Political Organizing to Protest USCIS Delays

[gogo 6]

but seriously, some of us are actually looking for help.. I am almost running out of options.. still have either a) quit my government job and go into USCIS just to approve my case =p I'm thinking about that right now.. B) move back to China at the end of this year.. I don't care if her visa is a "right" or not.. I just want to be treated the same and get a ###### decision on my case..

Edited April 17, 2008 by gogo

[coyote 3]

And in bold print.

Do you find that comprehensible? If so, can you tell me what the hell it says?

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

It would be nice for someone to organize VJ people and provide contact information for groups that are lobbying for immigration changes. So far this has been a place for people to sound off but nothing else. Who here could and would lead us in the right direction?

[rebeccajo 14]

Google is your friend.

Otherwise, my personal favorite:

www.americanfamiliesunited.org

[gogo 6]

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

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

(sound off to these guys -- haha)

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

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

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

(sound off to these guys -- haha)

We need email addresses for these people so we can bombard them with emails from VJ.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Gaby&Talbert

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

back under your bridge.

Charles, great post, I agree with you, but what do I know or any of us, we are not worthy! Well you are full of it according to the resident expert RebeccaJo, so get ready to get blasted by her and her posse on here at VJ, what is new. Never fails.

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.

whoever told you that is full of #######. i've got a ts/sci with 4 tickets and nessa isn't a usc.

[coyote 3]

Google is your friend.

Otherwise, my personal favorite:

www.americanfamiliesunited.org

I'll step in with a bit more information here, and, I hope, with a less patronizing tone. American Families United does seem to be the group that is not affiliated with an interest group like lawyers, etc., but it doesn't seem to be very big. They might be the natural group to work through.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is active on these issues, but of course this organization represents lawyers. La Raza is a major player, I think, and so is the ACLU. The National Foreign Students Association (which in some sense may represent the interests of universities?) is a player.

Obviously, the anti-immigration groups are big players, too.

As I understand it, Rep. Xavier Becerra is trying to broker some kind of agreement. Worksite verification appears to be one of the sticking points. Some pragmatists believe this will help solve the problems over a period of time, as people change jobs, etc., but a number of advocacy groups oppose it.

That's all I know at this point. It might be worth checking out Becerra's website. http://becerra.house.gov/HoR/ca31/home

Gotta get back to work.

[rebeccajo 14]

Google is your friend.

Otherwise, my personal favorite:

www.americanfamiliesunited.org

I'll step in with a bit more information here, and, I hope, with a less patronizing tone. American Families United does seem to be the group that is not affiliated with an interest group like lawyers, etc., but it doesn't seem to be very big. They might be the natural group to work through.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is active on these issues, but of course this organization represents lawyers. La Raza is a major player, I think, and so is the ACLU. The National Foreign Students Association (which in some sense may represent the interests of universities?) is a player.

Obviously, the anti-immigration groups are big players, too.

As I understand it, Rep. Xavier Becerra is trying to broker some kind of agreement. Worksite verification appears to be one of the sticking points. Some pragmatists believe this will help solve the problems over a period of time, as people change jobs, etc., but a number of advocacy groups oppose it.

That's all I know at this point. It might be worth checking out Becerra's website. http://becerra.house.gov/HoR/ca31/home

Gotta get back to work.

coyote -

We can have my 'patronizing' tone, or we can have your 'judgmental' tone. Which will it be?

I appreciate your efforts and new blood is always needed. However, there are quite a few of us here who have a lot of experience with the system and the way it works. You'll be more likely to get bees to your honey if you remember that.

PS - American Families United is big enough to have two lobbyists on the payroll to the tune of over $5K per month. One is a former Congressman. They were also instrumental in applying the congressional pressure that led to the recent new policy of USCIS regarding name checks during Adjustment of Status.

AILA may represent lawyers (it appears you don't consider that a plus), but their record on immigration issues is FAR more immigrant friendly than many others out there. Check it out.

Edited April 18, 2008 by rebeccajo

[StillThePrettiest 3]

Rebecca, please stop. Please stop. I actually reread your post because I thought I read hypocrisy, but I couldn't believe how much until I reread it. Please read above in bold OR just go ahead and criticize. You are great at it. I only wish you had logic behind it...

I've read this entire thread in detail, and I don't see any hypocrisy, OR lack of logic, in anything rebeccajo has posted... on the contrary, the post you dissected with comments in bold (which I didn't quote, to avoid too long a post) displayed what seemed to me a lack of understanding of what RJ was saying; she was pointing out contradictions, which were clear to me when reading through it, and I suspect to others

and that's not personal, just an observation...

put simply, and without mention of the whole other issue that is lawsuits and so on that people have already raised: immigration services can't discriminate between countries when it comes to scrutiny/name checks/whatever, because it opens doors for exploitation down the line... same goes for airline security checks; as soon as one group of people don't get pulled aside, then there's an opening and a weakness for a potential terrorist to use later on down the track... these things HAVE to be applied across the board, or they don't work

there are other ways for friendly relationships to be fostered between countries, but a 'courtesy' waiver, or even simplification, of the security checks shouldn't be one of them

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Rebecca, please stop. Please stop. I actually reread your post because I thought I read hypocrisy, but I couldn't believe how much until I reread it. Please read above in bold OR just go ahead and criticize. You are great at it. I only wish you had logic behind it...

I've read this entire thread in detail, and I don't see any hypocrisy, OR lack of logic, in anything rebeccajo has posted... on the contrary, the post you dissected with comments in bold (which I didn't quote, to avoid too long a post) displayed what seemed to me a lack of understanding of what RJ was saying; she was pointing out contradictions, which were clear to me when reading through it, and I suspect to others

and that's not personal, just an observation...

put simply, and without mention of the whole other issue that is lawsuits and so on that people have already raised: immigration services can't discriminate between countries when it comes to scrutiny/name checks/whatever, because it opens doors for exploitation down the line... same goes for airline security checks; as soon as one group of people don't get pulled aside, then there's an opening and a weakness for a potential terrorist to use later on down the track... these things HAVE to be applied across the board, or they don't work

there are other ways for friendly relationships to be fostered between countries, but a 'courtesy' waiver, or even simplification, of the security checks shouldn't be one of them

Well, some people were reading too much into it. But, instead of going back and forth and getting away from the point, I'll repeat what I have been saying again. I agree that immigration services cannot or should not discriminate, but it happens and anyone who thinks otherwise is not listening to reality.

If the Department of State has a list of 5 countries that "sponsor terrorism" there are going to be longer background checks on people from those countries regardless. Right or wrong for how the government came up with that list, it should not adversely affect every other country. Again, I'm not saying that anyone from those countries should have longer background checks; what I am saying is that other countries should not be penalized for the U.S. government scrutinizing a few, based off of a list that the U.S. government created. If the U.S. government put my fiancee's country on the list, then I would be on the phone with a congressional representative about it. But, I would also expect a lengthier background check because it is stated on the federal website as a "state that sponsors terrorism."

[TracyTN 237]

Rebecca, please stop. Please stop. I actually reread your post because I thought I read hypocrisy, but I couldn't believe how much until I reread it. Please read above in bold OR just go ahead and criticize. You are great at it. I only wish you had logic behind it...

I've read this entire thread in detail, and I don't see any hypocrisy, OR lack of logic, in anything rebeccajo has posted... on the contrary, the post you dissected with comments in bold (which I didn't quote, to avoid too long a post) displayed what seemed to me a lack of understanding of what RJ was saying; she was pointing out contradictions, which were clear to me when reading through it, and I suspect to others

and that's not personal, just an observation...

put simply, and without mention of the whole other issue that is lawsuits and so on that people have already raised: immigration services can't discriminate between countries when it comes to scrutiny/name checks/whatever, because it opens doors for exploitation down the line... same goes for airline security checks; as soon as one group of people don't get pulled aside, then there's an opening and a weakness for a potential terrorist to use later on down the track... these things HAVE to be applied across the board, or they don't work

there are other ways for friendly relationships to be fostered between countries, but a 'courtesy' waiver, or even simplification, of the security checks shouldn't be one of them

Well, some people were reading too much into it. But, instead of going back and forth and getting away from the point, I'll repeat what I have been saying again. I agree that immigration services cannot or should not discriminate, but it happens and anyone who thinks otherwise is not listening to reality.

If the Department of State has a list of 5 countries that "sponsor terrorism" there are going to be longer background checks on people from those countries regardless. Right or wrong for how the government came up with that list, it should not adversely affect every other country. Again, I'm not saying that anyone from those countries should have longer background checks; what I am saying is that other countries should not be penalized for the U.S. government scrutinizing a few, based off of a list that the U.S. government created. If the U.S. government put my fiancee's country on the list, then I would be on the phone with a congressional representative about it. But, I would also expect a lengthier background check because it is stated on the federal website as a "state that sponsors terrorism."

You want them to not discriminate in their background checks, but not adversely affect the background checks for those in 'non terrorist' countries? You can't have it both ways.

[LaL 418]

Rebecca, please stop. Please stop. I actually reread your post because I thought I read hypocrisy, but I couldn't believe how much until I reread it. Please read above in bold OR just go ahead and criticize. You are great at it. I only wish you had logic behind it...

I've read this entire thread in detail, and I don't see any hypocrisy, OR lack of logic, in anything rebeccajo has posted... on the contrary, the post you dissected with comments in bold (which I didn't quote, to avoid too long a post) displayed what seemed to me a lack of understanding of what RJ was saying; she was pointing out contradictions, which were clear to me when reading through it, and I suspect to others

and that's not personal, just an observation...

put simply, and without mention of the whole other issue that is lawsuits and so on that people have already raised: immigration services can't discriminate between countries when it comes to scrutiny/name checks/whatever, because it opens doors for exploitation down the line... same goes for airline security checks; as soon as one group of people don't get pulled aside, then there's an opening and a weakness for a potential terrorist to use later on down the track... these things HAVE to be applied across the board, or they don't work

there are other ways for friendly relationships to be fostered between countries, but a 'courtesy' waiver, or even simplification, of the security checks shouldn't be one of them

Well, some people were reading too much into it. But, instead of going back and forth and getting away from the point, I'll repeat what I have been saying again. I agree that immigration services cannot or should not discriminate, but it happens and anyone who thinks otherwise is not listening to reality.

If the Department of State has a list of 5 countries that "sponsor terrorism" there are going to be longer background checks on people from those countries regardless. Right or wrong for how the government came up with that list, it should not adversely affect every other country. Again, I'm not saying that anyone from those countries should have longer background checks; what I am saying is that other countries should not be penalized for the U.S. government scrutinizing a few, based off of a list that the U.S. government created. If the U.S. government put my fiancee's country on the list, then I would be on the phone with a congressional representative about it. But, I would also expect a lengthier background check because it is stated on the federal website as a "state that sponsors terrorism."

I think there is some mixing of terms here. How are you "penalized" for those 5 countries? They have added step to go through to ensure eligibility for a visa - ones that most other nationals do not have to go through. There are background checks for ALL potential immigrants that has nothing to do with the scrutiny the T-26 countries have.

Most consulates accept police reports as the main source of background checks to ensure visa eligibility (as well as a rudimentary fingerprint check). For T-26 countries, this just simply isnt enough. They must go through lengthy "administrative review/processing" which can entail 4 or so security clearances, have home visits, and a whole barage of other "nusances" that the majority of other countries do not face.

[zqt3344 21]

Coyote:

I admire you and you are approaching the problem in the best way, sadly you will only find a select minority on your post that truly have no clue about what they are saying or doing nor do they know a thing about how the US Congress truly works or operates. Once again it is the same old posse of pretenders attacking and slamming someone that does not think like they do or go along with their little agenda, you see Coyote you do not tow the party line or fit the mold of these, and I will say it again, it is always a someone with a UK or Canada or Australia id on VJ talking down or rudely insulting others as always! Thanks for trying you have a truly good idea that could work for the betterment of all of us.

Rebecca, please stop. Please stop. I actually reread your post because I thought I read hypocrisy, but I couldn't believe how much until I reread it. Please read above in bold OR just go ahead and criticize. You are great at it. I only wish you had logic behind it...

I've read this entire thread in detail, and I don't see any hypocrisy, OR lack of logic, in anything rebeccajo has posted... on the contrary, the post you dissected with comments in bold (which I didn't quote, to avoid too long a post) displayed what seemed to me a lack of understanding of what RJ was saying; she was pointing out contradictions, which were clear to me when reading through it, and I suspect to others

and that's not personal, just an observation...

put simply, and without mention of the whole other issue that is lawsuits and so on that people have already raised: immigration services can't discriminate between countries when it comes to scrutiny/name checks/whatever, because it opens doors for exploitation down the line... same goes for airline security checks; as soon as one group of people don't get pulled aside, then there's an opening and a weakness for a potential terrorist to use later on down the track... these things HAVE to be applied across the board, or they don't work

there are other ways for friendly relationships to be fostered between countries, but a 'courtesy' waiver, or even simplification, of the security checks shouldn't be one of them

Well, some people were reading too much into it. But, instead of going back and forth and getting away from the point, I'll repeat what I have been saying again. I agree that immigration services cannot or should not discriminate, but it happens and anyone who thinks otherwise is not listening to reality.

If the Department of State has a list of 5 countries that "sponsor terrorism" there are going to be longer background checks on people from those countries regardless. Right or wrong for how the government came up with that list, it should not adversely affect every other country. Again, I'm not saying that anyone from those countries should have longer background checks; what I am saying is that other countries should not be penalized for the U.S. government scrutinizing a few, based off of a list that the U.S. government created. If the U.S. government put my fiancee's country on the list, then I would be on the phone with a congressional representative about it. But, I would also expect a lengthier background check because it is stated on the federal website as a "state that sponsors terrorism."

I think there is some mixing of terms here. How are you "penalized" for those 5 countries? They have added step to go through to ensure eligibility for a visa - ones that most other nationals do not have to go through. There are background checks for ALL potential immigrants that has nothing to do with the scrutiny the T-26 countries have.

Most consulates accept police reports as the main source of background checks to ensure visa eligibility (as well as a rudimentary fingerprint check). For T-26 countries, this just simply isnt enough. They must go through lengthy "administrative review/processing" which can entail 4 or so security clearances, have home visits, and a whole barage of other "nusances" that the majority of other countries do not face.

[zqt3344 21]

You truly just continue to show your dark side and prove me even more correct once again, thank you, just keep it up, I can always count on you to verify exactly what I state.

zqt, I'm actually looking forward to seeing you in a crowd carrying your protest placard.

In fact, I've already got your sign made up for you.

It's got a big downward arrow on it with the wording 'Socially Inept'.

So what is your point? Why attack Jack? You knew that when you married your husband, like we all did when we married someone from another country, I feel for you, it is too bad and unfortunate all you have had to go through, but there are others like you also suffering as much if not more. Get over it and move on and stop being so jaded and bitter to all. Also what does this have to do with us forming a PAC or lobbying Congress to pass laws for a good program of change to help all of us VJers with the marriage process to a person not from the USA? I still do not get it after reading your rants and wild ravings, guess I am going to get blasted for this post, oh well, please stick to the topic, political organization formation to help us with laws of immigration while marrying a non US citizen.

PS - My husband is from Northern Ireland.

Ever heard of the IRA?