State Department sued for withholding refugee records

[StLucieBengal]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/state-department-sued-for-withholding-refugee-records/

I think learning the process and how they decide to place people in certain areas is worth knowing. If we are getting stuck with them anyway the least they could do it be transparent on the process.

Quote:The State Department is being sued in a district court for allegedly withholding scores of documents and inter-agency communications detailing refugee resettlement efforts since 2014, according to an announcement of the suit on Monday.

Judicial Watch, a legal organization pushing for government transparency, announced the legal action on Monday, stating that the suit is part of a larger investigation into the Obama administration’s Refugee Resettlement Program, which is expected to resettle some 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States over the next year.

The lawsuit maintains that the Obama administration has stonewalled efforts to obtain inter-agency communications regarding the program, as well as records detailing the number of refugees admitted into the United States between 2013 and 2015.

The suit was filed after the Obama administration failed to respond to at least two separate Freedom of Information Act requests from Judicial Watch seeking these records.

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of withholding key information about the resettlement program from the American public.

“The Obama administration doesn’t want Americans to know about how it places refugees from terrorist states in their local communities,” Fitton said in a statement. “The fact we had to file a federal lawsuit to obtain basic information about Obama’s dangerous refugee plans should tell Americans (and Congress) that the Obama administration has something to hide about refugees, terrorism, and national security.”

The Obama administration is expected to spend about $582 million in taxpayer dollars to resettle refugees in America, according to figures issued by Judicial Watch. This will include $1,000 in spending cash for each refugee once they are settled in the United States.

Critics of the refugee program are concerned that the administration lacks the ability to properly vet potential refugees for ties to terror groups and other criminal organizations.

Recent reports have claimed that some Somali refugees have left the United States in order to fight alongside ISIS. One Somali refugee allegedly was tied to the San Bernardino shooters.

Judicial Watch is seeking to obtain records detailing “federal spending and other details about the refugee program,” according to a statement by the group. It also is seeking information about the independent contractors and non-profit organizations the administration is partnering with to carry out this effort.

[*michaelsean*]

Well the murderer in CA was checked three times. Turns out they decided not to check her social media. That's some in depth checking right there.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-14-2015, 04:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well the murderer in CA was checked three times.  Turns out they decided not to check her social media.  That's some in depth checking right there.

K-1 visa for anyone else forces a meeting and visual history together. With supporting documents. For a Muslim it's waived. Sorry but that is bs. Carving out exceptions for those who live in the Stone Age where women can not meet and take a photo with their potential husbands is unacceptable.

[Goalpost]

Glad that someone is checking.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-14-2015, 04:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:
K-1 visa for anyone else forces a meeting and visual history together.  With supporting documents.   For a Muslim it's waived.   Sorry but that is bs.   Carving out exceptions for those who live in the Stone Age where women can not meet and take a photo with their potential husbands is unacceptable.

As I understand, they're calling it the 'KY visa', these days.  I guess, so that they can slide in easier..

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/12/refugee-screening-official-asked-about-syrian-program-her-answer-is-mind-blowing/

[Benton]

(12-14-2015, 04:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: K-1 visa for anyone else forces a meeting and visual history together.  With supporting documents.   For a Muslim it's waived.   Sorry but that is bs.   Carving out exceptions for those who live in the Stone Age where women can not meet and take a photo with their potential husbands is unacceptable.

Good grief, do a google search before you type this stuff.

K-1's are for fiancees. You can petition on a case-by-case basis for the U.S. citizen to not have met his bride, but otherwise it follows the same standard of documentation. You've still got to have personal info. The exemption only covers things like arranged marriages, but those people still have to go through the screening process. It only exempts the requirement that the bride/groom have met.

http://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/fiancee-visa/fiancee-visas
* You (the petitioner) are a U.S. citizen.
* You intend to marry within 90 days of your fiancé(e) entering the United States.
* You and your fiancé(e) are both free to marry and any previous marriages must have been legally terminated by divorce, death, or annulment.
* You met each other, in person, at least once within 2 years of filing your petition. There are two exceptions that require a waiver:
1. If the requirement to meet would violate strict and long-established customs of your or your fiancé(e)’s foreign culture or social practice.
2. If you prove that the requirement to meet would result in extreme hardship to you.

There's no "muslim" exception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=1

Quote:Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.



Ms. Malik also had two in-person interviews, federal officials said, the first by a consular officer in Pakistan, and the second by an immigration officer in the United States when she applied for her green card.

http://www.hooyou.com/k-1/k-1-exceptions.html
http://www.visanow.com/k-1-fiance-visa-requirements-met-person/
http://richardbracken.com/waiver-of-the-k-1-visa-two-year-meeting-requirement/


You want to stop terrorist from coming in? Fund current immigration laws, increase intelligence spending.

[Mike M (the other one)]

It is very hard to get a waiver for the meeting part of the documentation. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it's very hard and increases the approval time significantly.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-14-2015, 08:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Good grief, do a google search before you type this stuff.

K-1's are for fiancees. You can petition on a case-by-case basis for the U.S. citizen to not have met his bride, but otherwise it follows the same standard of documentation. You've still got to have personal info. The exemption only covers things like arranged marriages, but those people still have to go through the screening process. It only exempts the requirement that the bride/groom have met.

http://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/fiancee-visa/fiancee-visas
   * You (the petitioner) are a U.S. citizen.
   * You intend to marry within 90 days of your fiancé(e) entering the United States.
   * You and your fiancé(e) are both free to marry and any previous marriages must have been legally terminated by divorce, death, or annulment.
   * You met each other, in person, at least once within 2 years of filing your petition. There are two exceptions that require a waiver:
     1. If the requirement to meet would violate strict and long-established customs of your or your fiancé(e)’s foreign culture or social practice.
     2. If you prove that the requirement to meet would result in extreme hardship to you.

There's no "muslim" exception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=1



http://www.hooyou.com/k-1/k-1-exceptions.html
http://www.visanow.com/k-1-fiance-visa-requirements-met-person/
http://richardbracken.com/waiver-of-the-k-1-visa-two-year-meeting-requirement/


You want to stop terrorist from coming in? Fund current immigration laws, increase intelligence spending.

I am well versed in the k-1 process. The culture exception is nonsense .

[GMDino]

(12-14-2015, 08:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Good grief, do a google search before you type this stuff.

K-1's are for fiancees. You can petition on a case-by-case basis for the U.S. citizen to not have met his bride, but otherwise it follows the same standard of documentation. You've still got to have personal info. The exemption only covers things like arranged marriages, but those people still have to go through the screening process. It only exempts the requirement that the bride/groom have met.

http://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/fiancee-visa/fiancee-visas
   * You (the petitioner) are a U.S. citizen.
   * You intend to marry within 90 days of your fiancé(e) entering the United States.
   * You and your fiancé(e) are both free to marry and any previous marriages must have been legally terminated by divorce, death, or annulment.
   * You met each other, in person, at least once within 2 years of filing your petition. There are two exceptions that require a waiver:
     1. If the requirement to meet would violate strict and long-established customs of your or your fiancé(e)’s foreign culture or social practice.
     2. If you prove that the requirement to meet would result in extreme hardship to you.

There's no "muslim" exception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=1



http://www.hooyou.com/k-1/k-1-exceptions.html
http://www.visanow.com/k-1-fiance-visa-requirements-met-person/
http://richardbracken.com/waiver-of-the-k-1-visa-two-year-meeting-requirement/


You want to stop terrorist from coming in? Fund current immigration laws, increase intelligence spending.

But...but...Muslims.

[Benton]

(12-15-2015, 01:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am well versed in the k-1 process.  The culture exception is nonsense .

I don't think — if they're planning to attack something — they're going to have a problem lying about whether or not they've met. What you're complaining about is incidental and misdirects from the real problem: the woman passed through three security checks and TWO face-to-face interviews.

The screening — for whatever reason — didn't work. That's what needs to be addressed, not what type of visa she was here on.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-15-2015, 12:00 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't think — if they're planning to attack something — they're going to have a problem lying about whether or not they've met. What you're complaining about is incidental and misdirects from the real problem: the woman passed through three security checks and TWO face-to-face interviews.

The screening — for whatever reason — didn't work. That's what needs to be addressed, not what type of visa she was here on.

K-1 or K-3 visa's shouldn't have any exceptions to circumvent the criteria. Hiding behind saying that your culture doesn't allow you to see your wife before you marry isn't an excuse. There is a criteria set and it should be the same for all. That's all I am saying. I am speaking to the policy that the administration allowed these short cuts. If you can't show that you and your fiancé or wife have had a history is being together that includes more than a dating site or whatsapp. Should be able to see a history of flights, hotel reservations, visiting visa applications, photos, friends and family should know about them.

Now if you want to take away those standards then it should be the same for all. But then you get back to the rush of Ukrainian, Georgian and filipino women coming over to marry americans. Which is fine but we need to be consistent.

[Benton]

(12-16-2015, 12:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: K-1 or K-3 visa's shouldn't have any exceptions to circumvent the criteria.    Hiding behind saying that your culture doesn't allow you to see your wife before you marry isn't an excuse.   There is a criteria set and it should be the same for all.   That's all I am saying.   I am speaking to the policy that the administration allowed these short cuts.    If you can't show that you and your fiancé or wife have had a history is being together that includes more than a dating site or whatsapp.   Should be able to see a history of flights, hotel reservations, visiting visa applications, photos, friends and family should know about them.  

Now if you want to take away those standards then it should be the same for all.    But then you get back to the rush of Ukrainian, Georgian and filipino women coming over to marry americans.  Which is fine but we need to be consistent.

I just don't see the shortcut.

"You want to kill infidels? GREAT! Oh, you aren't willing to lie and say we've already met? Nuts, I guess we'll give up."



As far as the cultural exception, meh. A family I grew up with was from Greece. They were Christians. Their two sons had arranged marriages. Their daughter had an arranged marriage with someone from Greece she'd never met. It's not all third world countries, or religions you deem inferior. 

[StLucieBengal]

(12-16-2015, 12:54 AM)Benton Wrote: I just don't see the shortcut.

"You want to kill infidels? GREAT! Oh, you aren't willing to lie and say we've already met? Nuts, I guess we'll give up."



As far as the cultural exception, meh. A family I grew up with was from Greece. They were Christians. Their two sons had arranged marriages. Their daughter had an arranged marriage with someone from Greece she'd never met. It's not all third world countries, or religions you deem inferior. 

If you can't show a relationship then you shouldn't be coming here via marriage. Here in the west our relationships are public and we spend time together courting..... We know about our spouses and their families. Not sure why some get a free pass when others are held to the standard.

Am I to assume you are ok with having no relationship history standards for k-1 or k-3 visa? For all applicants.

And if you are then would you limit how many per year or by country? Or are you ok with letting as many as possible from any country?

[GMDino]

(12-16-2015, 01:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you can't show a relationship then you shouldn't be coming here via marriage.  Here in the west our relationships are public and we spend time together courting..... We know about our spouses and their families.   Not sure why some get a free pass when others are held to the standard.  

Am I to assume you are ok with having no relationship history standards for k-1 or k-3 visa?  For all applicants.  

And if you are then would you limit how many per year or by country?   Or are you ok with letting as many as possible from any country?

Who is "we"?

My best friend and college roommate never met my wife until the night before we got married.  Neither did 98% of my family.  Same goes for me and my wife's family.

In college I dated a girl that the only people who met her were my 4 closest friends.  And even then they didn't know where we went on dates or what we did.

I honest to jebus wish I understood YOUR definition of what life is like "in the west".

Maybe you'd look less crazy when you post about "our" culture.

[Benton]

(12-16-2015, 01:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you can't show a relationship then you shouldn't be coming here via marriage.  Here in the west our relationships are public and we spend time together courting..... We know about our spouses and their families.   Not sure why some get a free pass when others are held to the standard.  

Am I to assume you are ok with having no relationship history standards for k-1 or k-3 visa?  For all applicants.  

And if you are then would you limit how many per year or by country?   Or are you ok with letting as many as possible from any country?

http://www.alittlewhitechapel.com/our-specials-packages/drive-thru-packages/
http://www.702wedding.com/las-vegas-drive-thru-weddings.asp
http://www.drivethruidos.com/

Those are just a few of the first google results for drive through wedding chapels. Places you can get married in 5 minutes or less. We're the country that started that, in large part due to our culture of spontaneous marriages. Hell, my old roommate's mother (who was married six times) got married in Vegas twice to guys she just met. My wife and I only knew each other for a month before we ran off to Gatlinburg and got hitched.

It's kind of ironic you talk about out dated customs and archaic people... but then you refer to a courting custom that isn't even in the majority here any more.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-16-2015, 11:57 AM)Benton Wrote: http://www.alittlewhitechapel.com/our-specials-packages/drive-thru-packages/
http://www.702wedding.com/las-vegas-drive-thru-weddings.asp
http://www.drivethruidos.com/

Those are just a few of the first google results for drive through wedding chapels. Places you can get married in 5 minutes or less. We're the country that started that, in large part due to our culture of spontaneous marriages. Hell, my old roommate's mother (who was married six times) got married in Vegas twice to guys she just met. My wife and I only knew each other for a month before we ran off to Gatlinburg and got hitched.

It's kind of ironic you talk about out dated customs and archaic people... but then you refer to a courting custom that isn't even in the majority here any more.

These aren't people trying to get citizenship either.  .

So I guess you are ok with no proof of a relationship for a K-1 visa then?

Oddly I do not know anyone who just met and married immediately. Some were quick marriages but always at least a monthish.

[Benton]

(12-16-2015, 12:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: These aren't people trying to get citizenship either.  .

 

That wasn't the point being addressed.

Quote:Here in the west our relationships are public and we spend time together courting..... We know about our spouses and their families.   Not sure why some get a free pass when others are held to the standard.  

Getting married to someone you just met — in a parking lot — isn't extolling courtship rituals.

[Se ky bengal]

(12-16-2015, 12:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: These aren't people trying to get citizenship either.  .

So I guess you are ok with no proof of a relationship for a K-1 visa then?

Oddly I do not know anyone who just met and married immediately.   Some were quick marriages but always at least a monthish.

My wife and I,met she spent the night at my place and we've been together for 17 years. Grant it we didn't marry right away,but never left. She was home

[StLucieBengal]

(12-16-2015, 06:07 PM)Se ky bengal Wrote: My wife and I,met she spent the night at my place and we've been together for 17 years. Grant it we didn't marry right away,but never left. She was home

Marrying right away is the key point. She may have never left but you guys didn't seal it with marriage until later. Anything pre marriage would be considered a courtship.