Integrity Legal

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that one of the American Senators from the sovereign State of New York has been interviewed regarding United States Immigration and the ramifications of current policies upon the LGBT community.  To quote directly from the website of the Immigration Equality Action Fund:

In a wide-ranging new interview with reporter Andrew Harmon at The Advocate, United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) talks about the future of LGBT-inclusive immigration reform, as well as her own experiences as the American half of a binational marriage. Gillibrand – who has been a staunch supporter of LGBT equality – recently joined eleven other Senate colleagues in calling on the Obama Administration to halt the deportation of LGBT spouses…

The administration of this web log strongly recommend that readers click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more about this interesting interview. It is truly fortunate that Senator Gillibrand and her eleven colleagues have taken this position in support of bi-national LGBT spouses.

For those who are unfamiliar with the current plight of the LGBT community in America it should be noted that multiple sovereign States as well as the District of Columbia allow same sex marriage or same sex marital union. That stated, the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) prohibit the United States Federal government from recognizing such unions. Therefore, same sex couples are not permitted to obtain the same federal benefits as their different-sex counterparts. As a result, many same sex bi-national couples are separated from one another because they cannot obtain the same federal immigration benefits as their different sex counterparts. At present, there is currently legislation pending before the federal legislature which would alleviate some or all of these legal problems. Such legislation includes, but may not be limited to: the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), the Reuniting Families Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act. It is notable that the State of New York has more than one member of its delegation in support of LGBT-friendly legislation as Representative Jerrold Nadler has recently supported and introduced legislation to ameliorate the discrimination currently imposed upon same sex couples by relevant federal American law.

Meanwhile, it would appear as though issues associated with same sex marriage visas are not the only things on the minds of Americans concerned about U.S. Immigration policy as it recently came to this blogger’s attention that a well regarded attorney from the United States recently commented upon the Diversity Visa Lottery. To quote directly from Greg Siskind on the website ILW.com:

I’ve always had mixed feelings about the annual green card lottery. On the one hand, shouldn’t our green card numbers be going to high priority family and employment categories that are backlogged as opposed to people who randomly are selected and may have few skills to offer and aren’t reuniting with family here? Political scientist Yascha Mounk makes the case for keeping the lottery, however, in an opinion piece in today’s New York Times.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more.

It has always been this blogger’s opinion that the Diversity Visa Lottery Program is a positive aspect of the current American immigration system. That stated, it would certainly be nice to see the reunification of both different-sex and same-sex families in the future. Hopefully, one day we will see both.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand or Full Faith and Credit Clause.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that officials within the government of Myanmar have asked representatives from the United States of America to discontinue calling the Union of Myanmar “Burma”. In order to provide more perspective it may be best to quote directly from a recent posting on MonstersandCritics.com:

Yangon – A senior US diplomat who visited Myanmar last week was asked to stop calling the country Burma if Washington wishes to promote bilateral relations with the new government, media reports said Sunday. The suggestion was made in the course of talks between US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Yun and Myanmar Foreign Minister Wanna Maung Lwin on Wednesday, according to a transcript of the meeting made available to the Myanmar Times newspaper…

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to learn more on this developing story.

Those who follow relations between the United States of America and the Union of Myanmar may be interested to note that Myanmar’s foreign Minister recently noted the need for “Goodwill” between the two nations. To quote directly from a story recently published on the official website of The Straits Times, StraitsTimes.com:

YANGON – MYANMAR has told the United States it will not accept preconditions to improve relations, saying sanctions imposed by Washington remain the biggest obstacle to better ties, a report said on Sunday. ‘We would like to urge the US to build mutual trust in the first place and only then will we be able to frankly discuss ways of promoting the relationship between the two countries,’ Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin was quoted as saying by the weekly Myanmar Times. The minister was speaking on Wednesday to Joseph Yun, deputy US assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, in the highest-level meeting between the two nations since the advent of a nominally civilian government…

Again, the administration of this web log asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more about this developing story.

It is this blogger’s personal opinion that relations between the United States of America and the Union of Myanmar are likely to improve in the future, but as meetings have only recently been initiated it seems likely that there may be some diplomatic “hiccups” in the early phases. It should be noted that the mere fact that these two nations are having these discussions is a positive development as US-Myanmar relations have been strained in recent decades. Meanwhile, the Union of Myanmar remains a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), an organization which seems to be of increasing importance in economic matters pertaining to Southeast Asia.

How the discussions between Myanmar and the United States will ultimately unfold remains to be seen, but for now it is at least nice to see both sides talking.

For related information please see: US Visa Myanmar.

Those conducting research with regard to United States Family Immigration often look at either the K-1 visa or a CR-1 visa for a recent or prospective spouse. That stated, an acute concern for many American Citizens is the speedy admission of the foreign fiance or spouse to the United States of America. Under many circumstances in places such as the Kingdom of Thailand or the Kingdom of Cambodia, virtually the only means to lawfully bring a Thai or Khmer fiance or spouse to the USA involves a US Marriage Visa (such as the CR-1 visa or the IR-1 visa) or a US fiance visa (officially categorized as a K-1 visa). The question then becomes: which visa can be obtained in a more timely manner?

Currently, it usually takes less time to obtain a K-1 visa compared to a CR-1 visa. That stated, it is this blogger’s opinion that the once large gap separating the processing times of these respective visa categories has closed somewhat, from a practical perspective; and, as a result, it may be best for those researching these issues to ponder the notion of applying for a CR-1 visa or an IR-1 visa from the outset rather than undergoing the K1 visa process. Bearing this in mind, the reader should note that the process is unique to every couple as circumstances tend to dictate the timing of various stages of the process.

Although the K-1 visa does usually result in a foreign fiancee arriving in the United States more quickly than a foreign spouse under the CR-1 visa category, readers should be aware of the fact that CR-1 visa holders are admitted into the United States in Lawful Permanent Resident status. Conversely, those admitted into the United States of America in K-1 visa status must undergo the adjustment of status process in order to obtain their Green Card.

Regardless of the fact that the current USCIS Processing Times note little change in the time it takes to receive adjudication of a K-1 visa petition compared to years past, the plain truth of the matter is that the overall K-1 visa process has lengthened for many in recent months. This increased wait time may be attributable to the fact that the National Visa Center and each and every US Embassy or US Consulate has its own backlog of cases to either process or adjudicate. As the ebb and flow of American immigration continues the consular processing times are likely to increase and/or decrease depending upon the circumstances at the various US Posts abroad. At present, it is difficult to calculate with any specificity what the time frame is for Consular Processing in Asia as many factors must be taken into consideration. It is this blogger’s current opinion that under the totality of the circumstances it may be prudent for prospective family visa petitioners to conduct thorough research into the immigration process before making an irrevocable immigration decision as a visa category that looks more efficient at first glance may, in fact, turn out to be an inefficient travel document if one takes into consideration all of the factors which must be addressed in order to ultimately receive lawful permanent resident status in the U.S.A.

For related information please see: Legal.

It recently came to the attention of this blogger that the United States Supreme Court may be hearing a case pertaining to issues surrounding the issuance of Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA). Such documents are generally issued by Consular Officers of the Department of State at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.  To quote directly from a May 2nd posting by Lyle Denniston on ScotusBlog at scotusblog.com:

Stepping into a significant test of the President’s foreign policy powers, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether Congress had the authority to dictate how the Executive Branch makes out birth certificates for U.S. citizens born abroad — in this case, in Jerusalem, a city that the U.S. government does not recognize as an official part of Israel.  At issue is the validity of a nine-year-old law in which Congress aimed to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  That dispute came in one of two cases the Court agreed on Monday to hear, at its next Term.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click the hyperlinks above to read this posting on ScotusBlog in its entirety as it cogently provides information about what could prove to be a very pertinent issue in the days and weeks ahead.

Although the issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad may seem innocuous, especially to American Citizens who do not have a great deal of international experience; but it should be noted that this document is very important as issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad documents the fact that an American Citizen was born overseas. This document is thereby used to obtain a US passport as well as other documentation. To continue quoting from the aforementioned article:

After State Department officials refused to fill out a report on the foreign birth of a boy born in 2002 in a Jerusalem hospital to show that his birthplace was “Israel,” his parents sued, seeking to enforce the 2002 law that ordered the State Department to do just that, when asked to do so.   A federal judge and the D.C. Circuit Court refused to decide the case, saying the controversy was a “political question” that the courts had no authority to resolve.

The law noted above attempts to deal with a somewhat difficult issue as Jerusalem is not technically considered to be part of the Greater State of Israel. In order to provide more insight on this complex issue it may be best to quote directly from the preamble to the opposition’s brief in this case:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s suit seeking to compel the Secretary of State to record “Israel” as his place of birth in his United States passport and Consular Report of Birth Abroad, instead of “Jerusalem,” when the panel unanimously agreed that the decision how to record the place of birth for a citizen born in Jerusalem in official United States government documents is committed exclusively to the Executive Branch by the Constitution.

The administration urges readers to click on the hyperlink noted above to read the opposition’s brief in detail.

It would appear to this blogger as though the issues in this case are likely to result in any finding having tremendous ramifications. This is due to the fact that there really are two important notions in competition. Namely, the right of the individual or family to choose the manner in which a report of birth abroad is promulgated and the right of the Executive Branch to conduct foreign policy.

It remains to be seen how the Court will rule on these issues, but one this is certain: cases involving a “political question” often make for the most interesting decisions.

For related information please see: Certificate of Citizenship or Legal.

Those who read this blog with any frequency may have taken note of the fact that the administration routinely posts the estimated processing times of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for the various relevant visa categories. To quote directly from the official website of USCIS:

Those researching American family based visas such as the K-1 visa and the IR-1 visa are asked to note that the estimated processing times noted above do not include the processing time for the National Visa Center (NVC) and the consular processing times for each US Embassy or US Consulate abroad.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that some have been discussing tactics underlying the overall political strategy pertaining to passage of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), a recently introduced piece of legislation by Representative Jerrold Nadler designed essentially to circumvent the current prohibition of Federal recognition for same sex marriages. Such marital unions are currently legalized and/or solemnized by multiple sovereign American States as well as the District of Columbia. To quote directly from the article No Republicans, No News posted on the website UnitingAmericanFamilies.Net:

The UAFA-related blogosphere is alive with reports of the bill being re-introduced into Congress. This will seem like a wet blanket, but my jaded response is… so what? The bill (and its predecessor) has been introduced into every subsequent Congress since the year 2000, and it has never come close to passing.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers click upon the hyperlinks above to read more from the enlightening piece.

Of especial interest to this blogger was the analysis of the current political predicament facing proponents of UAFA or a bill, such as the Reuniting Families Act, which utilizes UAFA-like language. To quote further from the aforementioned article:

It’s no longer the Dems who need to be convinced. We will NOT get our basic human rights until we start to convince Republicans — whether right-wing, Tea-Party, or “moderate” (if such a thing still exists). It’s a simple game of numbers.

This is an insightful notion as it is so acutely correct. The way for the LGBT Community, same sex bi-national couples, and anyone else who is a victim of government discrimination based upon sexual orientation to effect change is through gaining broad based, possibly bi-partisan, support (under the circumstances the word “bi-partisan” simply does not seem accurate as this truly is an issue of personal liberty and not party ideology). Importantly, supporters of UAFA and bills similar to UAFA have one relatively new political “arrow” in their “quivers” and that arrow is States’ Rights. The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution reserves certain rights to the Several Sovereign States. Marriage, and the licensure thereof, has traditionally been viewed as a purely intraState matter. Therefore, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came into conflict with State policies such as those currently maintained by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issues surrounding the 10th Amendment came to the foreground of the debate.

The fate of DOMA, UAFA, the Reuniting Families Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act remains to be seen, but one thing is clear, at least in this blogger’s personal opinion: the issue of same sex marriage may become one of those issues that, in politics, is truly a “game changer”.

For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that Republican Presidential Candidate Representative Ron Paul was recently reported to have noted his support for the idea of the United States Federal Reserve selling its gold reserves. To quote directly from the official website of the New York Sun, NYSun.com:

NEW YORK — The next big question on the federal debt limit could be whether to start selling the government’s holdings of gold at Fort Knox — and at least one presidential contender, Ron Paul, has told The New York Sun he thinks it would be a good move. The question has been ricocheting around the policy circles today. An analyst at the Heritage Foundation, Ron Utt, told the Washington Post that the gold holdings of the government are “just sort of sitting there.” He added: “Given the high price it is now, and the tremendous debt problem we now have, by all means, sell at the peak.”

The administration of this blog asks that readers click on the hyperlinks above to read this story in full as it is very cogently written by David Pietrusza. It should be noted that this issue may have an international complexion as some nations have taken measures of their own regarding gold. To quote further from Mr. Pietrusza’s aforementioned article in the New York Sun:

Mexico has acquired 93.3 tons of gold this year, while Thailand added 9.3 tons to its national reserves this March. Russia added 22.5 tons in January and February.

This information would seem to concur with information that this blogger has come across on the World Wide Web. In fact, to quote directly from the website CommodityOnline.com:

International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced huge gold purchase by Russia, Mexico and Thailand valued nearly $6 billion. The three nations situated on different regions of the globe added to their reserves in February and March as the price of bullion advanced to a record. Mexico has bought nearly 100 metric tons of gold since January while Russia increased its reserves of the metal by 18,8 tons to 811,1 tons in March and Thailand expanded assets by 9,3 tons to 108,9 tons in the same month.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read this article in full and to conduct further research in order to gain insight into this important state of affairs. It should be noted that recently the Head of the International Monetary Fund was arrested in New York City.

Issues surrounding sound money and legal tender reform can be complex and controversial on both the federal and State level. The reader is asked to conduct thorough research on these issues before coming to a conclusion as to one’s own opinion.

For related information please see: Legal.

In what could only be described as a “tip of the hat” from one news service to another the New York Times, that often venerated institution of American news, was recently noted for lauding the efforts of that bastion of alternative media The Drudge Report. To quote directly from a truly insightful article posted on the official website of the New York Times, NYTimes.com:

The Drudge Report, a 14-year-old site — a relic by Web standards — conceived and operated by Matt Drudge. Using data from the Nielsen Company to examine the top 21 news sites on the Web, the report suggests that Mr. Drudge, once thought of as a hothouse flower of the Lewinsky scandal, is now more powerful in driving news than the half-billion folks on Facebook. (According to the study, Facebook accounted for 3.3 percent of the referrals to news sites, less than half as many as generated by The Drudge Report.)

Readers of this blog are strongly encouraged to click on the hyperlinks above to read this interesting and insightful article as written by David Carr.

It was interesting that within this article there was mention of an aspect of Mr. Drudge’s approach that has often been overlooked by so-called “mainstream” news organizations (it is interesting that Mr. Drudge’s site is considered “alternative” while the appellation “mainstream” is often given to websites with a great deal less actual readership, to define this irony through historical analysis, this is akin to the old “Bolshevik” and “Menshevik” designations within the Communist Party as it manifested itself in Russia immediately following her early 20th century revolution [not to say that said organization was either good or bad, but this analogy is brought up simply to note that often when gazing through the prism of politics there are times when labels can be less than genuine]).  To quote further:

Yes, Mr. Drudge is a conservative ideologue whose site also serves as a crib sheet for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But if you believe that his huge traffic numbers are a byproduct of an ideologically motivated readership, consider that 15 percent of the traffic at WashingtonPost.com, which is not exactly a hotbed of Tea Party foment, comes from The Drudge Report.

This blogger personally enjoys Mr. Drudge’s website, but, as when reading any information source, one must always be aware of the deliverer’s possible political biases. That stated, one of the reasons this blogger enjoys Mr. Drudge’s site is due to the fact that it appears as if Mr. Drudge truly tries to simply act as something of an unfiltered medium by simply linking to news through his site via headline or byline hyperlinks. However, there is more to his site than just basic coding. In short, Mr. Drudge’s website is a prime example of both the power of the alternative media and the “ghost in the machine” that is the human mind when it harnesses the power of the World Wide Web. Mr. Drudge’s site could be considered both a reflection of him in many ways and an example of the living art work that can be erected by an informed citizenry and an informed humanity. Truly, The Drudge Report is a beacon of light, a symbol of hope, and a prayer to reason because it symbolizes what one person can do when using ingenuity and entrepreneurialism when interacting with the public. The author William Duggan once noticed an ability he referred to as “Napoleon’s Glance” and it could be argued that Mr. Drudge possesses just such an ability when it comes to news. One may not agree with another’s politics, but sometimes the factual situation demands a transcendence of politics and therefore good “news men” are always in demand within a free society.

There was one final point within this article that was notable to this blogger:

And in the last 14 years, there have been no big redesigns, no big rollout of new features and no staffing up to provide original content. The initial site, designed to load quickly in the age of dial-up modems, remains relatively untouched. (As does Mr. Drudge’s penchant to stay under the radar. He did not respond to e-mails requesting an interview.)

A wiser man than this blogger once said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Truly Mr. Drudge, from a solitary blogger to a solitary news man, thank you sir, and keep up the good work! We”ll keep checking, you keep posting.

For related information please see: alternative media.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the head of the International Monetary Fund has been arrested in the American city of New York. To quote directly from the official website of the New York Post, nypost.com:

The French political bigshot who heads the International Monetary Fund was arrested for allegedly sodomizing a Manhattan hotel maid yesterday — hauled off an Air France flight just moments before takeoff from Kennedy Airport, police sources said. Three Port Authority detectives pulled Dominique Strauss-Kahn from the plane’s first-class cabin just two minutes before it was due to depart for Paris, according to the police sources…

Hyperbole aside, this is a truly interesting case as it would appear that the charges are indeed quite grave at least according to this report which continues:

Strauss-Kahn is awaiting arraignment on charges of a criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said. The trouble began at around 1 p.m. yesterday when a 32-year-old housekeeper entered Strauss-Kahn’s $3,000-a-night suite at the luxury Sofitel on West 44th Street — apparently unaware he was still inside…

The administration of this web log asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to learn more on what appears to be a quickly unfolding story. To gain further perspective further research may be required. Those reading this blog are asked to remember that in the United States a prospective defendant is viewed in the eyes of the law as innocent until proven guilty.

Meanwhile, this news comes at a time when the Southeast Asian Nation of Singapore sees the resignation of a much respected Minister. To quote directly from the official website of the BBC:

Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew has resigned from the country’s cabinet, ceding leadership to his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The move comes after their party’s worst election result since 1965. Lee Kuan Yew and fellow former prime minister Goh Chok Tong said in a joint resignation statement that the “time has come for a younger generation”. The 87-year old Mr Lee was prime minister from 1959 to 1990, after which Mr Goh took over until 2004…

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to learn more about this situation. Although Lee Kuan Yew is stepping down at a time when his party is facing a slump he is also able to look back at a career of achievement with respect to Singapore’s economic position relative to the rest of the world. It can certainly be said that, in many ways, he is leaving the country in a better economic position relative to the position it was in when he took office.

As events which impact an international institution such as the International Monetary Fund can have a collateral impact upon nations comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and while Singapore’s political complexion can have an effect upon politics in the region of Southeast Asia it stands to reason that both of these events occurring virtually simultaneously will have a substantial “ripple effect” across the economies of the jurisdictions which make up ASEAN.

Readers of this blog are encouraged to keep abreast of these developments, especially those Americans Resident Abroad as these events could have implications for the future of the whole continent of Asia. As an American Resident Abroad in the Kingdom of Thailand this blogger feels that it is highly likely that these recent events, no matter how they eventually play out, are likely to have critical implications for American Citizens conducting business abroad in the future.

For related information please see: US Company Registration or Legal.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that some have criticized the current process associated with adjudication and issuance of United States visas. Notably, it would seem that this criticism is mostly concerned with non-immigrant visas such as the B-2 visa (US tourist visa) and the B-1 visa (US business visa). To quote directly from a Reuters story posted on the website airwise.com:

The complicated US visa system hurts tourism and must be reformed if the United States wants to attract lucrative tourism from countries such as China, India and Brazil, travel industry officials said…

Readers of this blog are encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read this story in detail and also gain greater insight into this developing issue.

At the time of this writing the United States maintains a system which allows for some nations to receive admission to the USA through a visa waiver program. As noted above: China, India, and Brazil are not included in the visa waiver program. This situation exists notwithstanding the fact that these three nations in association with two others (South Africa and Russia) compose the so-called BRICS group of developing countries with what some would claim is a virtually unlimited capacity for economic growth in the future.

This visa waiver program also entails the so-called “ESTA” (Electronic System For Travel Authorization) program, which requires foreign nationals to pre-register for admission to the United States before beginning their journey to America. It should be noted that in its current form the ESTA program only pertains to nationals from visa waiver participating countries. Therefore, nationals from countries such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Kingdom of Thailand cannot benefit from the visa waiver program and the ESTA program as of the time of this writing.

Those interested in further information on such topics are encouraged to visit a few official websites: HERE and HERE. To quote further from the aforementioned piece:

“The challenge we have is the unnecessary, burdensome US visa system,” said USTA president Roger Dow. “It’s really self-imposed barriers that we put on ourselves as a country that have caused us to lose international travel and that have stymied international growth.”

This blogger has heard this argument made in the past and it is certainly salient especially at a time when tourism income is in high demand in an international context. To continue quoting further:

The US visa process from beginning to end can take as long as 145 days in Brazil and 120 days in China, a USTA report said. In contrast, Britain takes an average of 12 days to process visas in Brazil and 11 days in China…

Clearly, the visa processing time differential between the United States and the somewhat similarly socioeconomically situated United Kingdom is a stark contrast. To quote further:

US Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat who chairs a subcommittee focused on export promotion and competitiveness, said the travel industry was important to help President Barack Obama meet his stated goal of doubling exports by 2014. “We see it as part of our economic recovery. I see this as a way to get jobs in our country,” Klobuchar said…

It is refreshing to see a federal legislator like Senator Amy Klobucher from the sovereign State of Minnesota taking the time to investigate an issue that may, at first glance, seem mundane. In point of fact, matters pertaining to United States non-immigrant visas are extremely important as they can have a significant impact upon foreign direct investment in the United States and the amount of money raised by American companies and enterprises offering services to foreign nationals both in the USA and abroad. Finally, a legislator trying to find reasonable solutions to American economic concerns in a reasonable manner! America: Let us not forget, we are one of the most historically fascinating and economically dynamic nations ever to have made our voices heard in the chorus of history. Why do we forget this? We seem to find ourselves constantly debating the minutia of our past transgressions or the history of our geopolitically unique grouping of jurisdictions. We do this when solutions to some of the current economic problems stare us in the face. The reality is that there are many around the world who wish to do business with those in the United States of America. There are many who want to buy our products. There currently exists the distinct possibility that the continent of Asia will have a constantly growing middle class of prospective international travelers for decades into the future. These travelers will likely be traveling for both business as well as pleasure. It stands to reason that many prospective tourists from Asia will make their initial international travel decisions with great care. Therefore, America should continue to be mindful of the fact there exists an international competitive market for income generated from tourism.  It stands to reason that more tourists in America means more tourism income.

From a legal perspective there is something to be said for allowing further membership in the United States visa waiver program as it would lead to fewer overall denied visa applications based upon section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. Currently, many tourist visa applications are denied pursuant to a presumption in the aforementioned section of U.S. law. This section requires Consular Officers to make the factual presumption that a tourist visa applicant is actually an intending American immigrant unless the applicant can produce sufficient evidence to overcome this presumption. The visa waiver program gets around this 214(b) presumption by waiving the need for an American visa. Simultaneously, the visa waiver program also restricts those foreign nationals admitted into the United States from adjusting status to lawful permanent residence. One may adjust one’s status to lawful permanent residence (Green Card status) from tourist visa status in the U.S.A. under very limited circumstances. The visa waiver program does not permit such adjustment and therefore requires those foreign nationals seeking immigrant status to depart the United States and undergo Consular Processing abroad.

It remains to be seen whether or not US visa policy regarding non-immigrant visas such as those described above will be changed, but clearly there is some momentum behind this rather important issue in Washington D.C.

For related information please see: K-1 visa system, K-3 visa system, or US Company Registration.