It’s about time: Trump wants to add more accountability to the visa system
The State Department said it was looking [at the 55 million visa holders] for indicators of ineligibility, including people staying past the authorized timeframe outlined in a visa, criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity or providing support to a terrorist organization. …
The administration has steadily imposed more restrictions and requirements on visa applicants, including requiring them to submit to in-person interviews. The review of all visa holders appears to be a significant expansion of what had initially been a process focused mainly on students who have been involved in what the government perceives as pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel activity.
Officials say the reviews will include all visa holders’ social media accounts, law enforcement and immigration records in their home countries, along with any actionable violations of U.S. law committed while they were in the United States.
A visa is a privilege, and I have no problem with deporting people who violate that privilege.
When I read about these announcements the first thing that came to mind was 9/11. I distinctly recalled that many of the suicide hijackers/murderers exploited defects in the visa system, including the fact that some overstayed their visas and were not caught.
At the time, I was shocked that the visa system was so poorly administered with so many vulnerabilities, but now it doesn’t shock me; it seems par for the course. If you’re curious about the 9/11 perpetrators’ visa violations, please read this.
Some quotes:
Three [9/11] hijackers were known or knowable by intelligence authorities as al Qaeda terrorists in early 2000, but their biographical information was not fully developed and communicated to border authorities for watchlisting at U.S. consulates abroad (by the State Department) and at the border (by immigration and customs border inspectors). The travel plans of all three also were known or knowable in 2000, in part because of cooperation from Arab and Asian country intelligence services and border authorities. …
Three were carrying Saudi passports containing a possible extremist indicator present in the passports of many al Qaeda and other terrorists entering the United States as early as the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. This indicator had not been analyzed by the CIA, FBI, or our border authorities for its significance. …
Two hijackers were carrying passports that had been manipulated in a fraudulent manner. They contained fraudulent entry-exit stamps (or cachets) probably inserted by al Qaeda travel document forgers to hide travel to Afghanistan for terrorist training. …
Thirteen of the hijackers presented passports less than three weeks old when they applied for their visas, but the new passports caused no heightened scrutiny of their visa applications. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications in detectable ways, but were not further questioned about those lies. Two hijackers were interviewed for reasons unrelated to terrorism. Most simply had their applications approved and their passports stamped with a U.S. visa. Consular officers were not trained to detect terrorists in a visa interview. …
One of the two nonpilots admitted on business was granted a one-month stay; he, along with another of the nonpilot operatives, was in violation of immigration law for months before the attack. The one pilot who came in on a student visa never showed up for school, thereby violating the terms of his U.S. visa. Another of the pilots came in on a tourist visa yet began flight school immediately, also violating the terms of his U.S. visa. This pilot came in a total of seven times on a tourist visa while in school. In both cases, the pilots violated the law after their entry into the United States.
The following is especially relevant, I think:
On August 23, 2001, the CIA provided biographical identification information about two of the hijackers to border and law enforcement authorities. The CIA and FBI considered the case important, but there was no way of knowing whether either hijacker was still in the country, because a border exit system Congress authorized in 1996 was never implemented. One of the two overstayed his visa by less than six months. Without an exit system in place at the border tied to law enforcement databases, there was no way to establish with certainty that he remained in the United States. Thus, there was no risk that his immigration law violations would be visible to law enforcement, and there was no risk of immigration enforcement action of any kind.
It’s strange to look back so many years and recall how lax the system was – including the ability to walk right onto a plane without a TSA search. So many of our onerous TSA rules have been reactions to pre-9/11 errors – reactions that perhaps have thwarted or at least discouraged repeats of that terrible day, although there’s really no way to know and many people doubt it. The visa system, however, could obviously use quite a bit of tightening up, and this new directive aims to address that.
IMO, you should have a temporary residency permit if you are (1) an accredited employee of a foreign government, (2) an authentic refugee; (3) a student or a teacher; or (4) a dependent of a person in one of these three categories. Given our current population, the target value for the stock of temporary residents should be about 1.5 million and if we’re over the target, there should be a moratorium on the distribution of educational visas (for students, teachers, and dependents). Persons who skipped over other countries before applying for refugee status ought to be summarily denied it, as should their dependents. Resettlement of refugees should be atypical (done largely for those who have left ‘captive nations’) and when resettled they should go to the most culturally similar countries who will take them if offered a bounty. The displaced persons camps in Europe closed in 1959. In the intervening years, we should have taken for resettlement only odd-lots of refugees.
==
In regard to education sector, it should be encoded into federal law and regulation that institutions are permitted mandatory charges for tuition and room- and-board but that all other charges must be formally and structurally voluntary and the previous year’s mean fee-for-service expenditures per student must be disclosed to prospective students, new matriculants, and returning students annually. The closest things to a mandatory charge which the institution would be permitted to institute would be (a) the cost of textbooks, (b) parking fines, and (c) repair costs for vandalism or accidents.
==
It should also be a law that private institutions must have one full-freight tuition charge for all students and one full-freight room-and-board charge for all students. Public institutions would be permitted (if this could be regulated) to draw a distinction between in-state matriculants and out-of-state matriculants. They could then offer discounts on these charges financed by dedicated funds thrown off by segments of the endowment or by the institution’s discretionary budget. Public and private institutions would then be required by law to disclose the previous year’s discounts on tuition-and-room and board per student enrolled and per recipient.
==
In such a system, student visas would be vended to institutions in multiple price auctions held semi-annually. The visas would be for seven years’ residence, would be non-renewable and there would be a limit on one per subject (student, teacher, or dependent). If a student, teacher, or dependent left before the term of the visa was complete, the unused time would be tossed on a secondary exchange. A school could either purchase visas for their recruits on the primary auction or purchase a bloc of time available on the secondary exchange. Either way, no extensions or follow-up purchases would be available. The quantum of visas vended each semester would be a function of the known population of temporary residents in the United States and the quantum of time for purchase on the secondary exchange. If a school wants to recruit from abroad, they have to pay for it and the pricing rules for higher education place some constraints on the capacity of the institution to pass on the costs to the recruit and his patrons.
In re exit tracking, it is amazing how noncompliant the federal executive proved to be when faced with congressional mandates. (Or was there a lawfare campaign against them by the federal judiciary and the har-de-har ‘public interest bar’?).
My experience with the US Visa system started with helping US servicemen who were working to get their spouses Visa and naturalization. Every possible roadblock was exercised by the State Department to delay or prevent what was owed to these Military families as a matter of law. Decades later I saw the same obfuscation in the civilian world when trying to bring a foreign based employee to a conference in the US as an instructor – trying to bring a Romanian woman into the US was blocked because despite owning a business and property in Romania the consulate decided she didn’t have sufficient ties to Romania to prevent overstaying the Visa. My experience convinced me that the legal immigration system is rigged against those who would contribute to the Western Culture, and the border left uncontrolled to change the voter base with poor uneducated sheep.
My experience with the US Visa system started with helping US servicemen who were working to get their spouses Visa and naturalization. Every possible roadblock was exercised by the State Department to delay or prevent what was owed to these Military families as a matter of law.
==
I’m not aware of what specific impediments you were encountering. IMO, examiners should carefully screen anyone seeking to enter the United States as a fiancée or spouse. The potential for fraud is just too great.
==
It’s been a convention in this country to be lax with naturalization rules. It should not be. You should have to spend the majority of your natural life in this country as a lawful and palpable resident to be eligible for naturalization and you should have to sign a notarized declaration renouncing your previous citizenship ‘ere you take an oath. Also, no group oaths. Also, anyone born in this country should be granted the civil status of their mother unless they are of legitimate birth and their father has a preferred status (in which case they receive his).
We have been misgoverned for so long that few even notice. The Trump team are focusing a spotlight on many aspects of government; and many don’t like it one bit.
I believe two of the 9-11 perps received their green cards about six months later. Sent to their addresses of record rather than craters in NYC.
Did Art D post something?
I remember when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. I was stunned. We had been at odds with authoritarian countries (Germany, Italy, the USSR, Chiana, etc.) my entire life. By 1991 it looked like freedom and democracy had prevailed.
Traveling in Europe was easier- the police weren’t boarding trains and examining your papers as often. Fewer hotels held your passport (for security reasons) during your stay. I can only assume that many felt as I did that we were entering a new era of more freedom, more trust, less suspicion, and more good will.
It didn’t last long. It seems clear that we are back in an era of open war (Ukraine, Oct 7) and sneaky subversion. And once again, it’s the authoritarians against the democracies.
As Lincoln said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
And being careless about who we let into the country at a time when there are so many who a pining for the U.S. to fail, is an act that helps our enemies. It’s about time we realized it and took action to tighten up our security.
Reality calls for us to recognize that our enemies are infiltrating into our schools, our media, our businesses, and we see it in on campus protests, illegal demonstrations., hatred for Israel, demands to defund the police, fentanyl and other drug trafficking,
human trafficking, massive illegal immigration, and more.
If they want to tear down our society and turn it into a chaotic, drug fueled, crime ridden, morally corrupt, weak country; what else would they be doing?
I applaud our Trump led federal government in its efforts to stop the infiltration/subversion.
Simply deporting them is not nearly enough. In staying over they have engaged in criminality.
Deterrence requires PERSONAL and painful consequences.
Example; deport them to a third world sh*thole and let them find their own way home.
Why are you coming here? How long will you be here? Where are you going to be while you are here? When and how will you depart the country?
These are questions nearly every country in the world asks of people attempting to enter their borders. Perfectly reasonable.
“I’m not aware of what specific impediments you were encountering. IMO, examiners should carefully screen anyone seeking to enter the United States as a fiancée or spouse. The potential for fraud is just too great.”
Not disagreeing but I think Steve’s larger point was that legal immigrants whose background suggests they would become good citizens were getting a harder time than those pouring uncontrolled over the border and then being offered amnesty, DACA etc.
Serendipity at work today in Neo’s posts: compare the accounts of actions of the government agents who should have been our first line of defense against the 9/11 perpetrators, and the actions of the Israeli security chiefs in the 10/7 attacks.
Cascades of errors primarily from laxness in the laws and their enforcement in the former, and from arrogance and ideology in the latter.
Both resulting in massive tragedy for their country.
Pet peeve: a visa is a statutorily-defined benefit. It is not a privilege. There is no private law in its issuance.
To add to what Steven stated. When I ran a company in Georgia, I wanted an employee to attend a training conference on FIDIC Form of Contract in Miami Fla. As a lawyer she had attended several related courses in European countries. Her visa application was turned down because the Embassy thought she would overstay her visa despite the fact that she had a very good, highly paid position, with me, a US citizen, guaranteeing her return to Georgia. Had she overstayed her visa, she would be the ideal immigrant to the USA; smart, well trained, perfect English, self sufficient. Visa denied. As Steven posted there is something wrong with a system that rejects qualified immigrants and allowed unchecked entry to those who offer no skills and must be supported by the tax payers.
X boy graduated from TU Delft, a top engineering school in Holland. Several of his classmates had job offers in the USA after graduation. All visa applications rejected. Nuts!.
The best and brightest need not apply.
Hi, Xylourgos! That’s very strange about those visas. Do you find that those kinds of episodes weaken your connections, such as they may be at this point, to over here? Maybe DHS or Dept. of State or whoever is worried that more Europeans might try to leave Europe and get here by such methods as visa overstays as prospects seem to get a bit dimmer in parts of western Europe over there.
@Xylourgos:Several of his classmates had job offers in the USA after graduation. All visa applications rejected…. The best and brightest need not apply.
Perhaps some of the better and brighter Americans might have liked to have those jobs. H1-B visas were only supposed to be for cases where there is no American available to do a highly specialized job. The Netherlands isn’t exactly groaning with huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and I’m sure those classmates will be all right there in the Schengen Area.
And of course in the Netherlands, before an American would be allowed to work there:
Well Philip, I do not understand the rational of the immigration policy of past administrations. I do believe that well qualified, self supporting candidates should be prioritised for US residency. Perhaps the policies of president Trump will correct this. My connections back home (Detroit, Seattle) have been largely cut as I have lived abroad for the past 33 years.
Yes Niketas, I do understand the concerns with HB-1 visas. But don’t you think that potential immigrants to the US should have important skills to offer?
My preference is that those seeking a settler’s visa appear at a designated consulate, submit to a physical, provide personal data so a cursory background check can be conducted, and take a proficiency test in English, written and oral. If they pass these tests, they are placed in a global queue according to the date of their application. If the subject gets married, he and his wife are given a joint spot in the queue which is halfway between the spot each occupied previously (or halfway between his spot and the end if she was not in the queue). If they have children, the family’s position is recalculated with each one as the average of the date each entered the queue. If he marries an American citizen living abroad, the position of the two is the average of the head of the queue and his position on entry. For each child they have, their position is advanced forward as the children of an American citizen would have a right of domicile in the United States. If a member of a family with a joint position in the queue reaches age 21, he’s sheared off from the group and receives an individual spot just behind their’s (to be adjusted if he marries, has children &c). Eventually, the subjects reach a spot about a year back from the head of the queue. The family is subject to a background check and if evidence that a member has committed a crime, a delay is imposed for the offense and they’re knocked back a number of spots. Once a household has reached the head of the queue, they’re parked there unless and until each member over the age of 14 has passed the language proficiency test if a member has not done so in the previous four years. If their test results are in order, they’re clear to enter the United States. At this time, a prudent number to whom to grant entry would be about 270,000 per year.
==
Once they’re here, it’s advisable to have a satisfactory matrix of expectations for them to navigate. (1) You have to pay your dues in terms of so-and-so many quarters of FTE employment to be able to drawn on particular programs of common provision (with the quantum varying according to the program). (2) Subsidies for mundane expenditure are not included in government-financed common provision for anyone bar in the case of natural disasters; you pay your rent, pay your utility bills, pay for your groceries out of your cash income. (3) Preventive detention is the mode for aliens accused of crimes; if the cases is not processed, or the charges fall apart, or your eventual sentence is less than time served, you can be indemnified according to a standard rate. (4) Alien convicts are not granted parole; they receive a standard clip off their sentence and are deported upon release and are debarred from re-entry for a term of years which is a function of the severity of their offense. (5) Only a residue of anti-discrimination law should remain in effect; by and large, aliens (and others) should be expected to navigate their social environment without calling in the law. (6) To be eligible for naturalization, you have to have spent the majority of your natural life as a palpable resident of the United States living within the law. (7) Those born in the United States have a civil status derived by default from that of their mother; if they’re of legitimate birth, it can be derived from whichever parent has the preferred status.
==
Not interested in skills-based immigration queues. I don’t think we benefit from importing our professional-managerial class. That class already has an unsympathetic attitude toward rank-and-file Americans.
@Xylourgos:But don’t you think that potential immigrants to the US should have important skills to offer?
Your question assumes that we should be admitting immigrants with skills. That’s what I disagree with. We need neither skilled nor unskilled immigrants. There’s over 300 million people here to choose from. And an H1-B is technically a non-immigrant visa, though that rule has been discarded like all the others, the camel’s nose under the tent.
If there were no Americans with such skills, and an immediate need for them that couldn’t be met with Americans in a reasonable time frame, then it might make sense to allow people with those skills to immigrate. If not, they should stay home and make their own countries better. Their own countries invariably have the same rules they apply to Americans. If you’re not sure about that, try to do any kind of work in Canada.
The ideal number of guest workers in any normal country is 0. Emergency services personnel who have rare skills you need right now would be the only exception for any affluent country with a labor market over a certain size.
Yes Niketas, I do understand the concerns with HB-1 visas. But don’t you think that potential immigrants to the US should have important skills to offer?
==
What they should bring to the table is (1) a disinclination to commit crimes, (2) a proficiency in the language, (3) a willingness and ability to find work, (4) a preference for making rent from one’s wages, (5) a disinclination to believe the world around you should go out of its way to accommodate you and a willingness to learn the customs of your adopted country, (6) a measure of patience with the world’s clods, (7) a skeptical indifference to people wishing to make a client of you, and (8) a willingness to give one’s loyalty to one’s adopted country beginning with the agreeable sort among their neighbors and co-workers. Skills are good, but a good attitude is irreplaceable.
it looks like HiB arose out of the 1990 Immigration act, one of those things that tell you the dangers of bipartisanship, of course our educational system, fails to turn out enough competent workers in key industries, despite all the monies spent,
just as with blue collar work, which is another rung that american workers are undercut,
@ miguel > ” of course our educational system, fails to turn out enough competent workers in key industries, despite all the monies spent,”
That appears to be as much, or more, by design as by the general incompetence arising from cascading employment by identity group rather than by merit.
We talk about “the government” as if it’s a monolithic, coordinated, and competent bureaucracy. In fact, our immigration system is implemented and enforced by a lot of different agencies, some of whom don’t talk to each other. And their ability to do their daily job is also subject to the normal distribution of skill and application. It’s an imperfect patchwork.
To begin with, immigration law is written by staffers on Capitol Hill, many of whom are responding to the desires/recommendations of lobbyists and Congresspersons with a lot of different factors influencing them. It really should be rationalized based on our current demographic situation and new record keeping and retrieval capabilities.
The law thus created is inconsistently implemented when non-citizens visit a US embassy or consulate overseas and request a visa. It is frequently implemented by young Foreign Service Officers who have passed a consular course at the Foreign Service Institute and are in their first tour. That’s not always the case: larger embassies will have more senior officers on their Consular staff, but they are usually involved in other consular matters rather than interviewing applicants.
Visa interviews are typically conducted at a window where the interviewer sees many people for a short period of time, and needs to make a decision on the applicant’s bona fides in minutes based on a packet of documents that accompanies the original application (like police certificates, health records, school transcripts, letters from a school or employer in the US, etc.) Then there are the few applicants who know a senior officer in the embassy, who calls the consular office and asks “hey, can you hurry up the application for this person?” You can appreciate that implementation of the visa system itself is imperfect, and not consistent from embassy to embassy, or even within a single embassy.
The visa applicant then arrives at a port of entry where s/he is interviewed by a Customs and Immigration official, who is supposed to see that all documents are in order, but also acts as another line of defense against fraud or terrorism. That official is supposed to have access to extensive data bases that surface any negative information that might have been entered by intelligence and law enforcement officials. In the case of the 9/11 perps, US intelligence had negative information of several, but it had not made its way into law enforcement data bases (so-called “stove-piping” that was designed to keep intelligence material from being used domestically). Those data bases are better now.
Once in the US, various agencies are charged with assuring visitors stick to the rules of their visa, including leaving at the end of their permitted stay. I personally have known several US citizens who have agreed to marry foreign visa-holders so they could stay in the US, but in any case there are too many visitors scattered all over the US for immigration officials to keep tabs on them when their visa expires.
And so forth and so on. The point is, our immigration system is convoluted and can be subverted by people who really want to. And there is an industry of people (lawyers, churches and NGOs) who will work to find ways — legal and illegal — for visitors to overstay their visa if ICE ever catches up with them.
Congress could write better immigration law. Visa Officers could do a better job of interviewing people. And we could improve our internal record-keeping so overstays would be flagged sooner. But even if all these efforts were implemented (and they won’t be, starting with better immigration law), people will fall through the cracks.
Meanwhile, we have a very large population of people who in the recent past have already entered and overstayed while our immigration laws were essentially unenforced. Even if we had a perfect immigration system implemented tomorrow, that cohort of immigrants represents a huge category of people who will remain an anomaly in our system for the next 20-30 years.
It’s about time. Soros and Gates can pay for the attorneys for all 55 million.