FBI & USCIS will end the name check blockage by 9/30/06

[meshmesh]

Would you care to help me "understand the scope of namecheck" ..sir?

The chance of terrorist applying for US citizenship is very remote. Instead of holding legal people in name check queue while closing ones eyes to the 12 million illegals is the greatest farce one can imagine. We have no problem with people sneaking over the border and living here for decades, but educated highlyskilled legal immigrants are made to go through all these hoops. A total waste of time in my opinion.

That's the whole idea.
The name check process is a total pullshit.
When the goverment says:we don't single people out based on thier race.....pla,pla,pla, means they do single people out based on thier race.....pla,pla,pla.it's a very obvious process, they just trying to be smart asses, and get away with what ever the fuck they do.
Don't get me wrong, this racism source is not coming from the small offeciers they interview us in the dirsrtict offecies, they are very nice and helpfule, It's coming from the big guys in this government.
And i really don't know why me and you and her have to be penalized because of these fucken politics and politicions.
Is that's the sole of U.S.A, is that's what they trying to show the world about america.
fuck this crab, it's a real mess.

 

[brb2]

Query 11 you are taking my comments a bit too personally!

I clubbed India/China together for the simple reason that there are many common names in such a large population and there is higher chance of getting a "hit" during name check. Kumar and Singh are common names in north india and Rao is a common name in the south. Similarly there are 100 million Zhangs in China. China has around 438 last names. The FBI names checks are done for each name (first, middle and last) and then do with permutations and combinations of each with the other and in pairs. So it is quite possible that people common names from these large countries may generate a "hit" during the name check process and will require an analyst to manually investigate it further.

My conclusions in my previous post were not to denigrate any one (Indians, Chinese or Muslims). I hope we are rational enough to try to understand why name checks take so long for some and not for others. We can only go by annecdotal postings here to arrive at some conclusions. Initially the impression was that delays were only for people with middle eastern names, but it looks like there are a large number of people from India and China stuck in the name check fiasco too.

Below is a reference which meshmesh might find interesting. Some Egyptians are suing USCIS for delays in background check for muslims.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-discrim05.html

btw brb i have lots of respect for u,so if you want me to call this debate off just let me know.alrite brother goodnite fer now.

 

[query11]

i agree with you regarding name checks...
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms:


Inter-Agency Border Inspection System (IBIS) Name Check – IBIS is database of lookouts, warrants, arrests, and convictions consolidated from over 20 agencies.USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS are usually available immediately. In some instance, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation.


FBI Fingerprinting Check – The FBI’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) matches criminal history records from federal, military, and most state apprehensions.It provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24 to 48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history to USCIS.At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility benefit. About ten percent of the inquiries submitted by USCIS uncover criminal history, including immigration violations.


FBI Name Checks –The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. USCIS electronically submits the applicant’s name to the FBI National Check Program.The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases remain pending longer than six months.


For petitions and application filed in consulates, there are other security checks involved.These are: (1) Visa Condor checks which arise from information disclosed on a Form DS 157 or because a person is from designated terrorist countries like of Iran, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, North Korea or Libya; (2) Visa Mantis checks relating to an applicant, who because of his actions or background, may be involved in the transfer of sensitive technology; and (3) criminal background checks which arise from a hit in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database or from other sources.



but
there are as probably as many gonzalvez in this world as Mr rao's.
there are as many lopez in this world as Mr. singh's.
there are as many antonio's in this world as Kumar's.
there are smith's,Gutierrez,barera's .
And the number of gonzalvez,smith,lopez antonio,barera's migrating to u.s.a is far more than singh's,rao's,kumar's,khan's....
there are more hispanics migrating to america than asians(not to forget the additional 6-7 million in line for legalization)...so plz do not just talk about asians.
like i said asians are definitely targeted but then the chances of a hispanic guy getting cought in a name check is far more than a asian...because name check does not pertain to terorism only....cheers

there are more number of lopez,antonio's,smith's wanted by the authorities than zhang(which happens to be the 3rd most poppular surname in the world)
also,the number of zhangs migrating to u.s.a is far less than a lopez or martinez
remeber the othr guy krishna498,he was not a terrorist but he had a case in india and alerted by interpol...
name check does not only check for names matching with terrorists...
the system gives a hit when ur name matches with a criminals/wanted by local authorities....and there are far more drug peddlers/criminals wanted by fbi who have non-terrorist names.
krishna sorry to take your name,plz remember i know your problem and i support you.but i am just defining name check with your example.

Query 11 you are taking my comments a bit too personally!

I clubbed India/China together for the simple reason that there are many common names in such a large population and there is higher chance of getting a "hit" during name check. Kumar and Singh are common names in north india and Rao is a common name in the south. Similarly there are 100 million Zhangs in China. China has around 438 last names. The FBI names checks are done for each name (first, middle and last) and then do with permutations and combinations of each with the other and in pairs. So it is quite possible that people from these large companies may have a "hit" during the process and will need an analyst to to look in to it.

My conclusions in my previous post were not to denigrate any one (Indians, Chinese or Muslims). I hope we are rational enough to try to understand why name checks take so long for some and not for others. We can only go by annecdotal postings here to arrive at some conclusions. Initially the impression was that delays were only for people with middle eastern names, but it looks like there are a large number of people from India and China stuck in the name check fiasco too.

Below is a reference which meshmesh might find interesting. Some Egyptians are suing USCIS for delays in background check for muslims.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-discrim05.html

 

[qili]

I think the only way to effectively fight terrorism with limited resources is to discriminate the populations where the terrorists are most likely come from. If you got mob'd in downtown Chicago, you wouldn't search New York for your suspects: they are likely in downtown Chicago - that is a form of discrimination by geography. Similarly, a lot of the terrorists so far have come from mid eastern countries and if your goal is to catch terrorists, you are likely pay more attention to people from that part of the world, unless you have unlimited resources.

I think discrimination (or focused search?) by race, nationality, gendar, age, and etc. are good practice, as long as we can back it up with solid science and great implementation.

someone made a good point earlier: the terrorists aren't going to be interested in putting themselves under the scrutiny of the law enforcement here and becoming an US citizen. If anything, they would try to hide away from the FBI, INS, etc. so putting citizenship applicants under this same security check doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Or the INS/FBI should be more discriminant in their handling of security checks for different types of applications.

 

[query11]

qili i agree with you,but my question is why would a terrorist trained in afghanistan try to migrate legally while he has the option of crossing the border(south) freely...
i think it is ridiculous...does anyone have any data as to how many people from asia went to cancun for vacation and dissaperared????

I think the only way to effectively fight terrorism with limited resources is to discriminate the populations where the terrorists are most likely come from. If you got mob'd in downtown Chicago, you wouldn't search New York for your suspects: they are likely in downtown Chicago - that is a form of discrimination by geography. Similarly, a lot of the terrorists so far have come from mid eastern countries and if your goal is to catch terrorists, you are likely pay more attention to people from that part of the world, unless you have unlimited resources.

I think discrimination (or focused search?) by race, nationality, gendar, age, and etc. are good practice, as long as we can back it up with solid science and great implementation.

someone made a good point earlier: the terrorists aren't going to be interested in putting themselves under the scrutiny of the law enforcement here and becoming an US citizen. If anything, they would try to hide away from the FBI, INS, etc. so putting citizenship applicants under this same security check doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Or the INS/FBI should be more discriminant in their handling of security checks for different types of applications.

 

[zzerous]

I think the only way to effectively fight terrorism with limited resources is to discriminate the populations where the terrorists are most likely come from. If you got mob'd in downtown Chicago, you wouldn't search New York for your suspects: they are likely in downtown Chicago - that is a form of discrimination by geography. Similarly, a lot of the terrorists so far have come from mid eastern countries and if your goal is to catch terrorists, you are likely pay more attention to people from that part of the world, unless you have unlimited resources.

I think discrimination (or focused search?) by race, nationality, gendar, age, and etc. are good practice, as long as we can back it up with solid science and great implementation.

someone made a good point earlier: the terrorists aren't going to be interested in putting themselves under the scrutiny of the law enforcement here and becoming an US citizen. If anything, they would try to hide away from the FBI, INS, etc. so putting citizenship applicants under this same security check doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Or the INS/FBI should be more discriminant in their handling of security checks for different types of applications.

I totally disagree with you and reject the premises of your statement. Not only it is in violation of the USA constitution, international law, civilized rules, laws and decent human practices but also an open invitation to profiling, racism and eventually ethnic cleansing.
The Mob example you provided to support your statement is irrelevant.

 

[meshmesh]

I think the only way to effectively fight terrorism with limited resources is to discriminate the populations where the terrorists are most likely come from. If you got mob'd in downtown Chicago, you wouldn't search New York for your suspects: they are likely in downtown Chicago - that is a form of discrimination by geography. Similarly, a lot of the terrorists so far have come from mid eastern countries and if your goal is to catch terrorists, you are likely pay more attention to people from that part of the world, unless you have unlimited resources.

I think discrimination (or focused search?) by race, nationality, gendar, age, and etc. are good practice, as long as we can back it up with solid science and great implementation.

this statment is a sign of stupidty. i hope you don't really mean it, or it's just a mistake, or you wrot it under alcohol influance.
If you don't know anything about middleeastren people, i can teach you a history lissons about them. they are scientists, doctors, engeneers...and you may need to read the history agin to know that terroism have no citizenship or race.
I agree there is a puch of criminals terrorist islamic radicals allover the world, but that's dosent mean that all middel eastrens or moslims are the same like thoes assholes.
If we started to measure things this way, all of the southamerican should be in gail because they sell drugs, or all germans should be killed because they're belong to the Nazy.....ect.
please back-up a little bit.

someone made a good point earlier: the terrorists aren't going to be interested in putting themselves under the scrutiny of the law enforcement here and becoming an US citizen. If anything, they would try to hide away from the FBI, INS, etc. so putting citizenship applicants under this same security check doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Or the INS/FBI should be more discriminant in their handling of security checks for different types of applications.Here I agree with you 101%, good point
[/QUOTE

 

[query11]

comeon zerrous,
lets face it,qili is right.
now we should implement his ideology....
We all know women complain tht some men cheat...so according to qili's ideology all women should stop seeing men and turn lesbians.
We all know how racist germans(nazi) are so profile immigrants from germany.
We all know brits ruled u.s.a for such a long time,so profile immigrants from britain you never know they might have a secret agenda to take over?.
We all know australians are nothing but an expansion of brit's ideologies including racism...so profile australians.
We all know south americans for their gangs(drugs) so profile south americans.
We all know italians for mobs...so profile italians..
We all know france is filled with right wing islamist's...so profile french having asian descent....
We all know african americans atleast some of them have no respect for law...profile them...
who is left...
We have a winner(qili),the lone eskimo from antartica.......

I totally disagree with you and reject the premises of your statement. Not only it is in violation of the USA constitution, international law, civilized rules, laws and decent human practices but also an open invitation to profiling, racism and eventually ethnic cleansing.
The Mob example you provided to support your statement is irrelevant.

 

[qili]

I agree there is a puch of criminals terrorist islamic radicals allover the world, but that's dosent mean that all middel eastrens or moslims are the same like thoes assholes.

you are right about not all of middle easterners are terrorists - I didn't suggest that. But it does suggest that your chance of catching a terrorist is higher among middle easterners. so that's where you should focus more of your efforts - aka discriminate against them.

the same thing holds true on gender: if we find out that most terrorists are young males, we should not focus as much on old females - that would be a waste of resources and we can be more efficient and catch more bad guys by focusing on or discriminating against young males.

Think about how tsa screened old grandmas and toddlers right after 9/11 and I am sure most sane people would see the absurdity of that practice which has since been abandoned.

Again, you have to discriminate unless you have unlimited resources.

 

[query11]

taking of females and toddlers...do u have any idea how many females and toddlers are used as suicide bombers..
one of india's ex pm was killed by a women suicide bomber.

you are right about not all of middle easterners are terrorists - I didn't suggest that. But it does suggest that your chance of catching a terrorist is higher among middle easterners. so that's where you should focus more of your efforts - aka discriminate against them.

the same thing holds true on gender: if we find out that most terrorists are young males, we should not focus as much on old females - that would be a waste of resources and we can be more efficient and catch more bad guys by focusing on or discriminating against young males.

Think about how tsa screened old grandmas and toddlers right after 9/11 and I am sure most sane people would see the absurdity of that practice which has since been abandoned.

Again, you have to discriminate unless you have unlimited resources.

 

[meshmesh]

you are right about not all of middle easterners are terrorists - I didn't suggest that. But it does suggest that your chance of catching a terrorist is higher among middle easterners. so that's where you should focus more of your efforts - aka discriminate against them.

the same thing holds true on gender: if we find out that most terrorists are young males, we should not focus as much on old females - that would be a waste of resources and we can be more efficient and catch more bad guys by focusing on or discriminating against young males.

Think about how tsa screened old grandmas and toddlers right after 9/11 and I am sure most sane people would see the absurdity of that practice which has since been abandoned.

Again, you have to discriminate unless you have unlimited resources.

Disrimination have nothing to do with resources.
Disrimination for sure is the tool of weak people.
Disrimination for sure is the tool of stupid people.
Disrimination promotes hate between people.
Discrination simply means that me and you and all the immigrants need to get ou of the U.s asap.

 

[qili]

i am not as sure. Let's say that we decided that building fences is the best way to protect our borders. we have just enough money to build 200 miles of borders. Where would you do it?

Would you do it on the US-Mexico borders? or on the US-Canadian borders? or on the east or west coast?

I would put in the Mexico border because historically that's where most of the illegal border crossings took place. That is a form of discrimination against law abidding Mexicans, and that doesn't mean we have no illegal border crossing at the Canadian side or from the two coasts.

Ideally, we would secure all of our borders. But if we only have limited resources, we should try to do it wherever it is most efficient and effective - aka discrimination.

I hope it is common sense for all of you.

 

[query11]

qili building a fence along the border is not related to discrimination...
all the countrie have fences along the border....

second..remember the issue of legalizing the 12 million ppl.
according to the new bill(which hasnt been passed yet),these 12 million ppl have to pay taxes for last 5 yrs god knows how they are going to calculate that and 2000$ fine per application...

now figure this out
2000$*12million...i would say we can build a fence all across u.s/canadian...and u.s/mexico border...

our dear president can use the spare money to send a couple of gift to the friends sitting in paki/afghan border(specially designed missiles)
....

i am not as sure. Let's say that we decided that building fences is the best way to protect our borders. we have just enough money to build 200 miles of borders. Where would you do it?

Would you do it on the US-Mexico borders? or on the US-Canadian borders? or on the east or west coast?

I would put in the Mexico border because historically that's where most of the illegal border crossings took place. That is a form of discrimination against law abidding Mexicans, and that doesn't mean we have no illegal border crossing at the Canadian side or from the two coasts.

Ideally, we would secure all of our borders. But if we only have limited resources, we should try to do it wherever it is most efficient and effective - aka discrimination.

I hope it is common sense for all of you.

 

[meshmesh]

i am not as sure. Let's say that we decided that building fences is the best way to protect our borders. we have just enough money to build 200 miles of borders. Where would you do it?

Would you do it on the US-Mexico borders? or on the US-Canadian borders? or on the east or west coast?

I would put in the Mexico border because historically that's where most of the illegal border crossings took place. That is a form of discrimination against law abidding Mexicans, and that doesn't mean we have no illegal border crossing at the Canadian side or from the two coasts.

Ideally, we would secure all of our borders. But if we only have limited resources, we should try to do it wherever it is most efficient and effective - aka discrimination.

I hope it is common sense for all of you.

You want to say that if we have a limtted resources, we have to keep evrybody has a name of Mohamed in his name structre out of the U.S, because he is a male, middle eastren, and mouslim. so the probabilty for him beign a torrarist is quit high.
Or may be his father is Mohamed, so, and because we have a limtted resources and we can't check his father background, we should keep him out of the U.S.
and so & so for his grandfather name, and we 're doing this because we have a limtted resources.
Ok following your rule and your resources logistic system, we should keep all westren european girls out of the U.S., because they may promote for the prostitution, and we don't have enough resources to fight IADS.
and following your same rule, we should keep all southamericans out, because they may sell drugs here in the U.S, and we dont have enough resources to hospitalize whoever buy thier drugs.
i think you drink a bad brand of beers, man

 

[query11]

hahahhaha ....
meshmesh you got a point my friend,its the drink....
lucky not a lot of ppl in uscis or fbi follow qilis ideology.

You want to say that if we have a limtted resources, we have to keep evrybody has a name of Mohamed in his name structre out of the U.S, because he is a male, middle eastren, and mouslim. so the probabilty for him beign a torrarist is quit high.
Or may be his father is Mohamed, so, and because we have a limtted resources and we can't check his father background, we should keep him out of the U.S.
and so & so for his grandfather name, and we 're doing this because we have a limtted resources.
Ok following your rule and your resources logistic system, we should keep all westren european girls out of the U.S., because they may promote for the prostitution, and we don't have enough resources to fight IADS.
and following your same rule, we should keep all southamericans out, because they may sell drugs here in the U.S, and we dont have enough resources to hospitalize whoever buy thier drugs.
i think you drink a bad brand of beers, man

 

[meshmesh]

hahahhaha ....
meshmesh you got a point my friend,its the drink....
lucky not a lot of ppl in uscis or fbi follow qilis ideology.

Or, they don't drink the same beer brand.
By the way,qili: what is it.

 

[qili]

we have to keep evrybody has a name of Mohamed in his name structre out of the U.S, because he is a male, middle eastren, and mouslim. so the probabilty for him beign a torrarist is quit high.

this has got to be the 4th time I mentioned this: no you don't keep every Mohamed out of this country. But you will spend more time and resources scrutinizing everyone who fits that profile, because the probability for him being a terrorist is higher. That is quite different from saying that everyone fits that profile is a terrorist and should be kept outside the country.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

 

[query11]

I think the only way to effectively fight terrorism with limited resources is to discriminate the populations where the terrorists are most likely come from. If you got mob'd in downtown Chicago, you wouldn't search New York for your suspects: they are likely in downtown Chicago - that is a form of discrimination by geography. Similarly, a lot of the terrorists so far have come from mid eastern countries and if your goal is to catch terrorists, you are likely pay more attention to people from that part of the world, unless you have unlimited resources.
I think discrimination (or focused search?) by race, nationality, gendar, age, and etc. are good practice, as long as we can back it up with solid science and great implementation.

someone made a good point earlier: the terrorists aren't going to be interested in putting themselves under the scrutiny of the law enforcement here and becoming an US citizen. If anything, they would try to hide away from the FBI, INS, etc. so putting citizenship applicants under this same security check doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Or the INS/FBI should be more discriminant in their handling of security checks for different types of applications.

 

[meshmesh]

this has got to be the 4th time I mentioned this: no you don't keep every Mohamed out of this country. But you will spend more time and resources scrutinizing everyone who fits that profile, because the probability for him being a terrorist is higher. That is quite different from saying that everyone fits that profile is a terrorist and should be kept outside the country.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

No tehy don't.
And they don't have the right to stop his life flow because of his name, race, religion, gender, age or ethinity.
That's the whole sole of the United States is about, and what thoes fuckers try to violate.
If you went to Mc. or KFC to look for a dirty, $6/hour job, the first statment you'll see in the job application is we don't discrimnate based on race, religion, gender, age or ethinity.
if a small business in the U.S. is doing this"and they really follow this rule", would'nt make more sense for the goverment of the United States of America to follow the same rule

 

[brb2]

Qili, you have a point, but this is exactly what the Israeli security force does NOT do. That is why they offloaded the shoe bomber, but the western system let the shoe bomber through! Because the western system was looking (and unfortunately continues to look) for a middle eastern man with a beard and likewise name - not a caucasian Christian male. Terrorists would love to have the security agencies to do profiling based on known factors such as race, age, religeon or sex or what have you. It makes their job easier to slip through the net. Israeli's are the only security forces which study all the risk factors and have been very successful. India has done an equally good job but the problem continues in Kashmir and now the naxal affected areas in the north east, north and south as well.

But my point is that delaying the name checks for thousands of otherwise law abiding permanent residents, in most cases who have never had any tiffs with the police is waste of FBI resources -that is when any one can walk through the southern border and live for decades in a parallel cash economy with no electronic trail.

I personally see the delays in security checks as a national security issue. If the background check process can not determine in 2- 4 years if the applicant is not a threat to the US, then it is time to offload this work to a private agency who can do a more effective job. God forbid, if a terrorist is stuck in name check for 2 years and committs a crime the politicians will take USCIS to the cleaners! There will be no place for USCSI to hide. At the end of the day, they give the work to FBI and it is their job to ask for expedite but they have no means to track the delays.

this has got to be the 4th time I mentioned this: no you don't keep every Mohamed out of this country. But you will spend more time and resources scrutinizing everyone who fits that profile, because the probability for him being a terrorist is higher. That is quite different from saying that everyone fits that profile is a terrorist and should be kept outside the country.

Hope that clarifies it for you.