immigration debate - family rejected for tourist visa

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

What about the OP?

Do you think his responses have been constructive?

He tosses insults whenever someone disagrees.

Touche, but it's retaliatory.

1. If you hang around this site long enough you may well say the same about visa fraud.

2. It is certainly true that if you are associated with a group where fraud is endemic then you will have issues over and above others. Until NSA develop reliable mind reading devices I do not have an answer.

You've just proved my point.

As Americans we're supposed to judge people based on their individual performance and to not profile.

I have no apologies that I am a NIgerian, that my Wife is a Nigerian and that allegedly Nigeria has high fraud incidents.

This is why I support the OP. Yes, NSA does not have telepathic powers but like OP said, don't deny visas in a blanket way. We are hoping that ConOffs can ask applicants to provide additional and specific information/documents to prove themselves. What those documents/information should be is what we are debating. We don't want to hear no it can't be done.

If someone told you 15 years ago that on a certain day in the US that there will be a total ban on commercial flight or that a black person will be presdent or that the WTC woudl crumble down, etc would you beleive? Changes do occur, what I am hoping to discuss are those catalyst for the change. Not that t can't be done. Of course it can be done. For the love of God they are working on eventually granting citizenship to undocumented aliens who commited a felony on their first day in the country.

PS: I'm certain if I take time to Google Wales that I would find some attrocities commited their too but I am developed and educated to jusstify that.

We have a saying in Yoruba tribe of Nigeria, "when you close your eyes so taht you don't see a bad person then you won't see wen a good person passes by".

Edited June 11, 2013 by Gowon

[Boiler 46,123]

1. As Americans we're supposed to judge people based on their individual performance and to not profile.

2. I have no apologies that I am a NIgerian, that my Wife is a Nigerian and that allegedly Nigeria has high fraud incidents.

1. I am not an American and I have seen that comment made before, but since I have been here I have seen no evidence to support it. Quite the contary.

2. Alleged?

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

1. I am not an American and I have seen that comment made before, but since I have been here I have seen no evidence to support it. Quite the contary.

2. Alleged?

1. Perhaps it's the circle I moved in.

2. Yes, alleged. But that's a Red Hering anyways.

[Rwlaird 18]

All I am advocating here is a surgical change to one section of law which has proven to be problematic for well intentioned visitors. Making this one change would not, absolutely should not, preclude the State Department from continuing to appropriately maintain requirements for visitors to show evidence, including ties to their home country, to prove that their intention is to visit the U.S. for a short temporary period and then go back home. The “presumption of immigrant intent” language in current law creates a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ situation which, as Americans, we know to be inherently not only contrary to our legal system but against human decency. Look closely at my suggested amendment and let me know your specific idea for how to improve it. It still states that the visitor would be required to prove that their intended trip fits the terms of their visa. The agency could carry out that section of the law with regulations that require a return ticket or whatever else they deem appropriate.

I apologize to those who were offended by my curt comments. At the end of a long day my patience is thin. I considered referring to someone’s comment as “thinking like a government bureaucrat” to be appropriate and didn’t mean it to be offensive. But really, maybe someone could be a little thin-skinned if that hurt their poor little feelings. I do not shy away from a debate and can enjoy a constructive dialogue but am busy enough with life that I would rather not spend my limited time educating those who are severely uninformed. This post was meant as a suggestion to encourage others who have been personally affected by this issue to weigh into the current debate in the U.S. Congress. I’m sorry if the truncated title was confusing to some. Maybe a more appropriate title would have been “Current immigration debate occurring in the U.S. Congress.” I assumed that people would be watching the news and aware such that they would have understood the abbreviated title. I also thought that the subtitle would help but some people seem to have missed that as well.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Rwlaird

[Boiler 46,123]

Looking at the original wording and your revision I do not see the difference in application.

The current wording says you are deemed to have immigrant intent and you need to show that you do not.

Your one says that you need to show that you will abide by the terms of your visa.

In the end they are the same and it comes down to a judgement call.

The issue that needs to be addressed is making it much harder for abusers once they are in the US, then the gate can be relaxed.

But you have not addressed that issue.

[CC90 90]

Look closely at my suggested amendment...

I do not shy away from a debate and can enjoy a constructive dialogue but am busy enough with life that I would rather not spend my limited time educating those who are severely uninformed.

I assumed that people would be watching the news and aware such that they would have understood the abbreviated title. I also thought that the subtitle would help but some people seem to have missed that as well.

Arrogant much?

Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not make he/she stupid or "severely uninformed." We're sorry to waste your limited time.

Responding to your "amendment", you really should look back at the history of how the INA has been applied by the Department of State. All of the things you're suggesting have been tried at one point or another.

At this point, many consulates have, without further option, started to refuse to see ANY documents at all simply because the fraud rate is so high. If there is a single set of required documents, or a single set of acceptable "proof", a black market will then materialize almost instantly around those documents, be it return tickets, financial statements, property deeds, etc. No agency has the resources to verify every single document submitted. Even if it did, it would take the adjudicating period for a B1/B2 from a few minutes to several months, perhaps years. This is against the intent of that type of status.

I personally commend your intentions and truly sympathize for your situation (I'm in a similar boat), and there are people who get stuck in the cracks. It doesn't work 100%, nor will it ever work 100%. Just as you preach to think like "decent humans", you also need to see it from the "government bureaucrat" point of view. The sheer number of NIV applicants in a given period of time is very difficult to conceptualize. You really need to first understand the immense scale within which this system operates, and then the amazingly concerted attempts to take advantage of it. The US has absolutely nothing to gain by being unwelcoming. The system is not out to get you.

As many others have said, until mind reading becomes a reality, I suspect much of the current adjudication system is here to stay. That is: verbal and non-verbal responses presented in interviews and the facts surrounding the applicant.

Even IF the ability to adjust or change status from a B1/B2 is removed, this same problem remains. An overwhelming amount of abusers have no IR basis to adjust status, but rather just stay illegally in the US. There is so much under-the-table or fake-SSN work in the US; many live comfortably illegally. For these immigrants, living illegally in the US can be orders of magnitude better than their previous situation. Hence, even with that ability removed, I don't see the DOS changing their policies on the matter from the higher risk countries.

[SennaBrigante 92]

At this point, many consulates have, without further option, started to refuse to see ANY documents at all simply because the fraud rate is so high. If there is a single set of required documents, or a single set of acceptable "proof", a black market will then materialize almost instantly around those documents, be it return tickets, financial statements, property deeds, etc. No agency has the resources to verify every single document submitted. Even if it did, it would take the adjudicating period for a B1/B2 from a few minutes to several months, perhaps years. This is against the intent of that type of status.

in the US can be orders of magnitude better than their previous situation. Hence, even with that ability removed, I don't see the DOS changing their policies on the matter from the higher risk countries.

There are already black markets for fake documentation... business licenses and financial statements are the top sell. I know of people who have purchased these fake documents just to get a tourist visa and to their disappointment, the consul didn't even bother to look at it and their application got denied. No matter how well the consuls in embassies memorize the look and format of these documents, they simply don't have the time to pore over every single one to make sure that it's the real thing. Then it goes back to them trusting the applicants that they are submitting bonafide documents, kinda like how they are trusting (or not trusting) the statements that the applicants make during the interview.

In contrast, when I applied for a tourist visa in China, they didn't require interviews, they just asked the applicants to submit required documents that they listed on their website. The processing took 4-5 days and if they rejected your application, you can still provide additional documentation to convince them. They wanted to see financial statements on bank accounts that has existed for a number of years and has a minimum daily averaging balance (or something like that) in the last six months from the date of application. They were actually very thorough. First time applicants were only qualified for a single entry visa that was only valid for 30 days after issuance. If they wanted to come back, they'll have to apply for another visa but a multiple entry one and they'll get it if they meet the requirements again and they didn't violate their earlier visa's terms. Hong Kong and Macau doesn't even require a visa (for our country at least) and yet they don't have an illegal immigration issue as encompassing as the US. Why?

I'm not sure but from what I have observed, and aside from the language barrier, it is super hard for illegal immigrants to survive as aliens in those places. They can't get jobs because they don't have the right identification cards or social security and the employers strictly enforce their laws when it comes to hiring employees. If they get caught employing illegals, they'll have to answer to authority too and that's bad for business. I'm not saying that illegal immigration is nonexistant in these places but they have some structures and laws in place that are more or less enforced effectively. Tourism does not take a hit and they don't have such procedures like changing visa statuses while in the country or whatnot.

The big cause of why it's so difficult for us tourists to get a visa is because of the illegal immigration issue, we're all in agreement about that. It ireally is unfair for families and legit tourists. But if it wasn't so easy for illegal aliens to find jobs, buy a car, start a family and fulfill the American dream, there won't be a huge volume of people abusing tourist visas because after all, if nobody hires them or gives them a handout, how will they survive?

[CC90 90]

In contrast, when I applied for a tourist visa in China, they didn't require interviews, they just asked the applicants to submit required documents that they listed on their website...

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

The primary intent of the Chinese visa regime, for most nationals, has little to do with illegal immigration.

The priorities for the Chinese are more similar to:

1. Political - They want multiple days to manually review every name that comes across to make sure they're not dissenting journalists, affiliated with certain religious groups, not of TIbet origin, etc. The US doesn't have as big of an issue about this and goes about the name-check thing a little differently.

2. Reciprocity - China requires visas because the other nationalities require visas of Chinese. Chinese require visas to the Philippines, so Filipinos need visas for China. HK and Macau are visa-free because HK and Macau permanent residents can visit the Philippines visa-free. China also tends to reciprocate the visa fees; US citizens pay the going rate that Chinese pay the State Department for a US visa.

3. Immigration - It is looked at, but for many countries, this is not a big issue. US citizens don't have to submit anything but an application in 90% of cases, certainly not anything related to financials. In your case when you submit financial statements, they're not concerned you're going to stay past your welcome necessarily, but rather that you'll have enough money to come home without having to be deported on Chinese expense. They don't really care if it's your money or not (e.g. if a relative transferred it in), but more that you have access to it from family members, etc. Whatever amount they ask for certainly won't cover living expenses for the rest of your life. This isn't the point of the requirement. If anything, being illegal in mainland China is infinitely more difficult than Hong Kong or Macau.

they don't have such procedures like changing visa statuses while in the country or whatnot.

This is hardly true.

Edited June 12, 2013 by CC90

[Teddy B 17,252]

I apologize to those who were offended by my curt comments. At the end of a long day my patience is thin. I considered referring to someone’s comment as “thinking like a government bureaucrat” to be appropriate and didn’t mean it to be offensive. But really, maybe someone could be a little thin-skinned if that hurt their poor little feelings. I do not shy away from a debate and can enjoy a constructive dialogue but am busy enough with life that I would rather not spend my limited time educating those who are severely uninformed. This post was meant as a suggestion to encourage others who have been personally affected by this issue to weigh into the current debate in the U.S. Congress. I’m sorry if the truncated title was confusing to some. Maybe a more appropriate title would have been “Current immigration debate occurring in the U.S. Congress.” I assumed that people would be watching the news and aware such that they would have understood the abbreviated title. I also thought that the subtitle would help but some people seem to have missed that as well.

Arrogant much?

Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not make he/she stupid or "severely uninformed." We're sorry to waste your limited time.

[SennaBrigante 92]

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

The primary intent of the Chinese visa regime, for most nationals, has little to do with illegal immigration.

The priorities for the Chinese are more similar to:

1. Political - They want multiple days to manually review every name that comes across to make sure they're not dissenting journalists, affiliated with certain religious groups, not of TIbet origin, etc. The US doesn't have as big of an issue about this and goes about the name-check thing a little differently.

2. Reciprocity - China requires visas because the other nationalities require visas of Chinese. Chinese require visas to the Philippines, so Filipinos need visas for China. HK and Macau are visa-free because HK and Macau permanent residents can visit the Philippines visa-free. China also tends to reciprocate the visa fees; US citizens pay the going rate that Chinese pay the State Department for a US visa.

3. Immigration - It is looked at, but for many countries, this is not a big issue. US citizens don't have to submit anything but an application in 90% of cases, certainly not anything related to financials. In your case when you submit financial statements, they're not concerned you're going to stay past your welcome necessarily, but rather that you'll have enough money to come home without having to be deported on Chinese expense. They don't really care if it's your money or not (e.g. if a relative transferred it in), but more that you have access to it from family members, etc. Whatever amount they ask for certainly won't cover living expenses for the rest of your life. This isn't the point of the requirement. If anything, being illegal in mainland China is infinitely more difficult than Hong Kong or Macau.

This is hardly true.

Thank you for the insight I admit I don't know much about immigration laws and I only bother about the requirements needed to travel to that country because I am a tourist at heart. Home-base is the Philippines, the rest of the world are merely experiences.

[Boiler 46,123]

A friend of mine obtained a B visa to the US by mail about 15 years or so ago.

Times change.

Admittedly he used it to pretty much live and work in the US with occasional trips outside. Always wondered would he get back in.

When it came for renewal he decided the game was up and moved back. He could not carry on without a B, the VWP would be too obvious and restrictive, applying for another with a long list of stays was unlikely to be successful.

[Harsh_77 718]

All I am advocating here is a surgical change to one section of law which has proven to be problematic for well intentioned visitors. Making this one change would not, absolutely should not, preclude the State Department from continuing to appropriately maintain requirements for visitors to show evidence, including ties to their home country, to prove that their intention is to visit the U.S. for a short temporary period and then go back home. The “presumption of immigrant intent” language in current law creates a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ situation which, as Americans, we know to be inherently not only contrary to our legal system but against human decency. Look closely at my suggested amendment and let me know your specific idea for how to improve it. It still states that the visitor would be required to prove that their intended trip fits the terms of their visa. The agency could carry out that section of the law with regulations that require a return ticket or whatever else they deem appropriate.

I apologize to those who were offended by my curt comments. At the end of a long day my patience is thin. I considered referring to someone’s comment as “thinking like a government bureaucrat” to be appropriate and didn’t mean it to be offensive. But really, maybe someone could be a little thin-skinned if that hurt their poor little feelings. I do not shy away from a debate and can enjoy a constructive dialogue but am busy enough with life that I would rather not spend my limited time educating those who are severely uninformed. This post was meant as a suggestion to encourage others who have been personally affected by this issue to weigh into the current debate in the U.S. Congress. I’m sorry if the truncated title was confusing to some. Maybe a more appropriate title would have been “Current immigration debate occurring in the U.S. Congress.” I assumed that people would be watching the news and aware such that they would have understood the abbreviated title. I also thought that the subtitle would help but some people seem to have missed that as well.

What you are suggesting does not change anything as – as on would still be required to prove they do not have any intention to live in US.

Why would one be required to prove they do not want to live in US? Coz they are presumed to have “immigrant intent”.

Understand the laws cannot be changed to accommodate single individual or their family, I understand your wife’s family have been having hard time getting visa but for your inconvenience the laws cannot be change.

Tourist visa is not a right and not guranteed.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Harsh_77

[Boiler 46,123]

Actually laws can be changed for a single case, a Congress person would need to sponsor a bill, has happened.

[Harsh_77 718]

Actually laws can be changed for a single case, a Congress person would need to sponsor a bill, has happened.

In this case as per OP's argument do you think Congress was going to change the law, so his wife's family can visit?

I don't think so.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Harsh_77

[aaron2020 11,651]

Actually laws can be changed for a single case, a Congress person would need to sponsor a bill, has happened.

A private bill for tourist visas.

They have better odds of winning the lottery tonight than getting a private bill for tourist visas.