US embassy taking wrong approach to visa applicants
If you look at the United States’ basis for law you will find that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is part of the common law of the US and carries over from British common law which the US has followed for over 240 years. The UN passed the following:
“Everyone charged with a
criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law.”
So, why is anyone applying for a visa for tourism or business in the US presumed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence before they are able to get a visa? If you dig deeply into the rules and regulations for getting a tourist visa, you find “the burden of proof of intent to return to the home country” is strictly on the person applying.
Doesn’t this fly in the face of the basis of US law? It seems to say that the visa process of the US Embassy is completely wrong, as it places the burden of proof on the applicant. Why is it so different from the rest of the US law?
Tourism by foreign visitors in the US generates $250 billion annually according to the US Government’s Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness. It would seem that the US wants to encourage people to visit instead of discouraging them by making getting a visa so difficult as seems to be done now, at least at the US Embassy in Bangkok. Sadly, people applying for visas seem to fall under the Napoleonic code’s presumption of guilt.
And if we want to carry things further, it looks like the visa fee charged by US embassies of $160 is too much, especially here in Thailand. The Immigration and Naturalization Act 281 says the fee should be the same as the fees charged by Thailand for the same services. That may be in line with some other countries, but the law specifically says they should be in line with the country. Last time I checked, Thailand charged 1,900 baht or about $56, and that is for a one year visa. Why such a vast difference?
Mark Harris
