Does anyone have information about the visa process that is not an anecdote?
The story about the person who suddenly quit their job, to the surprise of their employer, sounds like an H1-B thing. The H1-B program should definitely be overhauled, but not primarily because of terrorism concerns. A few companies take advantage of H1-Bs to bring in and underpay workers, mostly Indian workers, for jobs that Americans would do if they were paid market rates.
But then there are also tech companies that bring in astoundingly talented people on H1-B visas, people that we should welcome with open arms. The ones I’ve known did brilliant work in their undergraduate years in their own country and stellar research in their American PhD programs. We want those people!
frugaldoctor,
Thank you for those sobering statistics. Many of us have tried several times to reiterate the need to be addressing BOTH gun control and terrorist acts within our borders. These are both significant problems that need imminent and aggressive attention, though there is fierce opposition to one of these two topics, and the same, tired arguments surface ad nauseam.
“BunsenBurner, employment verification is a requirement to even ENTER the lottery.”
Katliamom, there is no requirement for any verification of any information to enter and be selected as a winner. None. Have you ever filled out such a form? I had - for quite a few folks. I know this stuff not from reading forums - from helping real people. The verification happens later, after the winner gets selected, and apparently, a piece of paper suffices as a proof.
CF, the person did not “suddenly quit job.” They have been gathering paperwork etc. and communicating with the US embassy in their country for several months. What was surprising is that the employer had not been contacted directly by the US officers in charge - that’s why the resignation was a surprise.
You will see that to enter the 2017 drawing you would have had to sign up by November of this year. (So the waiting period is even longer than it used to be, interesting.)
It is NOT POSSIBLE to “win the lottery” and come to the US within 6 months, as BunsenBurner’s anecdote has it.
Well if the verification procedure is so strenuous, why didn’t they bother to vet the female terrorist, who provided an address that didn’t even exist?
I believe Bunsen, who has actually helped people go through this procedure.
@BunsenBurner I don’t know the specific criteria of the Diversity Immigrant Visa program (the program with the 50,000 annual quota that you mentioned). If continued employment is a requirement then yes, I think it should be verified.
Many more immigrants are let in under employer-sponsored immigration programs, which can include H-1B visas. Absolutely, employment should be checked in each of these cases.
But I–and millions of other Americans–would strongly oppose ending the Diversity Immigrant Visa program which enables motivated, hardworking people to come here and enhance the social, economic and cultural life of our country.
busdriver, You’re talking about two very different procedures: the visa lottery, and a citizen sponsoring his fiancee/wife.
You can believe Bunsen, although a simple check on a government website shows a somewhat different scenario than the one she described. I think the employer was mistaken, and is inadvertently spreading misinformation.
Katliamom - it is possible. From the time the winning is announced. I did not say from the time of entry. The entry “form” only asks for name, some personal data, such as birthplace etc. and a jpeg or whatever photo. No official copies of any documents were needed. It is all done electronically now.
The very first lotteries were mail in. No signature was needed, to my surprise. I remember that about 5% of the entries we sent won. We stopped doing this last year because we think the system logs the path through which the entry is submitted and automatically cuts off all us-based entries (just a speculation) - to prevent scammers from collecting $$ fees for the service.
Bunsen, in re-reading your #970 I may have misunderstood. On re-reading I think what you are saying is that the employer of a person in their country of origin was shocked when their employee resigned in order to come to the United States under the DV program.
I don’t see how this proves a failure of the program. First, the person was indeed employed (“the employer was shocked”), so there was no failure there. Second, there are many ways to check employment. Just because the business owner was shocked, does not mean that someone else there, such as a payroll manager, couldn’t have verified employment. In any event, I wouldn’t end an entire program on one anecdote.
MidwestDad, maybe a phone call was not needed, but it is very easy to get a piece of paper saying anything you want… in some countries.
It is not a failure of the program, it is simply a loose stone in the wall of vetting process. Plus, this DV visa is viewed as pure discrimination by some naturalized US citizens who are trying to bring their relatives in the US. Because said relatives were born in China, India, Mexico etc. they can’t enter the lottery…
I could see suspending the diversity visa program to refocus efforts on legalizing the many immigrants already here, both illegally or on temporary work visas. So many of them have been here for years, working in our communities and raising their children here. It seems they should have priority, and if we can establish that the DV program diverts attention or resources from this, I’d be willing to agree to get rid of it, at least temporarily.
But as with everything that has to do with immigration, I doubt it’d be that easy (get rid of DV=help existing immigrants.)
Sorry for derailing the thread. When there are limited resources, use them where they are urgently needed. Eliminate the program or suspend it for a year or two if needed.
Because we are sharing anecdotes, I can tell you another anecdote - about a real refugee family. Lost their jobs, their bank savings, pretty much everything when the country was taken over by nationalistic radicals. Withe the help of their religious organization (which was quickly outlawed in their country) they found a way to apply to immigrate to the US as refugees. While the family was waiting for their paperwork to be processed, the situation in their town turned drastically worse. People were randomly executed by militants just because of their nationality. The parents dug up a hidden cellar and instructed the kids to hide in there while the parents would distract the fighters during a raid. Their next door neighbors were killed one night. The family was lucky. It took them 2 years and several moves through several countries to come to the US. Only the kids knew some English. The parents were in their late 40s. Neither had used any of the software people in their field of employment routinely used in the US. It is hard to learn new language later in life, but the parents managed to learn enough to be able to update their professional skills. The mom went on to work for a very large employer in this state and retired after working there (in her professional field!) for almost two decades. All of them would die for this country. They sound very sincere when they call the US their “motherland.”
There is plenty of diversity to be brought in with the people who desperately need help.
What I was also trying to say is that the visa applicant vetting process is not uniform. Fiancé visas and some other visa holders apparently get less scrutiny than refugees, and the reason used to be predominantly economic one. We assume that DV and K visa people will not become a public burden, but the refugees by definition need a lot of support. So we are making sure that the refugees do prove that they actually are who they say they are and are entitled to get here. It looks like the times are changing…
Now that people are finding mates on the Internet, fiance visas definitely need more scrutiny. Coming to the US as a refugee is a bad method for terrorism. It takes too long and is too uncertain. On the other hand, coming to the US as an Internet bride or groom is a good way. If an American met their fiance(e) online, and the fiance(e) is from a known terrorist area as the San Bernardino woman was, that fiance(e) should get a good long look from INS. This loophole needs to be closed.
@“Cardinal Fang” I am very aware of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. That may explain how the perps look, or what they were wearing, but I dont think she would get the number wrong. Something is just off with this whole situation, the locale, the timing, was there an argument, etc. I really wish they couldve taken them alive, because there are way too many unanswered questions.