see lines or that many people asking for a visa; in fact, they are very close to enter the WVP based on stats that show a low percentage of denials. Why, one would ask? Esentially, Polish people can now just go anywhere in the EU they please to go, and the US is no longer the dreamland (for many, not all). In fact, I know mny Polish that were in the US and decided to move back to Europe to settle in the EU.

But I digress.

The current immigration reform discussions might help to clear up many of those vague rules and procedures; but some are already claiming it would unfairly reward those who are illegal and would benefit. Even DACA was highly criticized and I recall many here pist off because the DACA flood of petitions caused (it was claimed, can't be proved because there are no public stats, though a member here did a very good analysis that was very strongly pointing to that).

Again, I feel your pain, we have a similar issue and luckily, it's only tickets for the two of us, and since I fly to Europe often for work, it helps to reduce cost.

[Rwlaird 18]

“Holding one person criminally responsible for someone elses crime will never float. Makes no sense whatsoever.” – Really??? Then why did I have to sign an affidavit of support to attest that I would support my wife (then fiance) and ensure that she does not become a public charge?

If someone named Boiler does not know anyone here in the U.S. then this situation does not fit him/her. Our situation concerns family members.

MarknLuz need to read the news. The Senate is debating the bill this week and the House is scheduled to take it up next week.

Simply accepting that my wife’s parents can’t visit us here in the U.S. and we will always have to load up our family our four (or more later) to go visit them each time or at least until a few years until they can apply for a green card that they don’t want or need – that’s just ridiculous and preposterous.

If you don’t support this then just read it and move on. This legitimate situation applies to a lot of people. That is the point and target of my post – not to hear a lot of irrelevant opinions or debate our situation. Thanks.

[D N Medellin COL 75]

I have been kicking this around for some time and think I have the ONLY reasonable solution - After the tourist or student visa has been approved by the particular embassy (meaning they met the minimum requirements/ties to home country) then require a BOND for an amount of lets suppose $30,000. and should the traveler not return within a specified time then the bond is forfeited.

This will insure that the visitor will have some real Skin in the game!

[Boiler 46,123]

“Holding one person criminally responsible for someone else's crime will never float. Makes no sense whatsoever.” – Really??? Then why did I have to sign an affidavit of support to attest that I would support my wife (then fiancée) and ensure that she does not become a public charge?

If someone named Boiler does not know anyone here in the U.S. then this situation does not fit him/her. Our situation concerns family members.

The AoS is a financial agreement, plus of course under being in the US out of status is not a crime.

The subject is Tourist Visa's. Says so in the title.

I have been kicking this around for some time and think I have the ONLY reasonable solution - After the tourist or student visa has been approved by the particular embassy (meaning they met the minimum requirements/ties to home country) then require a BOND for an amount of lets suppose $30,000. and should the traveler not return within a specified time then the bond is forfeited.

This will insure that the visitor will have some real Skin in the game!

How would that impact tourism to the US?

Family of 4 wants to go to Disney in Florida on a relatively cheap package holiday and they have to come up with a Bond for $120,000?

[Rwlaird 18]

The bond idea fits with what I'm thinking. No effect on tourism -- only require it in cases like ours where they seem to be suspect and would otherwise be rejected. I'd put up a bond. Thanks for finally providing some constructive dialogue. The level could be debatable but the point is that it needs to be sufficiently punitive to ensure their departure. Include a background check on the U.S sponsor as well as an additional fee to cover the administrative cost. I don't like any of this but it is better than our current situation of outright rejection.