Parent Visa

[Rwlaird 18]

I sent the following letter to Congress. Maybe you would want to send a similar letter to your member of Congress.

Testimony for the Record

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Hearing - Subject: Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the United States as Children

July 23, 2013

I appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing and examining immigration issues affecting children and families. While I understand that a draft bill has not been produced yet to address this issue, news reports seem to indicate that the provisions being considered for a bill to be titled the “KIDS Act” would be woefully inadequate.

Discussion seems to be focused on addressing the situation of children who are here illegally, notwithstanding whether their illegal status was created willfully by their own actions or the actions of their parents. Such legislation should also address situations involving other “kids” -- individuals who immigrated here legally and only want their parents to be able to visit for a short, temporary period to visit their children and grandchildren.

One question which seems to be part of the current debate is how to deal with the parents of kids who came here illegally. Some members of Congress have expressed concern over creating a policy which could split families apart unnecessarily. If the parents of such kids were deported then their kids could go visit them in their home country. Thus, they would be in the same situation that many other families are currently in! – families in which the children immigrated to this country legally with a reasonable expectation that their parents would be able to visit here on a short, temporary basis, provided that they would abide by our laws. In reality, the families who are living here illegally will not be split apart since it seems clear that mass deportation will not occur. The debate seems to be focused on what type of legal status to grant to them. Members of Congress who would support an accommodation for families who came here illegally and want to protect against splitting families apart should even more strongly support addressing the situation for families who have not, and will not, break the law.

My wife is from Ukraine and came to the U.S. legally. We navigated through the treacherous process of applications, fees, interviews, typical delays, more delays due to mistakes on the part of the agency, renewals, more fees, headaches, etc. We go to visit her parents there in Ukraine often. But there are times when we are unable to visit there and would like for them to visit here such as last fall when my wife was about to give birth to our first child.

The State Department is currently administering the nonimmigrant visa process in a way which refuses visas to well-meaning parents of such “kids” who came here legally by automatically rejecting their applications based on demographic factors which have no true bearing on whether they will abide by our laws and respect the terms of a visa allowing for only a temporary visit.

My wife’s parents have no interest in living here permanently or even for an extended period. They have jobs and are comfortable and accustomed to their way of life there. They would only like to visit for a short period from time to time and tried to make that abundantly clear in the application process. My in-laws were rejected on the basis that they were unable to overcome the “presumption of immigrant intent” contained in Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since they were “unable to convince the consular officer that their economic and social ties to Ukraine are sufficient to compel their return to Ukraine after a temporary, lawful stay in the United States.”

Embassy staff has made it evident that the decision was made based on demographic factors that they fit, particularly fairly low-income jobs, no travel outside of their home country, and all children and grandchildren permanently living in the U.S. The applicants attempted to demonstrate strong ties to their home country but the interview was merely a formality that the applicant was ran through before giving them the rejection notice. My in-laws have employment and own property in their home country which would compel them to return home after a brief visit to the U.S. Yet, when they mentioned that during the interview and attempted to present documents to demonstrate it they were told “I don’t need to see that.” The interview involved brief meaningless questions which did not allow the applicants to confirm their ties to their home country. It was not used to “look at the totality of the situation and get a feel for how tied to their job, community, etc. they are," as the State Department’s Inspector General has recommended, since “individuals who do not meet a particular finite standard might, nonetheless, be qualified, legitimate travelers.” This is important since the IG’s report pointed out that “not all wealthy people intend to return and not all low-income applicants intend to immi­grate.” The IG specifically recommended such a thorough process to prevent “absurd results,” stating that, ”When local circum­stances and individual factors are not considered, the resulting decisions will necessarily lead to absurd results in some cases, like denying visas to grandparents of limited means who merely wish to see newborn grandchildren.” On the contrary, it seems that the embassy staff took the easy route of rejecting the applicant quickly and moving on to the next one.

State Department staff frequently cites the language regarding “presumption of immigrant intent” in the law as “tying their hands” and being “obligated under the INA to deny” applications. In the context of the IG’s recommendations for the application process it should be difficult to conclude that the language of the law requires the embassy to reject applicants simply based on demographic factors which seem to present a profile suggestive of a type of person who may be likely to overstay illegally. The IG’s report seems to recommend improvement in the application process. However, since the State Department seems incapable of administering the law in such a manner an appropriate policy change is needed in the context of comprehensive immigration reform to better reflect the intent of Congress.

A timely example of the intent of Congress may be found in the statement of Congressman Darrell Issa at the Judiciary committee markup on June 27, 2013 when he stated that, “People need to understand that immigration of the future may involve going to visit family [back in the home country] or having them come visit here but not come here to live.” The Congressman’s comments were in the context of a provision eliminating the visa category which provides an opportunity for siblings to immigrate permanently. The clear implication of the Congressman’s comment is that family members should have an opportunity to come visit here temporarily, provided that they will abide by our laws, not disqualified based on factors which do not have a true bearing on the situation.

Our family situation is not unique as we know of others in very similar situations.

Under current law, after a few years as a permanent resident (green card holder) an individual can apply for naturalization and become a citizen. At that point that individual can apply for a visa for their parents to come here and live permanently. According to the State Department, ”U.S. citizens who want their relatives to immigrate to the United States can file a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, for . . . their parents . . . For immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, visas are always available, which means that your family member does not need to wait in line for a visa.” If parents can come live here permanently within a few years how does it make sense to require them to miss important life events such as the birth of grandchildren during that period of a few years?

Also, if someone’s parents really do not want to immigrate to the U.S. and truly only want to visit for a short period then an immigrant visa would not work well for them as they would be required to file applications for advanced parole during the period that they are back in their home country and an application for reentry permit each time they want to return to the U.S.

Proposal for a new “parents” visa category:

Definitions:

“Legal kid” – An individual who is a legal permanent resident or naturalized citizen of the United States in good standing.

“Parent” – The mother or father of a legal kid.

“Return fee” – An amount of money equal to the amount of an airplane ticket at the government rate from the airport which a parent has indicated that they intend to arrive to the U.S. to the airport nearest to the parent’s home in the their home country.

“Parents Visa” created – There shall be created within 60 days of enactment of this Act a visa category titled “Parents Visa” which will allow parents the opportunity to visit their legal kid for two periods, each not to exceed 30 days, during any 12 month period. Such parent, upon arrival at a U.S. airport, shall be required to present to the admitting officer a valid airplane ticket scheduled for return to their home country within 30 days of the arrival date. Upon application the parent will be required to submit an appropriate amount of money representing the return fee. Such funds will be used to send the parent home on the next available flight in the case that they do not present a valid return airplane ticket upon arrival at a U.S. airport. The parent will be required to appear for a subsequent appointment at a U.S. embassy in their home country within 30 days of their return following a lawful stay in the U.S. at which time the funds representing the return fee will be refunded to them (if not used for their return flight). The application fee for a parent visa will be set at a level to cover the administrative costs of the program.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

[dbarker2 1]

I agree that something needs to be changed. The presumption of immigrant intent creates way to many errors in my opinion. Any person can change their mind and decide to stay, whether they have ten houses in their home country or none. Luckily, my mother-in-law was granted a tourist visa yesterday in Mexico City, but she had a pretty stressful interview with the consular officer and if we hadn't prepared her with well organized documents and helped her practice, she may have been rejected.

There are many parents who just want to see their child or grandchild, such as in our case, and have no intent to immigrate, but because they are of limited means, they are presumed to want to come and stay in the United States. So while we had a good outcome, there are many who do not and I agree that something must change.

[Sveta & Ron 23]

imo the usc should be held accountable should the family member not obey the rules of the visa. as most here knows sveta is now 3 months pregnant and she wish her mother or sister could come and help at the birth in janurary

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

imo the usc should be held accountable should the family member not obey the rules of the visa.

I agree. The best way to punish the USC if their family members overstays is with fines. People seems to respond best to possiblility of having to pay $$$.

[Harsh_77 718]

I agree. The best way to punish the USC if their family members overstays is with fines. People seems to respond best to possiblility of having to pay $$$.

What do you do when USC wants their family to move to US with them right away... they are not willing to wait in line like everyone else.

If you would run numbers you will find most visa violators have either family or friends in US (which is required for support financially and otherwise)

I agree that something needs to be changed. The presumption of immigrant intent creates way to many errors in my opinion. Any person can change their mind and decide to stay, whether they have ten houses in their home country or none. Luckily, my mother-in-law was granted a tourist visa yesterday in Mexico City, but she had a pretty stressful interview with the consular officer and if we hadn't prepared her with well organized documents and helped her practice, she may have been rejected.

There are many parents who just want to see their child or grandchild, such as in our case, and have no intent to immigrate, but because they are of limited means, they are presumed to want to come and stay in the United States. So while we had a good outcome, there are many who do not and I agree that something must change.

The problem is we have too many violators until that number starts going down it would be very difficult to get that intention to immigrate changed.

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

What do you do when USC wants their family to move to US with them right away... they are not willing to wait in line like everyone else.

If you would run numbers you will find most visa violators have either family or friends in US (which is required for support financially and otherwise)

Exactly. Hit them where it hurts the most, the wallet. They will drive their family members to the airport once they have to pay $100/day that they overstay.

[Darnell 8,479]

what news of action after submittal ?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you really want her parents to visit, as opposed to writing letters...have them apply for a Shengen visa to visit an EU country, Poland works out pretty well for Ukrainians. Go there for a few days, a week, whatever, return to Ukraine, then apply for a US visitor visa.

[Jacque67 7,328]

imo the usc should be held accountable should the family member not obey the rules of the visa. as most here knows sveta is now 3 months pregnant and she wish her mother or sister could come and help at the birth in janurary

Congratulations Ron.

[Rwlaird 18]

If you really want her parents to visit, as opposed to writing letters...have them apply for a Shengen visa to visit an EU country, Poland works out pretty well for Ukrainians. Go there for a few days, a week, whatever, return to Ukraine, then apply for a US visitor visa.

I've heard that suggestion a few times. Not to dismiss it or seem unappreciative of the suggestion but it seems like quite a waste of money and effort. We haven't totally dismissed the idea but it just seems like a lot of money to spend just in an effort to satisfy our irrational visa process.

[Rwlaird 18]

I agree. The best way to punish the USC if their family members overstays is with fines. People seems to respond best to possiblility of having to pay $$$.

I agree with both of you regarding fines. However, after hearing enough criticism of that idea I decided that there may be a better approach. What I suggested above is a deposit which would be used to send them home if needed. That seems to get around the criticism of someone paying the one-time charge and just coming to stay illegally. If they show up without a return ticket then their deposit would be used to send them home. They're sent home - end of story. Another criticism that I thought may come up is regarding the possibility of them presenting a fraudulent return ticket. I'm not sure how to combat that but would think that the TSA could do a quick check with the airline to see if the ticket is legit. If they have a legit ticket and just disregard it and don't go home then they would fail to appear for their follow up appointment back at the embassy in their home country and jeopardize their opportunity to immigrate legally later. Then they would be here illegally like the other 11 million. It seems irrational to come here a few years early illegally when they could come here a few years later legally with an immigrant visa and be able to work legally and have all the other benefits of being legal. Since all this additional processing may require additional staff time the agency could increase the fee accordingly to cover that. Requiring the deposit and the return appointment may seem onerous but it is less onerous than what we have already been through.

[Rwlaird 18]

imo the usc should be held accountable should the family member not obey the rules of the visa. as most here knows sveta is now 3 months pregnant and she wish her mother or sister could come and help at the birth in janurary

Congrats on the baby! We wish you the best. Probably most women would want their mother and other family to visit when their baby is born. My wife did as well. She doesn't cry often but sure shed some tears last August after her mother told her that some uncaring bureaucrat at the embassy quickly told her "nyet!" We have several friends who experienced similar treatment.

[canexp 0]

I agree that something needs to be changed. The presumption of immigrant intent creates way to many errors in my opinion. Any person can change their mind and decide to stay, whether they have ten houses in their home country or none. Luckily, my mother-in-law was granted a tourist visa yesterday in Mexico City, but she had a pretty stressful interview with the consular officer and if we hadn't prepared her with well organized documents and helped her practice, she may have been rejected.

There are many parents who just want to see their child or grandchild, such as in our case, and have no intent to immigrate, but because they are of limited means, they are presumed to want to come and stay in the United States. So while we had a good outcome, there are many who do not and I agree that something must change.

[Rwlaird 18]

imo the usc should be held accountable should the family member not obey the rules of the visa. as most here knows sveta is now 3 months pregnant and she wish her mother or sister could come and help at the birth in janurary

Since Congress is debating these issues right now you should weigh in with your member of Congress and support changes. I'd be glad to coordinate with you if you'd like through this forum or if you'd like to send me a private message. Thanks.