NY Times covers GC backlogs in front page article

Make Bill Yates Apologize !!

Project Ocean Campaign #12
Make Bill Yates Apologize !!
Target Number of Letters = 100

  1. kashmir
  2. ruxrux (also CSC forum)
  3. sukla
  4. (dsatish)
  5. kailashr
  6. (GreenCardMA)
  7. wac022XXX (CSC forum)
  8. kingAnil007 (CSC forum)
  9. scotty

Not only post your comment here, but also send your letter to New York Times within 150 words !!
Once you send a letter, please declare clearly here to encourage others.
You can find my sample letter here.
Also, if you write a good letter, please post your letter.

CSC forum thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Email sent to NY Times

I have sent an email as under"

Draft of the email sent this morning to letters@nytimes.com

"Dear Ny times.
This is in response to Nina Bernsteins article in the NY Times April 6th 2004 "Wait for U.S. Residency Soars Over 18 Month Span"
It is ridiculous that Associate Director, Yates uses the Post 9-11 security threat as the cause for these delays. In fact these security checks should be completed IMMEIDATELY rather than the 18 plus months that is now being taken to complete them. It is totally irresponsible and arrogant that our officials mislead the American public and give us a "false" sense of security with these glib arguments. Director Yates should apologize to the American people for taking so long to perform the "so-called" security checks on people ALREADY in the country.
Thanks
 
Donations

In parallel to individuaL donations, how about contacting Foundations. A successful contact can result in all of your donations put together and more..as a long term goal!

Examples: George Soros foundations, Teresa Heinz as in Heinz foundations. More are available all over the USA funding think tanks, institutions and non-profit organisations.
The MPI is wholly funded out of Carnegie Foundation..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cinta good suggestion.

Just now forwarded the mail to New York Times used one of the tempaltes available here.

Thanks.
 
I have emailed Lynn Frendt Shotwell, Director, Government Relations & Legal Counsel at ACIP who was featured in the article and have urged her that AICP join us in the fight against the USCIS in the class action lawsuit that Rajiv has filed.
 
Here is my draft

I will send a letter to the Times from home tonight. But here is my draft, in case anyone else wants to adapt it for their own use.

Dear Editor,

Re: 'Wait for U.S. Residency Soars over 18 Month Span' by Nina Bernstein, April 6

It is with interest and sympathy that I read of the plight of Ms Gabriella Barschdorff and other skilled legal immigrants who are suffering from interminable delays in the processing of applications for adjustment to permanent resident status. USCIS associate director of operations William R. Yates is quoted as blaming the delays on 'security checks'. Yet adjustment-of-status applicants are already living in the U.S., and most have been here for many years. It is hard to see what an enemy of the United States who is already in the country can hope to gain by filing an adjustment application, unless it is the assurance that his application will not be examined for at least two years, giving him plenty of time to plot harm against Americans, thanks to the huge backlog of 'security checks'.
 
This is what I wrote to the editor:

Sir,

This is apropos of Nina Bernsteins' report on the ballooning backlog in processing permanent residency applications. ('Wait for U.S. Residency Soars Over 18 Month Span', NY Times, NY Region, April 6, 2004)

I'm surprised that statements such as 'We don't apologize', by high ranking officials in CIS are accepted with such nonchalance by the media.

The issue is not merely about service, it is also about security. If it takes over two years for CIS to process an application, it means that for all that time a potential miscreant is free to stay legally in this country under the radar of the law enforcement authorities. The implicit assumption in the 'Security procedures causing delays' excuse is that a potential terrorist is going to wait for his/her green card before commiting a foul act.

This line of thinking is patently absurd, and only serves to hide the bureaucratic incompetence of the very institutions and officials who are entrusted to screen dangerous individuals while providing efficient service to those who obey the law.

Effective security procedures should logically actually reduce the backlog.
 
Just a thought -

To be taken seriously by NY Times - just point out that the Clinton administration had made a lot of progress (PERM, AC21, etc.) towards reducing the backlogs without jeopardizing national security. The current one is just feeding on public emotions to justify draconic measures and condoning heavy handed and unsympathetic attitudes of the DHS officials towards legal residents (many of whom are future citizens).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Just a thought -

Originally posted by waytoolong
To be taken seriously by NY Times - just point out that the Clinton administration had made a lot of progress (PERM, AC21, etc.) towards reducing the backlogs without jeopardizing national security. The current one is just feeding on public emotions to justify draconic measures and condoning heavy handed and unsympathetic attitudes of the DHS officials towards legal residents (many of whom are future citizens).
Click to expand...


My 2 cents:
Bipartisan letter is better. If immigrant community support Democrats then why do we expect Republicans to be immigration friendly.
 
Here is a copy of the email that I sent -

I read with interest the article in your paper this morning titled “Wait for U.S. Residency Soars Over 18 Month Span” By Nina Bernstein. The article is a well written overview of problems encountered by intending immigrants.

However, the quote by Mr. Yates is misleading and should have been countered, in my opinion. Most intending immigrants support the fact that security checks have to be performed. However, it is totally unclear as to how extending the time-period in which security checks are performed contributes to increasing the security of this country. It would only allow a potential threat to use this time (and all the while being present legally) to plan and plot the next act. The need of the hour is to speed up security checks and hence the approval, and not slow it down.

A blanket statement that uses terrorism to capitalize on societal emotions is unjustified, unprofessional and blatantly offensive. Given the media's role as society's watchdog, it should fall upon you to counter these kind of statements and demand that they be validated. Otherwise, it may only lead to paranoia and endless discrimination.

Regards,
 
Suggestion

While sending the Email. i would suggest that let us ask the Editor to send a reporter to interview Mr Yates to grill him on the backlogs issue. We can also provide our phone numbers in the Email and tell the Editor that we are willing to talk to the reporter.
I am going to do that (today evening)
 
Generate a thread for our suffering.

We should generate a thread of all the suffering we are going through. Everybody posts to that thread about how they are suffering because of delays. And then when we have enough replies we can send the link to the thread to New York times. I think 150 words is just not enough to yell at Yates and to tell them about our suffering. In each post you could urge them to follow up more on this story and expose USCIS and Yates lies.
What do you say to this proposal?

Can somebody start this thread? This should be common across four centers and when we have enough replies we can mail it to NY times. This story is starting to become hot. That backlogs are growing. I am sure this is in response to LA times. We have to take advantage of this right now.

Advantage of having our sufferings listed in one place is that we can send them to various media organizations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can someone share their email with 150 words

Please post your version. I will make minor change and send the email to NY times.

--------------------------------------
wac02-046
 
Bipartisan

When it comes to immigration, it is better to follow a bipartisan approach in the sense that all are responsible and accountable:

1: IIRA, one of the harshest recent INA amendments was passed under President Clinton. This is being used today to find and expel about 400,000 despondents using our fee money.
2: AC-21 originated under the Democrats? is still not enacted as a law. Full of loopholes and flawed.
3: PERM is not good for future LC applicants. President Bush and Ashcroft...

Bipartisan examples include the 1986 illegals act, the Chinese students, (Reagan), etc.

However, what is different under this Administration is the suppression of Constitutional, Civil and Human Rights (see ACLU quartely lawsuits)of potential immigrants and this connection can be made to the NYT by naming Ashcroft and the Patriot Act and the fact that immigration virtually ceased and is substituted by the law enforcement agency of the DHS, ICE. In other words, US CIS has no independent mandate for adjudication but merely serves as a companion to ICE, by using its adjudicators to do Special Registration and IBIS checks or Security Checks. The arrest and prosecution of sexual predators and murderers is the ICE's responsibility and not the CIS's. (see different agencies and DHS organisation). This connection can be made and proved also.

Reference: 'www.murthy.com". Kind of old but the policy is the same!

Effects of Security Checks on an Already Overburdened Staff

In addition, at least 25% of the adjudicators who were attending to the
various adjudication functions were reassigned to process background
checks and/or NSEERS for several months of this year, through April 2002.
The NSEERS special registration program should have been a part of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, BCIS is
currently responsible for running this program, since ICE was not legally
created until March 1, 2003, but the law has required registration of certain
nationals since earlier this year.

Further, background security checks are an enforcement function
performed in connection with benefits applications and petitions. It is an
example of the connection between enforcement and benefits. However, the
process is run by the BCIS and costs the Bureau approximately $10 million
a month to complete. This $120 million per year was never calculated into
the fees that are currently charged to those seeking immigration benefits.
As a result, the money has to be "borrowed" from the basic, essential role
of the BCIS – adjudications. The shortfall means additional delays since
fewer employees can be used to adjudicate cases.

As a result, the adjudications workforce was effectively cut by at least 25%
during these periods. Though some of these adjudicators have returned to
their original duties, many more are still carrying out the security tasks that
are better suited to another Bureau.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are somewhat correct, but that is a difficult path to take and the wrong one, in my opinion. To challenge the CIS organizational structure and resource allocation to better the process is one thing. To challenge any derivatives of the patriot act is not wise at this time. That is exactly where the CIS argument lies (per Mr. Yates): we are running slow, but we don't care, because we are stopping potential terrorists from entering the country, so the safety of our country is more important then the speed of the application process.

This will not hold water, in other words, the root causes for some of this cannot be fixed as they involve political implications far beyond the influence of courts.

What should be challenged in court is the financial allocations and actual procedure: in other words, reveal what kind of procedure is being used. Is there redundant documentation at spots, can the process be streamlined? Is there a better way to distribute work etc... Is all the money intended for backlog reduction going to that cause (I believe that this is a big NO).

We have to be careful what we challenge, because otherwise the effort is perceived as these people care about nothing else other than their green cards.
 
Originally posted by Milko_Djurovski
You are somewhat correct, but that is a difficult path to take and the wrong one, in my opinion. To challenge the CIS organizational structure and resource allocation to better the process is one thing. To challenge any derivatives of the patriot act is not wise at this time. That is exactly where the CIS argument lies (per Mr. Yates): we are running slow, but we don't care, because we are stopping potential terrorists from entering the country, so the safety of our country is more important then the speed of the application process.

This will not hold water, in other words, the root causes for some of this cannot be fixed as they involve political implications far beyond the influence of courts.

We are challenging the violations of the Act (DHS), not the organisational structure itself.

What should be challenged in court is the financial allocations and actual procedure: in other words, reveal what kind of procedure is being used. Is there redundant documentation at spots, can the process be streamlined? Is there a better way to distribute work etc... Is all the money intended for backlog reduction going to that cause (I believe that this is a big NO).

We have to be careful what we challenge, because otherwise the effort is perceived as these people care about nothing else other than their green cards.
Click to expand...

I think we have been very careful so far with no results, at least for people suffering from 2001.
Thanks for the dialogue however.
What I was trying to point out is what is CIS, what is ICE, who gets the money and resources, who works on what and why? The DHS Act clearly defines all these............Eduardo Aguirre and Asa Huchison (as well as Prakash Khatri, to be fair), are on the same level, leading separate agencies. OR ARE THEY? CIS is supposed to be doing adjudications and ICE to find the bad apples, I think, and this is what the LA Times, NYT, GAO, GovExec, Washington Post are saying. Yates should be talking about the CIS and NOT the ICE. That is where the problem lies. The same holds for Aguirre, referring to Security checks. He himself should be talking about adjudications and let Asa talk about the enforcement. khatri should not say anything to us (which he is doing!) and talk to the Congress in June/July.
Unfortunately we have been perceived as fools and insulted over and over by all these CIS and ICE directors. Maybe Tom Ridge should clearly define authority and tasks for them, besides the Security Checks. I do not think so, as the DHS and DOJ dialogue is secret.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top