Political Organizing to Protest USCIS Delays

[gogo 6]

only TWO senators? haha.. I would be writing to all of them.. and congressmen, vice president, senate, president, FOIA, Ombudsman..

Here are some links for you:

http://www.visaserve.com/CM/Articles/CIS%2...tact%20List.pdf

http://www.duluth.lib.mn.us/Databases/Contact/Federal.html

I even told the USCIS now (and whoever I faxed my letter to, now up to 3 pages describing my stuff).. that if they don't make a decision soon, I'll just forward to any and all people above, below, and besides them.. if they are not afraid, that's fine.. someone else will be.. Also, fax everyday and bother the hell out of them.. that's the only way to get something done with your case.. are you going to wait out 2 years??.. I even got people at USCIS argue with me.. they told me to wait another 6 months.. so then I said, "so what happens after 6 months and it doesn't get approved?? You don't expect me to wait that long.."

Edited April 14, 2008 by gogo

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Beyond that, have you ever known the government to implement anything quickly? Common sense alone should tell you it would take some time.

It didn't take long for the Patriot Act or the formation of DHS

I would venture to say that the main reason for that was the extreme circumstances from which those were both born. Apples/oranges.

Unfortunately, Joe Q. American doesn't see immigration as something requiring immediate attention It's only those of us with foreign spouses or relatives (who are paying the now higher fees) that give a tinker's damn about how fast the immigration process is (or isn't). Sad but true.

*edited for clarity*

I found out last week that I am not eligible for certain clearences (SCI) with the government until my fiancee becomes not a conditional resident, not a permanent resident, but a U.S. citizen. I always wondered if marrying someone from outside the U.S. would have negative consequences, and now my fears have been realized.

I would understand that if I was marrying someone from a country that sponsors terrorism, I would have no shot at these types of clearences. However, Brazil is not in the top 10 of that list and regardless, no non-U.S. citizen is allowed to be an immediate relative in order to be eligible for this clearence.

The worst part of it is that it is a rule by the government to not be eligible for these clearences based off of an immeadiate relative pursuing citizenship. It is also the same government that is delaying citizenship to be granted for 4-5 years. That's a long time to be ineligible for the same clearence that any married couple with U.S. citizenship is eligible for.

[TracyTN 237]

You're right - Brazil is not one of the top 10 countries for terrorism. But if they started discriminating in their processes based on where the immigrant was from, can you imagine the endless stream of lawsuits??

Unfortunately, we chose to marry non US born spouses and there are sure to be some consequences of that - many of which do not seem fair to us. I still would not have it any other way.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

You're right - Brazil is not one of the top 10 countries for terrorism. But if they started discriminating in their processes based on where the immigrant was from, can you imagine the endless stream of lawsuits??

Unfortunately, we chose to marry non US born spouses and there are sure to be some consequences of that - many of which do not seem fair to us. I still would not have it any other way.

I would have it another way...

I disagree with you there because there is a list of countries that do sponsor terrorism and that we do have an embargo against and it is understandable that they would automatically be out of the running. I don't think all other countries should be penalized because of a few. I think there woudl be fewer lawsuits then there are now because people from syria, north korea, etc are already on notice of the U.S. State Department's policy with their countries.

Some consequences don't seem fair and don't have to be. Have tighter restrictions on those known countries (i.e. syria, north korea, iran) that we have declared sponsor terrorism. Don't discriminate against permanent residents who are applying for citizenship.

State Sponsors of Terrorism

[TracyTN 237]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion - they're sort of like armpits...we all have 'em, eh?

For my money? I don't think its feasible (or fair) to paint all citizens of a country with the terrorist brush just because they come from that country. The way the process is now pretty much assumes that everyone is a potential terrorist until proven otherwise...no matter if they come from Canada, Brazil, the UK or Iran.

Edited April 15, 2008 by TracyTN

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Exactly, but it doesn't have to be that way. I don't think citizens from the "terrorist" countries should all be painted with the bad brush either, but I would understand the federal government's inclination to wait until they are U.S. citizens before giving their American spouses top security clearences.

Afterall, several of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt (unless you believe they are still alive as some media sources report), yet those countries are not on the State Department's list and for rightful reason.

I think this is a law that can and should change to allow permanent residents of non-State sponsored terrorist countries similar rights as their U.S. citizen counterparts. There are plenty of Americans who are less qualified to have these positions and yet get cleared. I understand nothing will change for now, but nothing ever does by accepting its reality and not challenging it.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Jack and Barbara

[coyote 3]

"There is a difference, of course, between these issues. We are talking about the rights of U.S. citizens -- us. That's the way to sell the issue. And it also happens to be the truth. We're being treated like illegals." - coyote

Coyote -

According to the lobbyists I have spoken with, the way to 'sell' the issue to the public (and to Congress) is National Security.

Rebecca: Yes, since I posted this I may have talked to the same guy you spoke to. I think that this is correct.

Susan

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

"There is a difference, of course, between these issues. We are talking about the rights of U.S. citizens -- us. That's the way to sell the issue. And it also happens to be the truth. We're being treated like illegals." - coyote

Coyote -

According to the lobbyists I have spoken with, the way to 'sell' the issue to the public (and to Congress) is National Security.

Rebecca: Yes, since I posted this I may have talked to the same guy you spoke to. I think that this is correct.

Susan

FBI name checks should be a national security issue. Someone can come here on a K visa and be a terrorist and the FBI would not finish checking them out for years sometimes. Why can't they get a system working that can check fingerprints and names in seconds? Any data on a computer has global access. Once biometrics are done why can't the data be processed in seconds and if there is a hit on a name or fingerprint then a human can review the results if needed and done quickly so we don't have potential terrorists running around in the US.

[rebeccajo 14]

Exactly, but it doesn't have to be that way. I don't think citizens from the "terrorist" countries should all be painted with the bad brush either, but I would understand the federal government's inclination to wait until they are U.S. citizens before giving their American spouses top security clearences.

Afterall, several of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt (unless you believe they are still alive as some media sources report), yet those countries are not on the State Department's list and for rightful reason.

I think this is a law that can and should change to allow permanent residents of non-State sponsored terrorist countries similar rights as their U.S. citizen counterparts. There are plenty of Americans who are less qualified to have these positions and yet get cleared. I understand nothing will change for now, but nothing ever does by accepting its reality and not challenging it.

Jack -

The bolded part of your comment seems a little double-sided to me. Well - actually - a lot double sided. And biased also.

Just for your own peace of mind, I think you should go back and re-check on that security clearance situation you mentioned a few posts back. I've never heard of spouses of immigrants being barred from jobs which require security clearance. I'm wondering if you misunderstood.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Exactly, but it doesn't have to be that way. I don't think citizens from the "terrorist" countries should all be painted with the bad brush either, but I would understand the federal government's inclination to wait until they are U.S. citizens before giving their American spouses top security clearences.

Afterall, several of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt (unless you believe they are still alive as some media sources report), yet those countries are not on the State Department's list and for rightful reason.

I think this is a law that can and should change to allow permanent residents of non-State sponsored terrorist countries similar rights as their U.S. citizen counterparts. There are plenty of Americans who are less qualified to have these positions and yet get cleared. I understand nothing will change for now, but nothing ever does by accepting its reality and not challenging it.

Jack -

The bolded part of your comment seems a little double-sided to me. Well - actually - a lot double sided. And biased also.

Just for your own peace of mind, I think you should go back and re-check on that security clearance situation you mentioned a few posts back. I've never heard of spouses of immigrants being barred from jobs which require security clearance. I'm wondering if you misunderstood.

Maybe the double-sided part is the sarcasm you sensed? I don't see any bias. There is a reason why the State Department has a list of "states that sponsor terrorism." The government has a watchful eye on anyone who travels from these countries. I don't see why all other countries should be punished because the government has issues with the 5 countries on the website I previously posted. I'm not saying that any immigrant from these 5 countries should be punished either, but I understand that the government would look at them differently simply because they are on its own watch list.

Spouses of immigrants are eligible for S and TS clearences so long as they are not SCI. This means certain agencies such as FBI and DOD are possible routes for me, but others such as NSA, CIA, etc that require full scope polygraph are not possible until my fiancee is a U.S. citizen.

[LaL 418]

You're right - Brazil is not one of the top 10 countries for terrorism. But if they started discriminating in their processes based on where the immigrant was from, can you imagine the endless stream of lawsuits??

Unfortunately, we chose to marry non US born spouses and there are sure to be some consequences of that - many of which do not seem fair to us. I still would not have it any other way.

I would have it another way...

I disagree with you there because there is a list of countries that do sponsor terrorism and that we do have an embargo against and it is understandable that they would automatically be out of the running. I don't think all other countries should be penalized because of a few. I think there woudl be fewer lawsuits then there are now because people from syria, north korea, etc are already on notice of the U.S. State Department's policy with their countries.

Some consequences don't seem fair and don't have to be. Have tighter restrictions on those known countries (i.e. syria, north korea, iran) that we have declared sponsor terrorism. Don't discriminate against permanent residents who are applying for citizenship.

State Sponsors of Terrorism

Just for clarity - those applying for visas from or are nationals of one of the countries on the "List of 26" or the "Terrible 7" go through a very lengthy process that is the result of tighter restrictions. They are treated differently in many cases.

If I am understanding you correctly - you may have found one of those situations which exemplies the situation we are all in as USCs marrying foreigners. Others have reported difficulties with EADs, mortgages, etc. It's just part of the "journey" so to speak.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Just for clarity - those applying for visas from or are nationals of one of the countries on the "List of 26" or the "Terrible 7" go through a very lengthy process that is the result of tighter restrictions. They are treated differently in many cases.

If I am understanding you correctly - you may have found one of those situations which exemplies the situation we are all in as USCs marrying foreigners. Others have reported difficulties with EADs, mortgages, etc. It's just part of the "journey" so to speak.

Do you have a link for the "List of 26." I am unaware of this one and couldn't find it on a quick google. Regardless, it sounds negative, Brazil I bet would not be on it. What I have been saying is that regardless of whether your spouse is from Canada, England, or Syria, the U.S. spouse is not treated the same as other Americans in terms of this specific clearance, which I don't think is right.

If people are reporting difficulties with prejudices in mortgages or other things based on spouse's country of birth, there might be reason to challenge it. Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right. Likewise, just because the government has a problem with its 5 listed countries, I don't think that should be part of the journey that we have to suck up and deal with.

[LaL 418]

Just for clarity - those applying for visas from or are nationals of one of the countries on the "List of 26" or the "Terrible 7" go through a very lengthy process that is the result of tighter restrictions. They are treated differently in many cases.

If I am understanding you correctly - you may have found one of those situations which exemplies the situation we are all in as USCs marrying foreigners. Others have reported difficulties with EADs, mortgages, etc. It's just part of the "journey" so to speak.

Do you have a link for the "List of 26." I am unaware of this one and couldn't find it on a quick google. Regardless, it sounds negative, Brazil I bet would not be on it. What I have been saying is that regardless of whether your spouse is from Canada, England, or Syria, the U.S. spouse is not treated the same as other Americans in terms of this specific clearance, which I don't think is right.

If people are reporting difficulties with prejudices in mortgages or other things based on spouse's country of birth, there might be reason to challenge it. Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right. Likewise, just because the government has a problem with its 5 listed countries, I don't think that should be part of the journey that we have to suck up and deal with.

Try a google search of : "list of 26" immigration

What I am having difficulty with is you are saying that despite passing the processing of these security clearances (as a requirement for much of the list of 26) it should be pretty much ok to continue to scrutinize after they enter the US, just dont scrutinize those other countries which you assume are "safe".

For the record - the mortgage issues, etc that have been discussed had nothing to do with contry of origin - its just more "par for the course" for having a relationship with a non USC.

Contact some lobbyists if its unliveable for you. Thats the only way to enact change.

[coyote 3]

Immigration is not a right though and many forget that. When someone has a spouse from a high risk nation further checks will probably be required. I also think that only after someone is married and, files the 495, should they be able to work.

Why in the world would you think that? It's OK for American corporations to outsource their ### off but Americans who fall in love with someone from another country have to support them for months because of this bureacratic intransigence that is essentially xenophobia? And this is particularly unfair to women, who earn 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, not to mention that there are an estimated 12 million undocumented workers already working in the U.S. What rationale could there be for this policy? Security? Does anyone seriously think that a couple would go through the nightmare of filing an I129 petition so one of them could work for six weeks?

The worst part about it is you see people who are having there I129-F's approved in 20-30 days in Vermont. It is so frustrating. If Vermont has that much time to already be on late February then they need to get California to give them some of theirs. I try so hard not to watch, but it's hard not to want to know what's going on all the time. I completely agree with you.

but they do also have a lot of other visas to process there. The finance visa is only one visa and should certainly not be given any priority when compared to many of the other visas.

[coyote 3]

right on, gogo!

only TWO senators? haha.. I would be writing to all of them.. and congressmen, vice president, senate, president, FOIA, Ombudsman..

Here are some links for you:

http://www.visaserve.com/CM/Articles/CIS%2...tact%20List.pdf

http://www.duluth.lib.mn.us/Databases/Contact/Federal.html

I even told the USCIS now (and whoever I faxed my letter to, now up to 3 pages describing my stuff).. that if they don't make a decision soon, I'll just forward to any and all people above, below, and besides them.. if they are not afraid, that's fine.. someone else will be.. Also, fax everyday and bother the hell out of them.. that's the only way to get something done with your case.. are you going to wait out 2 years??.. I even got people at USCIS argue with me.. they told me to wait another 6 months.. so then I said, "so what happens after 6 months and it doesn't get approved?? You don't expect me to wait that long.."