an answer from Jessica Vaughan, and my reply to her
Hi there
I saw you boss today on a re-broadcast of the hearing, I will say that I do have to watch it again because I’m rushing out the door door to get a flight to see my married partner in Canada we are buying a car up there for him to us.
As I watched her I did remember on some blog that we got into a heat war on words and after about two or three threads she banned my from posting.
The braodcast:
#1 She can talk a good game
#2 She has no idea what she is talking about
#3 most bi-national couples have good strong docs that can proof they are in a loving relationship
#4 hardships for the embassies, come on, at $200.00 a visa and you only get 4 to 5 minutes with an interviewer. They can afford to hire more staff, and should in general.
#5 she never said what kind of fraud and if that’s the case they should stop all issuing of all marriage green cards.
#6” create a new category” its just going to change some words around not add a new category
This is just the tip of the ice burg
Thanks
Roy
—–Original Message—–
From: Jon Feere [mailto:jdf@cis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:19 AM
To: royb@
Subject: UAFA Statement
Dear Roy –
I’ve had some difficulty reaching Jessica Vaughan because she’s been traveling to D.C. for the hearing. I was able to locate her testimony, however, so hopefully it will answer your questions. The Center’s main concern is that this legislation will increase opportunity for fraud but does not provide additional tools for the immigration agencies to counter any fraud that may arise. It’s an issue of accurate adjudication that is our central focus. As Jessica Vaughan explains:
“Despite the fact that this proposal would produce an increase in benefits applications, and the fact that these benefits applications as a group would be especially vulnerable to fraud, the bill provides no new tools or resources for the State Department, USCIS, or state and local governments to preserve the integrity of the process and to fight fraud. The bill simply states that the existing anti-fraud measures and punishments, which are already inadequate, will apply to this category as well. Any proposal to create a new category such as this should also try to improve our benefits adjudication process so as to minimize the new cases of fraud.”
Here is her complete testimony:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3876&wit_id=8005
Sincerely,
Jon Feere
Legal Policy Analyst
Center for Immigration Studies