Petition re: visa for wife's parents

[Rwlaird 18]

Please consider signing this petition that I started regarding improvements in the visa process for those who want to abide by our laws and visit the U.S. legally.

Thank you!

Please take 30 seconds to sign it right now. Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-congress-improve-the-visa-system-for-well-meaning-family-members-during-the-immigration-debate?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

[Harsh_77 718]

Cases like these are the reason we do no need to relax the B1/2 regulation and cases like these are the reason why your in-laws have hard time getting B1/2.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/463173-b2-visa-and-getting-a-ss/

[Rwlaird 18]

Good point. I would never suggest that we "relax" the regulation. If closely read what I propose it certainly isn't to "relax the regulation." What I propose is meant to combat cases of fraudulent activity like you cite.

Cases like this are certainly no justification for the poor performance of embassy staff in conducting the application process. A clear pattern of such poor performance was recently demonstrated at the US embassy in Kyiv. Voice of America reports that the Inspector General confirming what we have witnessed: poorly executed visa application processes at our embassy in Ukraine. These recent findings of the IG corroborate the direct experience of my in-laws regarding a poorly executed visa interview process and demonstrate a clear pattern of poor performance by embassy staff. If the interview process for the diversity visa lottery program was properly executed it should not have allowed such rampant fraud. Similarly, if a proper interview was performed regarding the nonimmigrant visa application of my in-laws the embassy staff should have been able to understand their intentions to visit the U.S. for only a short temporary period.

http://www.voanews.com/content/oig-report-reveals-fraud-rings-are-controlling-us-visa-lottery-in-ukraine/1778817.html?utm_source=Issue+%2333+-+November+1%2C+2013&utm_campaign=Update+%2333+for+2013&utm_medium=email

[RhettVoe 282]

Poor performance? Measured by who? The consular folks have considerable training in interviewing techniques. Usually the people who claim 'poor performance' are those whose friends and relatives were denied a visas. The VOs are not to blame. It's the lack of border enforcement and ensuring that people who arrive depart when they say, are not allowed to change their status (except from a K1) nor be granted waivers. If all of those elements were in place (and fully supported by our Congress and others), then more people might well be granted the opportunity to visit (or study) the US. But since the entire system is full of leaks, well, the VOs are the only ones who are focused on reducing the flow of illegal immigrants or those who wish to work without permission in this country.

there are not enough personnel in an embassy to chase down every fraudster....and even if some are caught, our politicians are reluctant to back our current laws and render those folks ineligible for a visa for the rest of their lives, without exception. Thus, there is no meaningful penalty awaiting those who fabricate documents or engage in other actions to get US visas by using fraud, etc.

If a country's citizenry has shown a propensity as a group to abuse the privilege once given to them, it should come as no surprise that our VOs will bear down harder on the next batch of applicants.

Intentions cannot be measured by a document....there is no specific piece of paper, when presented at a tourist visa interview, that instantly overcomes 214b and proves without a doubt that the intentions of a given applicant are bona fide. If there were such a document, every future visa applicant in the world would soon possess one.

If Congress had real courage, and backed up our policies without exception, while closing loopholes (step 1: eliminate the DV program altogether...much simpler and more efficient) which allow people to scam our system with little chance of being penalized. Nor can any US citizen be held accountable for the actions of a visa holder....there is nothing in our laws nor Constitution that gives any US citizen any legal authority over another person (especially one visiting the US) nor penalizes that same citizen if their friend or relative abuses a visa.

So blame Congress for starters....

[Rwlaird 18]

Poor performance? Measured by who? The consular folks have considerable training in interviewing techniques. Usually the people who claim 'poor performance' are those whose friends and relatives were denied a visas. The VOs are not to blame. It's the lack of border enforcement and ensuring that people who arrive depart when they say, are not allowed to change their status (except from a K1) nor be granted waivers. If all of those elements were in place (and fully supported by our Congress and others), then more people might well be granted the opportunity to visit (or study) the US. But since the entire system is full of leaks, well, the VOs are the only ones who are focused on reducing the flow of illegal immigrants or those who wish to work without permission in this country.

there are not enough personnel in an embassy to chase down every fraudster....and even if some are caught, our politicians are reluctant to back our current laws and render those folks ineligible for a visa for the rest of their lives, without exception. Thus, there is no meaningful penalty awaiting those who fabricate documents or engage in other actions to get US visas by using fraud, etc.

If a country's citizenry has shown a propensity as a group to abuse the privilege once given to them, it should come as no surprise that our VOs will bear down harder on the next batch of applicants.

Intentions cannot be measured by a document....there is no specific piece of paper, when presented at a tourist visa interview, that instantly overcomes 214b and proves without a doubt that the intentions of a given applicant are bona fide. If there were such a document, every future visa applicant in the world would soon possess one.

If Congress had real courage, and backed up our policies without exception, while closing loopholes (step 1: eliminate the DV program altogether...much simpler and more efficient) which allow people to scam our system with little chance of being penalized. Nor can any US citizen be held accountable for the actions of a visa holder....there is nothing in our laws nor Constitution that gives any US citizen any legal authority over another person (especially one visiting the US) nor penalizes that same citizen if their friend or relative abuses a visa.

So blame Congress for starters....

Thanks for your comments. The VOs are at least partly to blame. The interview with my in-laws was poorly conducted – quick, simple questions, nothing remotely resembling a reasonable attempt to probe how “tied to their country they are” as recommended by the IG and as should have been part of their considerable training in interviewing techniques. Read my petition. I do blame Congress and suggest changes in policy just along the lines of the points that you make. What more would you suggest?

[Rwlaird 18]

Poor performance? Measured by who? The consular folks have considerable training in interviewing techniques. Usually the people who claim 'poor performance' are those whose friends and relatives were denied a visas. The VOs are not to blame. It's the lack of border enforcement and ensuring that people who arrive depart when they say, are not allowed to change their status (except from a K1) nor be granted waivers. If all of those elements were in place (and fully supported by our Congress and others), then more people might well be granted the opportunity to visit (or study) the US. But since the entire system is full of leaks, well, the VOs are the only ones who are focused on reducing the flow of illegal immigrants or those who wish to work without permission in this country.

there are not enough personnel in an embassy to chase down every fraudster....and even if some are caught, our politicians are reluctant to back our current laws and render those folks ineligible for a visa for the rest of their lives, without exception. Thus, there is no meaningful penalty awaiting those who fabricate documents or engage in other actions to get US visas by using fraud, etc.

If a country's citizenry has shown a propensity as a group to abuse the privilege once given to them, it should come as no surprise that our VOs will bear down harder on the next batch of applicants.

Intentions cannot be measured by a document....there is no specific piece of paper, when presented at a tourist visa interview, that instantly overcomes 214b and proves without a doubt that the intentions of a given applicant are bona fide. If there were such a document, every future visa applicant in the world would soon possess one.

If Congress had real courage, and backed up our policies without exception, while closing loopholes (step 1: eliminate the DV program altogether...much simpler and more efficient) which allow people to scam our system with little chance of being penalized. Nor can any US citizen be held accountable for the actions of a visa holder....there is nothing in our laws nor Constitution that gives any US citizen any legal authority over another person (especially one visiting the US) nor penalizes that same citizen if their friend or relative abuses a visa.

So blame Congress for starters....

In case you have any reluctance to go to the other site to read my petition, here it is:

1. First, Congress should require during the immigration debate the establishment of a biometric exit system and implement a truly robust system for ensuring that foreign visitors abide by the terms of their visa.

I fully agree with this statement by a member of Congress, “any attempt to fully secure the border must also address the challenge of identifying and then removing visa overstays.” If shortcomings in the visa system have resulted in 40 percent of the population of illegal immigrants being those who arrived on a valid visa and stayed beyond the expiration of their visa then it would be quite an oversight for Congress to move forward with comprehensive legislation without addressing the issue.

While there are many reasons to support this, including security concerns, my personal reason for support is that it seems to be a reasonable prerequisite to allow for appropriate improvements in our legal immigration system. Our current policy seems to be one of poorly attempting to implement strict controls on issuing visas to foreign visitors which results in collateral damage of denials to many well-meaning applicants. If we had more confidence in a system which would ensure that visitors will exit according to the terms of their visa then it should help to allow for improvements in the application system. While the Senate bill contains a vague provision regarding improved exit tracking for visa holders it seems that there has been an inadequate focus during the debate regarding devising a truly robust system to address this issue.

While there could be a long list of the victims harmed as a result of illegal immigration at the top of that list would be those well-intentioned individuals who are wrongly denied the opportunity for a lawful visit to the U.S., such as members of our family. The presence of such a large number of illegal immigrants who arrived on visas is absolutely no justification for the denial of the opportunity to visit for some well-meaning applicants.

1. Second, Congress should implement improvements which allow well-meaning family immediate members to visit the U.S. on a temporary basis.

The nonimmigrant visa process contains significant flaws and substantial room for improvement. Some well-meaning applicants in family situations are wrongly denied visas under the vague standard of “presumption of immigrant intent.”

My wife (or other family member) came to the U.S. legally and is currently a legal permanent resident (green card holder). We navigated through the treacherous process of applications, fees, interviews, delays, renewals, more fees, headaches, etc. We go to visit her parents often but there are times when we are unable to visit there and would like for them to visit here such as when my wife was about to give birth to our first child. Our family situation is not unique as we know of others in very similar situations.

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 (their home country) are sufficient to compel their return to their home country 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. While such factors may present a higher risk profile they 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 in-laws 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 in a report to Congress titled “Nonimmigrant Visa Adjudication: Standards for Refusing Applicants” dated March 2005; Report Number ISP-CA-05-58 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 an appropriate manner a policy change is needed in the context of comprehensive immigration reform to better reflect the intent of Congress.

The process regarding tourist visas for immediate relatives of green card holders warrants examination from a practical, public policy standpoint. Once someone gains status as a permanent resident (receives a green card) through marriage to a U.S. citizen their immediate family members are virtually guaranteed eventual entry into the U.S. within roughly a four year period (assuming they are not a criminal or disqualified in any such way).

(According to USCIS website: “The spouse of a U.S. citizen may qualify for naturalization if you have been a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 3 years and have been living in marital union with the same U.S. citizen spouse during such time. . . . For immediate relatives (spouses, children under 21, and parents) of U.S. citizens, visas are always available, which means that your family member does not need to wait in line for a visa. . . . We try to process naturalization cases within 5 months of the date we receive them and immediate relative petitions (for the spouse, parent or minor child of a U.S. citizen) within 6 months of the receipt date.”)

The application of the vague standard of “presumption of immigrant intent” contained in Section 214(b) of the law is not even appropriate for such immediate family members. It could be considered impossible for them to disprove the “presumption of immigrant intent.” If the opportunity to eventually immigrate exists they could be assumed to take advantage of it. If it is assumed that they will immigrate in the four year timeframe whatever benefit to our country that can be assumed to accrue by keeping them out could only be assumed to be temporary. If parents can come live here permanently within a few years it does not make sense to require them to miss important life events such as the birth of grandchildren during that period of a few years. Since the opportunity for permanent residence and eventual citizenship exists for immediate family members then the fact that an illegal stay in the U.S. could jeopardize that lawful opportunity for permanent residence would be a significant deterrent to such illegal activity, especially in the future under improvements such as increased use of the E-verify system for work eligibility.

If the current system has failed so miserably (to the tune of approximately 4 million people) then the logical conclusion is that the only appropriate remedy is fail-proof enforcement in the form of immediate denial of entry and return upon arrival at a U.S. airport for anyone unable to present a valid airplane ticket scheduled for return to their home country as well as follow up measures to ensure that they actually do board their scheduled flight and return to their home country.

I support the creation of the following:

Congress should remove the inappropriate application of the vague standard of “presumption of immigrant intent” contained in Section 214(b) of the law and devise a new system.

To prevent an irresponsible wide-open policy our visa policy should allow for a more stringent process to be required for such individuals as my in-laws who are deemed to fall into a higher risk profile such that they can visit legally with safeguards to prevent abuse of the terms of their visa.

Congress should implement such as system:

“Parents Visa” created – There shall be created within 60 days of enactment of this Act a visa category titled “Parents Visa” which will allow the parents a U.S citizen or legal permanent resident the opportunity to visit the U.S. 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.

[jaycali 415]

Well written. I agree that many families are treated unfairly in this process, but it is, in part due to the complete lack of enforcement, as well as the relative ease of adjusting status for overstayers - which you do cite.

I'd be for a "no AOS" tourist visa, with limited waivers for extraordinary circumstances.

Edited November 7, 2013 by jaycali

[RhettVoe 282]

While some aspects of your suggestions are reasonable, whar is still missing are the absolute closing of every loophole that fraudsters use to gain status in the US....first, end ALL aos except from the K1...if one "falls in love" moments after collecting their luggage, FORCE them to depart the US and apply for their immigrant visa back home (wherer there should be a high standard of determining the validity of that quick marriage. Second, disallow any and all illegals who are in deportation proceedings to marry, then be absolved of their pending exit from the US..third, end all waivers...period. With waivers being handed out like candy, few visa cheats are held accountable for their lack of respect for our laws...so, make them pay the price...period. Fourth...bar anyone found working without permission for 5 years without exception. ....overstayers even by 1 day, should be barred for at least 1 year...in other words, enforce personal responsibility. If that sounds harsh, well, without such safeguards, the lawyers will only widen the width of the loopholes, bringing the situation right back to where it is now...a mess.

Everyone who complains about our current system always says that their relatives or friends are the bona fide visa applicants, but that seems a bit too convenient to believe. Also, the applicants must also convince the vo that they will not work while in the US...something that no piece of paper can prove, nor can anyone make a legally enforceable promise that the applicant's expenses will be covered while he or she is visiting...because there are no laws in existence that could pr ovide such an option. Neither you nor I can be held financially responsible for any tourist visa holder. So, the vos must believe without a doubt that the applicant will not be (or is not) motivated to look for and accept work while visiting.

As to the interviewing process, longer is not better. Interviews are generally conducted like a lie detector session...questions aimed towards finding consistency. It may sound simple, but it is not. And requiring certain paperwork be brought to the interview will only creat an ever expanding black market in fake documents (which is why vos rarely ask for documents from applicants from developing countries). Applicants who lack consistency at the interview will have a harder time getting the visa...prolonging the interview will mean fewer applicants can be seen each day...hiring more vos will raise your taxes (mine too!).

I agree changes are long overdue, but our present Congres has far too many iou's to pay back to various business groups and no courage to make any meaningful changes for the foreseeable future.

[Rwlaird 18]

While some aspects of your suggestions are reasonable, whar is still missing are the absolute closing of every loophole that fraudsters use to gain status in the US....first, end ALL aos except from the K1...if one "falls in love" moments after collecting their luggage, FORCE them to depart the US and apply for their immigrant visa back home (wherer there should be a high standard of determining the validity of that quick marriage. Second, disallow any and all illegals who are in deportation proceedings to marry, then be absolved of their pending exit from the US..third, end all waivers...period. With waivers being handed out like candy, few visa cheats are held accountable for their lack of respect for our laws...so, make them pay the price...period. Fourth...bar anyone found working without permission for 5 years without exception. ....overstayers even by 1 day, should be barred for at least 1 year...in other words, enforce personal responsibility. If that sounds harsh, well, without such safeguards, the lawyers will only widen the width of the loopholes, bringing the situation right back to where it is now...a mess.

Everyone who complains about our current system always says that their relatives or friends are the bona fide visa applicants, but that seems a bit too convenient to believe. Also, the applicants must also convince the vo that they will not work while in the US...something that no piece of paper can prove, nor can anyone make a legally enforceable promise that the applicant's expenses will be covered while he or she is visiting...because there are no laws in existence that could pr ovide such an option. Neither you nor I can be held financially responsible for any tourist visa holder. So, the vos must believe without a doubt that the applicant will not be (or is not) motivated to look for and accept work while visiting.

As to the interviewing process, longer is not better. Interviews are generally conducted like a lie detector session...questions aimed towards finding consistency. It may sound simple, but it is not. And requiring certain paperwork be brought to the interview will only creat an ever expanding black market in fake documents (which is why vos rarely ask for documents from applicants from developing countries). Applicants who lack consistency at the interview will have a harder time getting the visa...prolonging the interview will mean fewer applicants can be seen each day...hiring more vos will raise your taxes (mine too!).

I agree changes are long overdue, but our present Congres has far too many iou's to pay back to various business groups and no courage to make any meaningful changes for the foreseeable future.

None of that sounds harsh to me. What is harsh is what we have been through! My wife’s parents only wanted to come visit when their grandchild was born. They applied three times (since we thought that the poorly conducted interview meant that guy must have been having a bad day) which involved taking an overnight train from their city to the capital three times!

In regard to the issue “Neither you nor I can be held financially responsible for any tourist visa holder,” maybe there is some distinction that I don’t get but the I-864 affidavit of support that I rightfully signed for my wife seems to be doing just that.

Again, I appreciate the commentary about how the interview should have been conducted but it flat wasn’t. The length wasn’t so much the issue as just the poor attempt at any real effort to probe their situation and intentions.

I regard to: “hiring more vos will raise your taxes” - isn’t the agency funded by the fees we pay? At the very end of my proposal I suggest setting the fee to cover the cost of administering it. That would probably mean the fee would need to go up but we have paid the fee three times already for nothing.

Congress needs to hear these suggestions from someone like you who has such expertise. Please write to your member of Congress. Go to house.gov if you aren’t sure how to make contact.

Thanks again for the constructive dialogue.

[RhettVoe 282]

The I 864 applies to immigrant visas, not tourist (or nonimmigrant visas)....because there is green card holder attached, whose actions to take public benefits can be tracked...(and whose American spouse has, thru the immigrant visa process, agreed to the terms of the visa requirements)...B2 visa holders have thousands of US born kids each year at your expense and mine..others scam educational or medical benefits with total abandon...that needs to stop as well...no more "anchor babies" and no more freebies for b2 visa holders...

to staff an embassy requires $ for salaries which are paid for by fees, but not housing, for ex. Raising the fee to $300 or$400 to pay for more staff would elicit more than a few complaints. It would be far cheaper (almost free even) to modify the regs...just some already overpriced legislation.

[jaycali 415]

I can understand and appreciate why AOS is possible for F1 and H1b visa holders, and similar long term visas. How someone can come to the US on vacation, fall in love and get married, without having to at least re-enter the US is beyond me, and really does a lot to make this process a lot harder for legitimate tourists and visitors.

[Rwlaird 18]

The I 864 applies to immigrant visas, not tourist (or nonimmigrant visas)....because there is green card holder attached, whose actions to take public benefits can be tracked...(and whose American spouse has, thru the immigrant visa process, agreed to the terms of the visa requirements)...B2 visa holders have thousands of US born kids each year at your expense and mine..others scam educational or medical benefits with total abandon...that needs to stop as well...no more "anchor babies" and no more freebies for b2 visa holders...

to staff an embassy requires $ for salaries which are paid for by fees, but not housing, for ex. Raising the fee to $300 or$400 to pay for more staff would elicit more than a few complaints. It would be far cheaper (almost free even) to modify the regs...just some already overpriced legislation.

I totally agree. The debate in the Senate seemed to focus a lot on border security but not much on these issues you mention.

Interesting. Probably others have looked at this closer and you seem to know but I sure wish there was a way to use a process like the I864 to hold a citizen accountable as a sponsor for the visitor. That seems like it could be helpful. I regard to: "...there is green card holder attached, whose actions to take public benefits can be tracked" -- as already mentioned, if we had a better system to track their exit then maybe the citizen sponsor could be in some kind of big trouble (liable for deportation expenses, etc.) if the visitor's exit is not confirmed. I proposed requiring a refundable deposit and presenting a return ticket. I'm afraid that some might say that would just be considered "a cost of doing business" for those with intentions to come here and stay but at least if we had enough biographic information on them which allows them to immediately become "wanted" once they go beyond their expected exit date and allow information to be shared everywhere to prevent them from working or doing anything legally - put out an "APB" on them -- maybe that would be a sufficient deterrent.

[jaycali 415]

I totally agree. The debate in the Senate seemed to focus a lot on border security but not much on these issues you mention.

Interesting. Probably others have looked at this closer and you seem to know but I sure wish there was a way to use a process like the I864 to hold a citizen accountable as a sponsor for the visitor. That seems like it could be helpful. I regard to: "...there is green card holder attached, whose actions to take public benefits can be tracked" -- as already mentioned, if we had a better system to track their exit then maybe the citizen sponsor could be in some kind of big trouble (liable for deportation expenses, etc.) if the visitor's exit is not confirmed. I proposed requiring a refundable deposit and presenting a return ticket. I'm afraid that some might say that would just be considered "a cost of doing business" for those with intentions to come here and stay but at least if we had enough biographic information on them which allows them to immediately become "wanted" once they go beyond their expected exit date and allow information to be shared everywhere to prevent them from working or doing anything legally - put out an "APB" on them -- maybe that would be a sufficient deterrent.

To be able to hold a USC accountable for a tourist becoming a public charge, there would have to be a petition-based family visit visa system in place. Not a bad idea really.

Non-immigrant visas work much like a credit history/score. For people with no credit, or low credit, a co-signer is usually used.

Edited November 7, 2013 by jaycali

[Rwlaird 18]

To be able to hold a USC accountable for a tourist becoming a public charge, there would have to be a petition-based family visit visa system in place. Not a bad idea really.

Non-immigrant visas work much like a credit history/score. For people with no credit, or low credit, a co-signer is usually used.

I guess the immigrant visa system for families which they can eventually access is as you describe: "petition-based." What I am proposing is a hybrid of that which would allow for a temporary visit before the point that they can immigrate. Actually I didn't include that in the proposal since I had heard that it was impossible. I'm all for it.

The chance of immigration legislation actually being signed into law may still be a longshot but if there was ever a possibility it is now. That is why I am looking for support from others like yourself. I appreciate you saying that it is not a bad idea. I appreciate the dialogue and welcome constructive criticism. If you think can think of other appropriate ways to strengthen the proposal please let me know. If you think the proposal is workable I would very much appreciate your support by signing the petition, sharing it with others, writing to your member of Congress - anything that you would be willing to do.

Thanks!

[RhettVoe 282]

Let's look at the cost of a few changes....(1) end ALL AOS from B2 visas. Cost to US taxpayers = $0. (2) Eliminate all waivers for violations of our laws by visa scammers, EWI's. Cost to US taxpayers = $0. (3) Put a damper on B2 extensions....who in the world realistically needs to spend more than six months in the US? Cost to US taxpayers = $0. (4) Withhold or prohibit any AOS via marriage to an Amcit by an overstayer or border jumper under any circumstance. Cost to US taxpayers = $0. (5) Establish a tiered system for those who attempt to obtain a visa by using fraudulent means....example: (a) bring fake documents, like bank account or employment letter: barred for two years without exception (b) bring fake documents that are allegedly from a US company or repeat item (a) : barred for five years without exception...© bring a fake diplomatic note (a diplomatic note is considered as the best documentary 'currency' overseas) to get a visa, or repeat action (b) or three-peat action (a): barred permanently without exception.

By considering a tiered system of penalties', we would not have to endure the whining that takes place when somebody is about to be found ineligible for having committed fraud, and suddenly everyone wants to look the other way and deny the application under 214b because there is far less paperwork involved....phooey....if somebody tries to scam us, they should face consequences, not just be told to apply in two weeks. Even though the INA stipulates that anyone using fraud to obtain or TRY TO OBTAIN (they don't have to succeed) is considered ineligible (for the rest of their lives) for having used fraud and/or misrepresentation to get said visa.. our Congress and other government agencies are reluctant to 'pull the plug' on these folks....but really...who would miss them if they never entered the US? Hardly anyone, I imagine.

Another idea: stop admitting tourists for six months on autopilot....admit for them 1-3 months, and if they claim they 'need to' stay longer, have them interviewed at the POE to find out why. Cost to US taxpayers: $0.

Notice that all of these suggestions cost nary a farthing.....compared to millions to fence our borders or hire a small army of border folks.....not one penny would it cost the taxpayers to implement any or all of these changes.

Now, AILA members would be unhappy because they would have much less chance to bill illegals $300 an hour for an AOS or some other benefit....but who cares? Immigration attorneys do not help American citizens statistically....they try to reward those who have violated our laws....while helping aliens steal jobs from Americans....do we really need this sort of thing?

Another example of a free change that benefits Americans: Require that every company that wishes to hire a foreign worker via the H1B program first interview and then be able to legitimately demonstrate that NO qualified American was available for said job. Right now, that is NOT a requirement, which results in thousands of marginally qualified (at best) foreign workers filling jobs for 30-40 cents on the dollar....does America need this situation to continue to compound unemployment in our country? I doubt it. Cost to US taxpayers = $0.

So, we could spend nothing and derive incredible benefits across many fronts, far more people might get the chance to visit the US, and more friends and/or relatives of those folks would be happier as well...all we would ask is that people coming to this country respect our laws or face the consequences...why should that be so difficult to comprehend?

thanks for listening.