PantomimeGoose

Hey all,
I started a petition at whitehouse.gov to impose limits on the processing times for IR-1/CR-1 visas. Many of us have gone through the pain of waiting months to be allowed to see our spouses and children, and the sometimes humiliating process of justifying our marriages to a government agency. The system needs improving, but it won't happen without our voices and our advocacy!

http://wh.gov/2aH

Please sign the petition and email, FB, tweet, blog the link to anyone you think might support our cause! We need 25,000 signatures by November 3rd!

scrubbedexpat099

CR-1/IR-1 visas fail to provide equal protection under the law to Americans who have wed foreign citizens by imposing inequitable fines

What fines?

and separation on their families, and by forcing Americans to prove the authenticity of their relationships to a government agency.

So sham marriages for immigration benefit should be OK?

The CR-1/IR-1 takes an average of 8-9 months, during which time many spouses or their children are separated.

Mine was longer, but we both visited so the separation bit is not appropriate.

If the couple does not meet the income requirements of 125% above poverty level,

You can do that by working at Wal Mart

have thousands of dollars in applications fees,

Just over a thousand last time I looked. And Congress has mandated that the fees should not be subsidised.

or ill-defined proof their union is "bona fide", this separation can drag on for years.

Hardly a very high hurdle, one photo was all I was asked for.

While preventing fraud is necessary, processing times must be drastically improved,

That would be nice

or families must be allowed to reunite in the US while visas are pending, reducing separation to no more than a month.

A visa is to reunite, and they can travel as visitors.

Looks like you have 15 supporters at least.

ian-mstm

I agree that the system needs improving, but your petition is based on half-truths and faulty information... so I will not be signing it.

Ian

PantomimeGoose

Most people are not so lucky. Talk to people who immigrated from the Middle East, the Phillipines, China, Russia. There are people who have gone years without seeing their spouses, even to the point of a spouse being hospitalized or dying far away from their families.

I realize the wording isn't perfect with an 800 character limit: in any case, the point is not to write a finished piece of legislation here, but to alert the government to a collective grievance. Although I personally believe most of the process is unconstitutional for the US Citizens involved, I have tried to limit the scope of demands to the one area I have observed people to agree upon most: the right to be with their families. If your perspective is that is wasn't so hard for you, so it can't possibly be so hard for anyone else, or that it *was* hard for you so everyone else should struggle too, well I do not hope to persuade you. If your perspective is that some liberties must are best sacrificed for a measure of security, I'll leave that one to Ben Franklin.

Michelmas

While these may be rights of the USC (not by any means all of them) non of these are a right for the non USC. The obligation is on you to APPLY for entry to a foreign country. Their party, their rules. You don't have to join their ball game, but if you do, don't complain about the house rules.

I and many others knew what we were getting ourselves into when we started this journey, as did you.

Your petition is deliberately misleading, I will not be signing either

PantomimeGoose

Isn't part of the beauty of being a US citizen the ability to try and change the rules if they aren't perfect?

I played the game by the book, and now I'm critiquing the sport. Saying, "you don't have to apply for a US visa if you don't want," might be fine if you were talking about simply deciding to live in a new country for the giggles or the job opportunities, but one of the keystones of a marriage is that they're unique. (Most) people can't just pick someone else to love because the process is inconvenient. Those of us who went through it were quite willing to make that sacrifice, but that does not change the fact that what is required of US Citizens to live with their foreign national spouse is quite different from what is required of US Citizens to live with a US Citizen spouse. In a country where "separate but equal" doesn't cut it, why should "separate and most decidedly not equal"?

I agree that the constitutional rights do not belong initially to the foreign national. However, I see nothing especially wrong with a foreign spouse benefiting from the preservation of the US Citizen's rights, which is what this petition advocates for.

scrubbedexpat099

It is a fee for services. The same as if you want to get married you pay a fee. To even get here you need a Passport and probably an airline ticket, none of those are free.

They sit in a pile for most of that time, we agree on that. The consequence of faster processing would be much higher fees which you are against.

Presumably they met somewhere? So the process can be repeated.

You can use capital and/or co-sponsors. I actually self sponsored, admittedly not all Consulates allow that. I would agree with Immigrants being able to self sponsor to avoid the public charge issue.

"Just over a thousand last time I looked. And Congress has mandated that the fees should not be subsidised."

As it is not a right then the rest is irrelevant

And? So many things in life are.

While preventing fraud is necessary, processing times must be drastically improved,

You said 8 months (that is less than one year)

That was not my perspective. I agree with speeding up.

I am not so sure it is reasonable to ask US Taxpayers to subsidise the process. Personally it would have been nice, but morally not so sure. I would have happily paid whatever to have it done in a month rather than a year.

retzie

Oh, I thought this was going to be about the complete inability of same-sex partners to be (directly) united under US immigration law. THAT is where the law really needs reform.

PantomimeGoose

"It is a fee for services. The same as if you want to get married you pay a fee. To even get here you need a Passport and probably an airline ticket, none of those are free."

The fee that all Americans pay to get married is for registration. Superfluous fees are a little like inequitable poll taxes or requirements for minorities to vote. The 'service' of the government running background checks if you can consider it a service, goes to employing a whole class of people, rather than the cost of running a background check.



They sit in a pile for most of that time, we agree on that. The consequence of faster processing would be much higher fees which you are against.

Potentially, but the only thing the petition actually arguing for was allowing families visitation in the US or faster processing. The fees and processing times have in fact been lower in the not so distant past. While I disagree with the fees, I recognize that the government has to function. One of the reasons USCIS has a backlog is so that its employees can stay continuously employed. What's stopping them from having seasonal/contract workers like other government agencies? There is no reason that people who want to visit their spouses should be turned away at the border on a tourist visa they have successfully gotten because they have an IR/CR-1 pending which is actually just sitting in a pile for months.



"Presumably they met somewhere? So the process can be repeated."

In many cultures it is not permitted for couples to spend time together before they marry. In this increasingly global economy, many couples meet on line. The ability to meet a handful of times does not equal the ability to do it all the time. In my case, we were lucky, but we could have bought a house with what we spent visiting.

"You can use capital and/or co-sponsors. I actually self sponsored, admittedly not all Consulates allow that. I would agree with Immigrants being able to self sponsor to avoid the public charge issue."

Give the immigrant no recourse to public funds? I believe the UK does it.

"Just over a thousand last time I looked. And Congress has mandated that the fees should not be subsidised."



As it is not a right then the rest is irrelevant

Just because something has not been legislated on does not prevent it from being a right. Before women got the vote, it was not their "right". Before the civil rights movement, there were many rights that people of color did not have. For substantive due process (what we commonly think of as 'equal protection under the law'), a 'natural right' (one the government can not take away if there is any other solution) is defined as 'anything with a longstanding history in custom'. Is it customary for married people to be allowed to live together, benefit from each other's income, have "conjugal relations" and a dozen other things that married people do? Yes. In fact one of the reasons prisoners are eligible for conjugal visits is because the government can not deprive the non-criminal spouse of this right.



'And? So many things in life are.'

We have an implied right to privacy in the constitution, since we are protected against unreasonable government searches and seizures. The government has the right to determine that immigrants are not criminals, that the US Citizen is in fact a Citizen, and that the couple is legally married. Determining that their marriage is 'good' is beyond this scope. Questioning alll citizens because one might decide to commit a crime is a bit like questioning all Latinos because there was a burgalry in the area.

'You said 8 months (that is less than one year)'

8-9 months is the average processing time. Many couples are separated longer (that would be the 'drag in for years bit'). The word limit was vexatious.

'That was not my perspective. I agree with speeding up.

I am not so sure it is reasonable to ask US Taxpayers to subsidise the process. Personally it would have been nice, but morally not so sure. I would have happily paid whatever to have it done in a month rather than a year.[/QUOTE]'

As would I, though that itself is a hornet's nest where those who can afford it get their families back, and those who can't might wait longer. I hardly think the petition calls for tax payer subsidies. As I said, it does not call for an end to fees, but enumerates fees as one of the obstacles imposed on these unions. There are other possible solutions which I did not enumerate because of the word limit, but one among them is allowing foreign spouses extended tourist visas, or simply making sure they are not turned away at the border just because the agent is suspicious. After all, plenty of people come over, say 'oops we got married!' and adjust status. Why is this dishonesty incentivized while doing things by the law and the letter is comparatively punitive?

On the subject of partnership marriages, there is also a petition going at whitehouse.gov. You might also want to check out the "Reuniting Families Act" chaired by Mike Honda. I didn't make that a component of this petition because of space constraints, and because it is already being addressed elsewhere.

S Folinsky

I'm missing how there is a denial of equal protection inasmuch as it is limited to CR-1/IR-1 immigration without mention of FB-2A spousal immigration. And that would be a denial of to lawful permanent residents, no?

Also, I do not see anything in the US laws that compels the US petitioner and the alien beneficiary to live apart while the process is pending.

Also, just because someone might disagree with a legal situation does not make it "unconstitutional."

fatbrit

...except on Faux News.

PantomimeGoose

"

Is it really so outlandish to think that being separated from your family for half a year or more is inequitable treatment? Paying fees to petition the government for that privilege? Being held to a higher income standard than others who want to marry? Possibly having to turn over your personal conversations to an agent for scrutiny? I'll be the first to admit this isn't some flawless proposal for legislation, and I'm no legal expert, but based on what i know of our legal system, none of that seems just.

celticgrid

Given that there are undeniably costs involved in the process, who do you suggest should pay for them?

BILDER

Yeah it is. You know why? Because individuals involved should have known what they were getting into beforehand and researched all of the immigration issues. The policies aren't perfect, but the language used on your petition is just too simplistic.

PantomimeGoose

The petition doesn't specifically advocate for the removal of fees, it is just mentioned as one of potential hardships faced by US Citizens undergoing this process. I am fairly certain that the fees exceed the cost of background checks, and I am willing to bet something could be done to either lower them, make the bureaucracy more efficient, or both. This is just a guess, having worked for a government agency and seeing how inefficiently they can operate. Without knowing more about the specific inner workings of USCIS, NVC, and the Consulates, any alternate solutions I suggest would most likely be lacking.