Vicious Stories: Tragic And Apocryphal
By Fazal M. Kamal
22 May, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Stories relating to applying for and either being granted a visa or being denied one---especially to some "advanced and developed" countries, like Australia, Britain, the US and a host of places in Europe---are aplenty particularly among people native to the "third world". Of course, right at the beginning it must be declared that there is indeed a tremendous urge among a large number of people from developing nations to get to these advanced economies and thereby "make something of life," as someone announced. Also it's necessary to state that this hack never had any issues while getting visas to any country. Fortunately, I suppose.
However, here's a take on this subject: "To find myself in the middle of America's immigration crisis, and at the mercy of extremely stringent immigration laws – I can't leave the country to visit my family, as there's a strong chance I won’t be allowed back in, and the last time I was home 'Ukip' was a dirty word – has been a complete shock," writes Lucy Westcott in the Guardian.
She goes on to say, "My journey into the abyss of the US immigration system comes at a crucial time. While my fellow British visa-seeking friends and I aren't part of the estimated 11m undocumented immigrants living in the shadows of America, lawmakers are still talking about us as they dither over proposed immigration reform, which has all but died a slow and sad death in Washington."
"We are confronted with government websites doused in indecipherable immigration-ese; we have internalized the sagas of unlucky applicants; we face partially unknown futures until the visa is approved and in our hands," Westcott clarifies. "And under no circumstances do we jaywalk in a city where the No 1 form of transportation is crossing the road into oncoming traffic. Tickets have gone up by an enormous 800% in New York this year alone, and I am terrified that I might catch an officer having a bad day with a quota to fill."
This provides me with the opportunity to describe a few of my own experience with the "system," if I maybe allowed to use that euphemism. Nearly four decades back---obviously well before the infamous 9/11 events---someone I knew well applied for a two-year US visa to complete his studies at an American university. Of course it couldn't be that simple; the consular officer kept on asking (demanding?) for more and still more paper evidence to prove that the applicant would return to his country.
In spite of having submitted many different pieces of "evidence" the officer persisted with his reluctance. Now recall that the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" were not yet in vogue and, more significantly, I knew of a number of applicants who were prime candidates to overstay their visas but nevertheless received theirs without much ado. Equally important and relevant was the knowledge that the person now being given the runaround had absolutely no earthly or unearthly reason to "jump ship", to put it simply.
Consequently, on moral grounds specially, I intervened and assured the officer concerned that since his family was more than well off in social, societal, economic and other similar terms, the bureaucrat didn't have to fear that he might be giving free passage to someone who was determined to disappear in the crowd. Moreover, I felt strongly enough to tell the official that once the student returned I would immediately inform him. In fact, the student succesfully completed his course earlier than expected and returned home before the two years were over. And, certainly, I didn't miss the opportunity to personally give this news to the consular mandarin.
Given the fact that notorious criminals of myriad nationalities are found to be enjoying a selection of countries they can go to, it is logical to wonder why honest and law-abiding persons often are victims of what Lucy Westcott aptly describes as "an officer having a bad day with a quota to fill." Because in reality it's not just young people or students who become snared in bureaucratic tentacles of the consular sections. I've personally known of at least one established, well-known and asset-wealthy investor in Bangladesh who was---lo! behold! etc!---declined visas for himself and his wife to visit Canada!
Since this was clearly a travesty of fairness I made an appointment with the then Canadian high commissioner so that my friend could present this obvious error in judgment to the head of mission. The outcome was, as expected, the Bangladeshi entrepreneur and his wife were accorded the visas they were so superciliously denied. In a very recent episode, once again---lo! behold! etc!---involving the consular section of the Canadian high commission, someone who'd been to that country with his spouse previously and hadn't decided to remain there, was refused visas just about a month back.
Though this applicant has been working for the same newspaper for more than two decades and his wife has been with the leading university of Bangladesh for almost a similar period, the high commission felt---here's the delicious part---that the applicants' asset hadn't increased in the past one year, even though his salary had taken yet another jump. Of course, to be fair one must admit that it's entirely possible that that specific official could've been having the proverbial bad day which could've emanated from having no breakfast to eating an atrocious lunch or anything in between.
Evidently, many visa officers have enormous difficulties discerning between "economic migrants" and genuine visitors. The above-cited tale is one such among perhaps many. While it's a fact that both poor economic circumstances and poor governance provide the relevant impetus to desperately attempt to get across the oceans and seas, this isn't, clearly, the case with everyone living in countries where both those grounds are extant. Moreover, as I've found out from interviews, not everybody denied visas have the tenacity to pursue their cases till justice is upheld.
Yet despite all the tragic as well as apocryphal anecdotes, the United States continues to be the country that accommodates the largest number of immigrants; which means it officially grants different types of visas that allow people from all across the world to come to this country for various reasons. According to a recent report, "The United States has always been regarded as a nation of immigrants. Recently-published figures from the United Nations support this view. More than 45 million immigrants live in the U.S., according to UN figures, more than four times as many living in any other nation in the world."
Additionally, as Lucy Westcott observed in her Guardian article, "What few minor victories there have been to the US system mainly benefit legal immigrants. Deportations of 'alien minors' slowed down under the Dream Act, and Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative allowed many people who were brought to the US illegally as children to stay, as long as they fulfill certain criteria....[T]he Department of Homeland Security announced new rules to retain highly-skilled workers, including allowing the spouses of H1B visa holders to work, a necessary and ridiculously long overdue step."
(But let's not ignore the other side. Here's a Texas Congressman's view: “Well, because of the talk of amnesty [to illegal immigrants] in this town and because we do not have a secured border, then this administration and this Congress also is complicit in helping lure people into sex trafficking, into horrible situations," adding, during a speech in the House of Representatives, that US Attorney General Eric Holder was a “violator of his constitutional oath” because of the president’s policy of granting waivers to young children who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.)
Ultimately it seems that many consular officers---and this commenter appreciates some of the dilemmas the visa departments have to countenance since he has personal experience with such issues---but apparently those from Canada specifically, need to try to comprehend and orient themselves with the societal and social backgrounds of the applicants and, more importantly, see the facts to base their verdicts on, and not be swayed by the fertility of their imaginative powers. As has obviously happened in at least two cases illustrated in this article; one where the chief of mission corrected the injustice and another where an unfair and irrational decision persists.
The writer has been a media professional, in print and online newspapers as editor and commentator, and in public affairs, for over forty years
Comments are moderated
