Visa Waiver Program for Ukraine

[Rwlaird 18]

Yeah, all right. I would be for that. Keep in mind though, that this same process goes on in other countries and results in denials of 3% or less. Chile or something just joined VWP and they had about 1.5% denial. They have experience and data about overstayers and are able to tell pretty fast, but I would be for more intensive and thorough judgement.

It must be hard to have your relatives or friends denied tourist visas. I have not experienced that, but I have sympathy for you. I also know the situation in Ukraine is pretty shitty, but at least their protests were able to get action in weeks, instead of years like other protesting countries. Good for Ukraine on that.

Thanks for your comments. The protests in Ukraine achieved action only after a very hard fight which involved a lot of very good people giving their lives.

You seem to imply consistency with administration of the application process across our embassies in various countries. I can't definitively say that is not the case but it seems to be highly suspect, likely due to mismanagement. The State Department's Inspector General looked into that and actually recommended that consistency be improved up to a level of best practices. Here is an excerpt from something I have written on the issue earlier:

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.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For starters do not let anyone have a tourist visa for any longer than 3 weeks. That should be plenty. Now someone can get a tourist visa for 6 months, then get it extended for another 6 months, then apply for asylum.

Three weeks? What is that number based on? VW travellers get three months. Why should a tourist visa be granted any less time? And how many of these trourist visa travellers extend their visa for 6 months and then apply for asylum? That's right. None. If they want to claim asylum, they typically do that upon arrival. They don't wait around for a year before making the asylum claim.

[Rwlaird 18]

Three weeks? What is that number based on? VW travellers get three months. Why should a tourist visa be granted any less time? And how many of these trourist visa travellers extend their visa for 6 months and then apply for asylum? That's right. None. If they want to claim asylum, they typically do that upon arrival. They don't wait around for a year before making the asylum claim.

What is three months based on? Three weeks is a lot less time than three months or six months extended to a year and should be less enticing to settle into a new life and stay illegally. I'm not sure where you got your empirical data to claim that no one extends and waits around before making their asylum claim but I personally know that to be incorrect.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Thanks for your comments. The protests in Ukraine achieved action only after a very hard fight which involved a lot of very good people giving their lives.

You seem to imply consistency with administration of the application process across our embassies in various countries. I can't definitively say that is not the case but it seems to be highly suspect, likely due to mismanagement. The State Department's Inspector General looked into that and actually recommended that consistency be improved up to a level of best practices. Here is an excerpt from something I have written on the issue earlier:

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.

.

I can understand that and your frustration with the B2 visa process. It could certainly be improved.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I don't personally know anyone that has claimed asylum...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What is three months based on? Three weeks is a lot less time than three months or six months extended to a year and should be less enticing to settle into a new life and stay illegally. I'm not sure where you got your empirical data to claim that no one extends and waits around before making their asylum claim but I personally know that to be incorrect.

Ninety days, three months - that's how long one is allowed to remain in the US when entering on the VWP. As to those that enter on a tourist visa and then turn around to claim asylum, why would wait a year? Doesn't do anything to improve one's odds in the asylum case. What it does is it puts off the ability to work lawfully while the asylum claim is adjudicated. One already has to have the asylum case in the machinery for 180 days before being able to file for work authorization. The longer one waits to file a claim, the longer one cannot work lawfully.

I don't personally know anyone that has claimed asylum...

I know a lot of people that have claimed asylum.

[Rwlaird 18]

Ninety days, three months - that's how long one is allowed to remain in the US when entering on the VWP. As to those that enter on a tourist visa and then turn around to claim asylum, why would wait a year? Doesn't do anything to improve one's odds in the asylum case. What it does is it puts off the ability to work lawfully while the asylum claim is adjudicated. One already has to have the asylum case in the machinery for 180 days before being able to file for work authorization. The longer one waits to file a claim, the longer one cannot work lawfully.

I know a lot of people that have claimed asylum.

I'm not sure why they wait. Maybe they want to relax and enjoy as much time as possible before potentially being deported if the asylum claim is not granted. Or they're just lazy or stupid. I wouldn't attempt to understand the mind of a criminal.

[Rwlaird 18]

.

I can understand that and your frustration with the B2 visa process. It could certainly be improved.

Sure could! That is really what needs improvement. I might admit that arguing for Ukraine to enter the VWP was a little difficult and that I can understand how it is a longshot. I didn't start the petition but I thought I might as well pass it along.

Here is a petition that I did start:

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_tips

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I know a lot of people that have claimed asylum.

Why is that? Is that because Florida?

[Karee 4,191]

Why is that? Is that because Florida?

I would think it would be the other way around. I had to spend 3 months in Florida last year, and after that I was ready to try and claim asylum in North Korea.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why is that? Is that because Florida?

No, more to do with where my wife is from.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

No, more to do with where my wife is from.

Ahh, I see.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I would think it would be the other way around. I had to spend 3 months in Florida last year, and after that I was ready to try and claim asylum in North Korea.

Sounds about right. It's quite nuts around here. But I've just been to Texas and that's certainly worse.

[Karee 4,191]

Sounds about right. It's quite nuts around here. But I've just been to Texas and that's certainly worse.

It's not so bad here. It's only bad when there's an upcoming election. Then you get to see who is actually running the place. Then it's downright scary.

[Boiler 46,215]

I would have thought that judging by the criteria the OP wishes used Syria would be much higher up the list.