Petition re: visa for wife's parents

[Rwlaird 18]

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.

Great ideas! I really think Members of Congress need to hear these ideas! In this whole debate there has been no hearing to explore all of these issues. It would really be a travesty to move forward with legislation without exploring these issues!

Six months on a tourist visa = RIDICULOUS - and this is someone who convinced the consular officer that they had sufficient ties to compel them to return to their home country??? Such as a job... but can afford to stay here six months??? Please note that in my proposal the in-laws would be limited to two visits per year not to exceed 30 days each. I love my in-laws but that is really plenty. Legitimately they could only stay 2 or 3 weeks at a time at most since they need to go back home to their jobs -- as they tried to explain during the interview!!

H1B is another issue and I know very little but thought that I had heard that there was such a requirement that the employer verify that there were no Americans available for the job. If not there should be.

Thanks!

[Rwlaird 18]

Great ideas! I really think Members of Congress need to hear these ideas! In this whole debate there has been no hearing to explore all of these issues. It would really be a travesty to move forward with legislation without exploring these issues!

Six months on a tourist visa = RIDICULOUS - and this is someone who convinced the consular officer that they had sufficient ties to compel them to return to their home country??? Such as a job... but can afford to stay here six months??? Please note that in my proposal the in-laws would be limited to two visits per year not to exceed 30 days each. I love my in-laws but that is really plenty. Legitimately they could only stay 2 or 3 weeks at a time at most since they need to go back home to their jobs -- as they tried to explain during the interview!!

H1B is another issue and I know very little but thought that I had heard that there was such a requirement that the employer verify that there were no Americans available for the job. If not there should be.

Thanks!

Again, I like this:

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.

But from my experience I'm afraid that the response from the agency would be that proving the fraud would be too much work for them. In correspondence with agency attorneys after our denial I was told that they just don't even consider any documents due to widespread fraud. Thus, my in-laws did were not given adequate opportunity to prove their ties and the agency just took the easy route of rejecting them instead of doing due diligence regarding their claims of ties.

[Rwlaird 18]

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.

Here is a letter I sent to the House Judiciary Committee in early September to follow up on a fraud issue that the Committee was investigating regarding the asylum process. I go into the six month tourist visa issue. You cite many more ideas that the Committee really should consider. Thanks again!

Particular paragraph:

On the other hand, some individuals are granted tourist visas with terms up to six months which could then be extended another six months and eventually apply and be granted asylum. One has to wonder how someone could demonstrate “strong ties to their home country” to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent to the satisfaction of the consular officer during the application process for a tourist visa and then come to the U.S. for a stay of six months to one year. Wouldn’t their “ties to their home country” compel them to return home sooner than six months? Wouldn’t a job and significant family ties in the home country preclude them from staying that long in the U.S.? Staying six months or even up to one year in a new country could easily allow someone to establish a new life there and not want to return home. Thus, an application for asylum could be an easy way to extend the temporary stay to a permanent one.

Whole letter:

I was glad to see Chairman Goodlatte’s recent letter to Secretary Napolitano regarding the issue of asylum. I am glad to see the Chairman’s commitment to conduct oversight of this issue and address concerns via the House’s step-by-step approach to reforming our immigration system.

It is important to note that this is only one of the issues which should be addressed regarding the legal immigration system. I urge Chairman Goodlatte to adequately address the issue of the legal immigration system during the immigration reform debate through more than merely agency briefings with staff but through a real debate allowing an opportunity for legislative improvements.

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. 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 the legal immigration system. During my efforts to raise awareness regarding shortcomings in the nonimmigrant visa process the point has often been raised to me that 40 percent of the 11 million illegal immigrants came to the U.S. legally and stayed beyond the expiration of their visa. The preposterous implication seems to be that the presence of such a large number of illegal immigrants justifies the denial of some well-meaning applicants.

If shortcomings in the legal immigration system have resulted in 40 percent of the population of illegal immigrants then it would be quite an oversight for Congress to move forward with comprehensive legislation without addressing the issue. An issue that should be examined closely and comprehensively is how roughly 4.4 million people (40 percent of the 11 million) were allowed to come here and stay illegally. What flaws exist in the visa application process and how can it be improved to get a more solid understanding of the true intentions of the visa applicant? How has enforcement of visa terms been so inadequate and how can it be improved?

The nonimmigrant visa process contains significant flaws and substantial room for improvement. Some applicants in family situations are wrongly denied under the vague standard of “presumption of immigrant intent” contained in Section 214(b) of the law which results in what the State Department’s own Inspector General referred to as “absurd results.” (“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.”)

Individuals with experience as staff at our embassies abroad focused on improving business and trade relations for the benefit of U.S. business and industry also report significant frustration with the application of this standard created in Section 214(b) of the law since it has resulted in the inappropriate denial of visa applicants intending to travel to the U.S. on legitimate business purposes.

On the other hand, some individuals are granted tourist visas with terms up to six months which could then be extended another six months and eventually apply and be granted asylum. One has to wonder how someone could demonstrate “strong ties to their home country” to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent to the satisfaction of the consular officer during the application process for a tourist visa and then come to the U.S. for a stay of six months to one year. Wouldn’t their “ties to their home country” compel them to return home sooner than six months? Wouldn’t a job and significant family ties in the home country preclude them from staying that long in the U.S.? Staying six months or even up to one year in a new country could easily allow someone to establish a new life there and not want to return home. Thus, an application for asylum could be an easy way to extend the temporary stay to a permanent one.

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.”)

One issue to be examined is whether the application of the vague standard of “presumption of immigrant intent” contained in Section 214(b) of the law is even appropriate for individuals in this category. 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.

Someone please answer this question from a practical public policy standpoint: 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? Secondly, since the opportunity for permanent residence and eventual citizenship exists for parents then wouldn’t the fact that an illegal stay in the U.S. could jeopardize that lawful opportunity 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 4.4 million) 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.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Sincerely,

Russell Laird

[RhettVoe 282]

The only companies who have to (supposedly) search for an American worker before hiring a foreign worker are those whose H1B complement is some percentage of their current workforce (or a company that took TARP money)...forget what the % is...maybe 5% or something like it. But for the bigger picture, no American needs to be interviewed for the majority of H1B visas...which is a shame because there is rampant fraud (or at the very least, massive exaggeration of the qualifications of applicants and overstating the educational requirements for low level jobs to give USCIS the illusion that a night manager of a dry cleaner's (owned by a relative) needs somebody with a bachelor's degree in Bus Admin or that a produce manager of a supermarket supposedly needs a degree in Lettuce Management (or some other equally unbelievable subject)....all designed to smooth the path to employment for many who have zero qualifications....the main problem is this (you'll love this):

H1B petitions are reviewed and adjudicated by stay-at-home housewives in Idaho or Nebraska, who are paid more for approvals than for denials!! I cannot figure out how these women learned to read 18 different languages, so as to be able to decipher Spanish (well, OK), Chinese (!!??), Korean or Eastern European something or other...all they do is read the exaggerated claims made by the overpaid immigration attorney on the cover letter and rubber stamp it 'approved.' It is a real joke.

These housewives (attached by distance to some USCIS service center) get a pile of these petitions delivered to their porch every Monday by UPS, then, while feeding two screaming kids, somehow manage to discern the qualified applicants (99%!!) from the unqualified!

When this petition reaches our embassy, the VO lacks the authority to directly overrule this approval (after interviewing the applicant and determining that they lack all of the skills outlined in the cover letter!) but has to document their findings and ship it back to the USCIS for review....even cases containing outright fraudulent diplomas, etc, have to go through a long tedious process of review, during which time the ethically challenged attorney (aren't they all?) submits a new petition to a DIFFERENT USCIS service center, hoping it will escape detection, and start the process over....all of this just to get cheaper labor to our country....what a shame.

[RhettVoe 282]

Asylum is another giant loophole...do you know that many immigration attorneys charge around $20,000 to 'work' on a case? Their 'work' usually consists of conjuring up some heart rending tale of persecution that the asylum seeker can memorize, then regurgitate to some immigration judge. Often these trained liars are granted a work permit pending approval of their mala fide cases...and of course, their first 3-4 years of earnings are siphoned off by the same attorney!!

This avenue of semi-legal immigration should be shut down as well.

[JayJayH 546]

Asylum is another giant loophole...do you know that many immigration attorneys charge around $20,000 to 'work' on a case? Their 'work' usually consists of conjuring up some heart rending tale of persecution that the asylum seeker can memorize, then regurgitate to some immigration judge. Often these trained liars are granted a work permit pending approval of their mala fide cases...and of course, their first 3-4 years of earnings are siphoned off by the same attorney!!

This avenue of semi-legal immigration should be shut down as well.

You cannot completely shut down asylum. Tighten it? Sure. Shut down? No. Asylum is there for a reason. If in 1943, a German or Polish jew happened to land in the US illegally.. Would you deport them back to Germany for their horrible crime of ewi?

Whether their status of asylum should then be terminated in 1946, is another issue.

Edited November 8, 2013 by yang-ja

[Rwlaird 18]

The only companies who have to (supposedly) search for an American worker before hiring a foreign worker are those whose H1B complement is some percentage of their current workforce (or a company that took TARP money)...forget what the % is...maybe 5% or something like it. But for the bigger picture, no American needs to be interviewed for the majority of H1B visas...which is a shame because there is rampant fraud (or at the very least, massive exaggeration of the qualifications of applicants and overstating the educational requirements for low level jobs to give USCIS the illusion that a night manager of a dry cleaner's (owned by a relative) needs somebody with a bachelor's degree in Bus Admin or that a produce manager of a supermarket supposedly needs a degree in Lettuce Management (or some other equally unbelievable subject)....all designed to smooth the path to employment for many who have zero qualifications....the main problem is this (you'll love this):

H1B petitions are reviewed and adjudicated by stay-at-home housewives in Idaho or Nebraska, who are paid more for approvals than for denials!! I cannot figure out how these women learned to read 18 different languages, so as to be able to decipher Spanish (well, OK), Chinese (!!??), Korean or Eastern European something or other...all they do is read the exaggerated claims made by the overpaid immigration attorney on the cover letter and rubber stamp it 'approved.' It is a real joke.

These housewives (attached by distance to some USCIS service center) get a pile of these petitions delivered to their porch every Monday by UPS, then, while feeding two screaming kids, somehow manage to discern the qualified applicants (99%!!) from the unqualified!

When this petition reaches our embassy, the VO lacks the authority to directly overrule this approval (after interviewing the applicant and determining that they lack all of the skills outlined in the cover letter!) but has to document their findings and ship it back to the USCIS for review....even cases containing outright fraudulent diplomas, etc, have to go through a long tedious process of review, during which time the ethically challenged attorney (aren't they all?) submits a new petition to a DIFFERENT USCIS service center, hoping it will escape detection, and start the process over....all of this just to get cheaper labor to our country....what a shame.

I had heard a little earlier about the application review process -- batches being shipped to individuals in boxes once a week or so, etc. When I was waiting for my wife’s (fiancé at the time) K1 approval it was in the middle of the winter when we were getting to the point, according to the timelines, that it should be approved soon. I wasn’t so much demanding immediate approval but just wanting some kind of idea what to expect to help us make plans. We were hoping for approval soon (which, after some persistent inquiries coincidentally it came) so that we could move them here and get her son started into school before it got too far along into the year. If it was going to come with a month or two left in the school year it probably would have been better to let him finish the school year there before moving and we were just trying to get some idea to make plans. With some research I learned a little more about their review process and why they had so little idea of when to expect completion of the review. While Fedex can track a package to your door they really aren’t sure which batch it could be in and when that worker might check back into the office. Maybe this is a cheap way of doing the reviews but there has to be a better way.

Congress really needs to do their oversight duty and explore all these management issues indepth!

Edited November 8, 2013 by Rwlaird

[Rwlaird 18]

You cannot completely shut down asylum. Tighten it? Sure. Shut down? No. Asylum is there for a reason. If in 1943, a German or Polish jew happened to land in the US illegally.. Would you deport them back to Germany for their horrible crime of ewi?

Whether their status of asylum should then be terminated in 1946, is another issue.

No need for this to breakdown into an asylum debate. My only point in bringing it up was as an example of the flawed current tourist visa process. If someone was being persecuted back home and scared for their life then a consular officer shouldn't determine that they would be so eager to return back home after a tourist visit. I guess war could break out back home as soon as they arrived to the US and they see the news on tv when they are waiting at baggage claim at JFK airport (such as Tom Hanks in "The Terminal") but the scenario for drastic changes back home is less likely if they are limited to a short visit as a tourist visa should be. But six months for a tourist visa??? And then extended for another six months??? You'd think that when they asked for the extension someone would ask, "what happened to those strong ties back home such as your job and family relationships???"

Reform of the asylum process is another subject and not what I started this discussion about. Thanks.

[RhettVoe 282]

Fair enough...just another example of how our entire visa & immigration system is full of leaks and lack of real, meaningful oversight...and as a result, many bonafide applicants are denied.

[hoopy507 4]

well your gonna have those that do it by the book and those who dont...I did it all by the book and it still took me a yr and half to get my wife here and after I got my congressman involved. The process for any immigration or just for tourism is a pain and all I know is to be honest and use every avenue you can to get the job done.

[Rwlaird 18]

well your gonna have those that do it by the book and those who dont...I did it all by the book and it still took me a yr and half to get my wife here and after I got my congressman involved. The process for any immigration or just for tourism is a pain and all I know is to be honest and use every avenue you can to get the job done.

We did it by the book and we're honest but it didn't work out like it should have. We're trying to use every avenue we can, thus the proposal for reforming the process. Congrats again to you. I wish it could all work as well for everyone else.