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 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.

 

2) Second, Congress should implement improvements which allow well-meaning immediate family 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 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 following:

 

Congress should remove the inappropriate application of the vague standard of “presumption of immigrant intent” contained in Section 214(b) of the law to parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents 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 a 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.