NYTimes.com Article: Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report Says
Dec 22nd 2002, 6:34 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
NYTimes.com Article: Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report Says
This article from NYTimes.com
Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report Says
December 22, 2002
By JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - The State Department's system for
issuing nonimmigrant visas remains too lax and poorly
financed to screen out determined terrorists, the
department's inspector general has found.
In a review conducted between July and November,
investigators determined that many consular officials were
inexperienced or inadequately trained, that visa review
procedures varied from embassy to embassy and that a
program to identify terrorism suspects needed more money.
The Sept. 11 attacks should have brought about "immediate
and dramatic changes" in how visas are handled, the
inspector general's office said.
"This has not happened," said the report, released this
week. "A fundamental readjustment of department leadership
regarding visa issuance and denial has not taken place."
The review was conducted at the request of Senator Charles
E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, after the Sept. 11 attacks
highlighted shortcomings in the nonimmigrant visa system.
The findings were based on visits to 27 embassies or
consulates, many of them in the Middle East.
Nonimmigrant visas are issued to foreigners who are
expected to stay only temporarily in the United States for
things like sightseeing, medical treatment, business or
study.
Partly out of concerns about security problems in the State
Department's visa programs, Congress recently transferred
responsibility for visa policy to the new Department of
Homeland Security. But the State Department will continue
to run the programs.
In a report issued last month, the General Accounting
Office, an investigative unit of Congress, also found
security breakdowns in the visa programs.
In a reply to the inspector general, Maura Harty, the
assistant secretary of state for consular affairs, said
that many of the report's recommendations had already been
undertaken. Ms. Harty also argued the office had made
"immediate and dramatic" improvements, including doubling
the number of names on a watch list of possible terrorists
used in visa reviews.
The State Department's failures before Sept. 11 "are but a
piece of a total picture that includes the entire national
security and immigration policy apparatus of the United
States government," she wrote.
One of the major shortcomings documented by the inspector
general was that visa applications were typically handled
by junior officials who considered their work a "rite of
passage" to be completed as quickly as possible.
The report recommended that the department require two-year
rotations for consular section jobs to increase the
longevity and expertise of visa reviewers. It also called
for requiring all consular officials to receive more
extensive language and interview training to help them
identify dishonest applicants.
The report found that some embassies were more lax than
others about requiring in-person interviews, and suggested
that longer, better interviews could weed out terrorists.
It also raised concerns that some applications from travel
agents were not reviewed rigorously enough.
The report also found that the databases used in many visa
offices were inadequate, lacking, for instance, information
from the State Department's fraud investigations.
The report included a classified section raising concerns
about the Visa Viper program, which gathers information
from embassies to create a central watch list of suspected
terrorists that is available to consular officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/22/po...584896&ei=1&en
=860164898a39168c
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report Says
December 22, 2002
By JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - The State Department's system for
issuing nonimmigrant visas remains too lax and poorly
financed to screen out determined terrorists, the
department's inspector general has found.
In a review conducted between July and November,
investigators determined that many consular officials were
inexperienced or inadequately trained, that visa review
procedures varied from embassy to embassy and that a
program to identify terrorism suspects needed more money.
The Sept. 11 attacks should have brought about "immediate
and dramatic changes" in how visas are handled, the
inspector general's office said.
"This has not happened," said the report, released this
week. "A fundamental readjustment of department leadership
regarding visa issuance and denial has not taken place."
The review was conducted at the request of Senator Charles
E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, after the Sept. 11 attacks
highlighted shortcomings in the nonimmigrant visa system.
The findings were based on visits to 27 embassies or
consulates, many of them in the Middle East.
Nonimmigrant visas are issued to foreigners who are
expected to stay only temporarily in the United States for
things like sightseeing, medical treatment, business or
study.
Partly out of concerns about security problems in the State
Department's visa programs, Congress recently transferred
responsibility for visa policy to the new Department of
Homeland Security. But the State Department will continue
to run the programs.
In a report issued last month, the General Accounting
Office, an investigative unit of Congress, also found
security breakdowns in the visa programs.
In a reply to the inspector general, Maura Harty, the
assistant secretary of state for consular affairs, said
that many of the report's recommendations had already been
undertaken. Ms. Harty also argued the office had made
"immediate and dramatic" improvements, including doubling
the number of names on a watch list of possible terrorists
used in visa reviews.
The State Department's failures before Sept. 11 "are but a
piece of a total picture that includes the entire national
security and immigration policy apparatus of the United
States government," she wrote.
One of the major shortcomings documented by the inspector
general was that visa applications were typically handled
by junior officials who considered their work a "rite of
passage" to be completed as quickly as possible.
The report recommended that the department require two-year
rotations for consular section jobs to increase the
longevity and expertise of visa reviewers. It also called
for requiring all consular officials to receive more
extensive language and interview training to help them
identify dishonest applicants.
The report found that some embassies were more lax than
others about requiring in-person interviews, and suggested
that longer, better interviews could weed out terrorists.
It also raised concerns that some applications from travel
agents were not reviewed rigorously enough.
The report also found that the databases used in many visa
offices were inadequate, lacking, for instance, information
from the State Department's fraud investigations.
The report included a classified section raising concerns
about the Visa Viper program, which gathers information
from embassies to create a central watch list of suspected
terrorists that is available to consular officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/22/po...584896&ei=1&en
=860164898a39168c
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
Dec 22nd 2002, 6:37 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: NYTimes.com Article: Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report
Jez, if they'd do it like they treat women in Russia and Ukraine, there
wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad they don't
apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
Ronald Austin wrote:
> This article from NYTimes.com
>
> Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report Says
> December 22, 2002
> By JAMES DAO
>
> WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - The State Department's system for
> issuing nonimmigrant visas remains too lax and poorly
> financed to screen out determined terrorists, the
> department's inspector general has found.
>
> In a review conducted between July and November,
> investigators determined that many consular officials were
> inexperienced or inadequately trained, that visa review
> procedures varied from embassy to embassy and that a
> program to identify terrorism suspects needed more money.
>
> The Sept. 11 attacks should have brought about "immediate
> and dramatic changes" in how visas are handled, the
> inspector general's office said.
>
> "This has not happened," said the report, released this
> week. "A fundamental readjustment of department leadership
> regarding visa issuance and denial has not taken place."
>
> The review was conducted at the request of Senator Charles
> E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, after the Sept. 11 attacks
> highlighted shortcomings in the nonimmigrant visa system.
> The findings were based on visits to 27 embassies or
> consulates, many of them in the Middle East.
>
> Nonimmigrant visas are issued to foreigners who are
> expected to stay only temporarily in the United States for
> things like sightseeing, medical treatment, business or
> study.
>
> Partly out of concerns about security problems in the State
> Department's visa programs, Congress recently transferred
> responsibility for visa policy to the new Department of
> Homeland Security. But the State Department will continue
> to run the programs.
>
> In a report issued last month, the General Accounting
> Office, an investigative unit of Congress, also found
> security breakdowns in the visa programs.
>
> In a reply to the inspector general, Maura Harty, the
> assistant secretary of state for consular affairs, said
> that many of the report's recommendations had already been
> undertaken. Ms. Harty also argued the office had made
> "immediate and dramatic" improvements, including doubling
> the number of names on a watch list of possible terrorists
> used in visa reviews.
>
> The State Department's failures before Sept. 11 "are but a
> piece of a total picture that includes the entire national
> security and immigration policy apparatus of the United
> States government," she wrote.
>
> One of the major shortcomings documented by the inspector
> general was that visa applications were typically handled
> by junior officials who considered their work a "rite of
> passage" to be completed as quickly as possible.
>
> The report recommended that the department require two-year
> rotations for consular section jobs to increase the
> longevity and expertise of visa reviewers. It also called
> for requiring all consular officials to receive more
> extensive language and interview training to help them
> identify dishonest applicants.
>
> The report found that some embassies were more lax than
> others about requiring in-person interviews, and suggested
> that longer, better interviews could weed out terrorists.
> It also raised concerns that some applications from travel
> agents were not reviewed rigorously enough.
>
> The report also found that the databases used in many visa
> offices were inadequate, lacking, for instance, information
> from the State Department's fraud investigations.
>
> The report included a classified section raising concerns
> about the Visa Viper program, which gathers information
> from embassies to create a central watch list of suspected
> terrorists that is available to consular officials.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/22/po...584896&ei=1&en
> =860164898a39168c
>
> Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
>
>
wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad they don't
apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
Ronald Austin wrote:
> This article from NYTimes.com
>
> Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report Says
> December 22, 2002
> By JAMES DAO
>
> WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - The State Department's system for
> issuing nonimmigrant visas remains too lax and poorly
> financed to screen out determined terrorists, the
> department's inspector general has found.
>
> In a review conducted between July and November,
> investigators determined that many consular officials were
> inexperienced or inadequately trained, that visa review
> procedures varied from embassy to embassy and that a
> program to identify terrorism suspects needed more money.
>
> The Sept. 11 attacks should have brought about "immediate
> and dramatic changes" in how visas are handled, the
> inspector general's office said.
>
> "This has not happened," said the report, released this
> week. "A fundamental readjustment of department leadership
> regarding visa issuance and denial has not taken place."
>
> The review was conducted at the request of Senator Charles
> E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, after the Sept. 11 attacks
> highlighted shortcomings in the nonimmigrant visa system.
> The findings were based on visits to 27 embassies or
> consulates, many of them in the Middle East.
>
> Nonimmigrant visas are issued to foreigners who are
> expected to stay only temporarily in the United States for
> things like sightseeing, medical treatment, business or
> study.
>
> Partly out of concerns about security problems in the State
> Department's visa programs, Congress recently transferred
> responsibility for visa policy to the new Department of
> Homeland Security. But the State Department will continue
> to run the programs.
>
> In a report issued last month, the General Accounting
> Office, an investigative unit of Congress, also found
> security breakdowns in the visa programs.
>
> In a reply to the inspector general, Maura Harty, the
> assistant secretary of state for consular affairs, said
> that many of the report's recommendations had already been
> undertaken. Ms. Harty also argued the office had made
> "immediate and dramatic" improvements, including doubling
> the number of names on a watch list of possible terrorists
> used in visa reviews.
>
> The State Department's failures before Sept. 11 "are but a
> piece of a total picture that includes the entire national
> security and immigration policy apparatus of the United
> States government," she wrote.
>
> One of the major shortcomings documented by the inspector
> general was that visa applications were typically handled
> by junior officials who considered their work a "rite of
> passage" to be completed as quickly as possible.
>
> The report recommended that the department require two-year
> rotations for consular section jobs to increase the
> longevity and expertise of visa reviewers. It also called
> for requiring all consular officials to receive more
> extensive language and interview training to help them
> identify dishonest applicants.
>
> The report found that some embassies were more lax than
> others about requiring in-person interviews, and suggested
> that longer, better interviews could weed out terrorists.
> It also raised concerns that some applications from travel
> agents were not reviewed rigorously enough.
>
> The report also found that the databases used in many visa
> offices were inadequate, lacking, for instance, information
> from the State Department's fraud investigations.
>
> The report included a classified section raising concerns
> about the Visa Viper program, which gathers information
> from embassies to create a central watch list of suspected
> terrorists that is available to consular officials.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/22/po...584896&ei=1&en
> =860164898a39168c
>
> Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
>
>
Dec 22nd 2002, 7:21 pm
#3
Oregon/ShangHai
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 394
Re: NYTimes.com Article: Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report
Actually, the Homeland Security bill makes SA the only place where visa issuance has been taken away from State and puts the approval with the new department. Please try to keep up.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray112202.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray112202.asp
Originally posted by Steve
Jez, if they'd do it like they treat women in Russia and Ukraine, there
wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad they don't
apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
Jez, if they'd do it like they treat women in Russia and Ukraine, there
wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad they don't
apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
Dec 22nd 2002, 9:06 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: NYTimes.com Article: Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report
You missed my entire point.
donahso wrote:
> Actually, the Homeland Security bill makes SA the only place where visa
> issuance has been taken away from State and puts the approval with the
> new department. Please try to keep up.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray112202.asp
>
> Originally posted by Steve
>
>>Jez, if they'd do it like they treat women in Russia and
>>Ukraine, there
>>wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad
>>they don't
>>apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
donahso wrote:
> Actually, the Homeland Security bill makes SA the only place where visa
> issuance has been taken away from State and puts the approval with the
> new department. Please try to keep up.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray112202.asp
>
> Originally posted by Steve
>
>>Jez, if they'd do it like they treat women in Russia and
>>Ukraine, there
>>wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad
>>they don't
>>apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Dec 22nd 2002, 9:11 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: NYTimes.com Article: Consuls Lax in Screening for Visas, Report
And you seem to forget that until recently a SA could go to a 'visa
express' office and get a visa fairly easily and never even see an
American until getting off the plane in NYC. Yes, an attractive single
Russian woman can only get a tourist visa in her dreams.
And even if it has been transferred to Homeland Security, my point is
still valid. They can still get one, whereas a Russian woman can't.
Seems like we think an attractive single woman coming here to visit and
maybe staying is much worse than than the risk of a possible terrorist
coming here. We can 'profile' Russians based on looks, age, and marital
status, but can't 'profile' terrorists in a similar way.
Even many universities here are refusing to divulge their records to the
Homeland Security department so they can verify if a student visa
recipient is really going to school.
Your response sounds like that just because it has been moved under
Homeland Security, then everything is okay.
And, I do a pretty good job of keeping up - must you be so
condescending? Or is that your normal nature?
donahso wrote:
> Actually, the Homeland Security bill makes SA the only place where visa
> issuance has been taken away from State and puts the approval with the
> new department. Please try to keep up.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray112202.asp
>
> Originally posted by Steve
>
>>Jez, if they'd do it like they treat women in Russia and
>>Ukraine, there
>>wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad
>>they don't
>>apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
express' office and get a visa fairly easily and never even see an
American until getting off the plane in NYC. Yes, an attractive single
Russian woman can only get a tourist visa in her dreams.
And even if it has been transferred to Homeland Security, my point is
still valid. They can still get one, whereas a Russian woman can't.
Seems like we think an attractive single woman coming here to visit and
maybe staying is much worse than than the risk of a possible terrorist
coming here. We can 'profile' Russians based on looks, age, and marital
status, but can't 'profile' terrorists in a similar way.
Even many universities here are refusing to divulge their records to the
Homeland Security department so they can verify if a student visa
recipient is really going to school.
Your response sounds like that just because it has been moved under
Homeland Security, then everything is okay.
And, I do a pretty good job of keeping up - must you be so
condescending? Or is that your normal nature?
donahso wrote:
> Actually, the Homeland Security bill makes SA the only place where visa
> issuance has been taken away from State and puts the approval with the
> new department. Please try to keep up.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray112202.asp
>
> Originally posted by Steve
>
>>Jez, if they'd do it like they treat women in Russia and
>>Ukraine, there
>>wouldn't be a problem - just don't give them a visa. Too bad
>>they don't
>>apply these same rules to Saudi Arabia.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
