US visa service not meeting standards of American justice
If, as Ronald Reagan said, the US wants to continue as a shining city upon a hill whose beacon guides freedom-loving people everywhere, changes need to be made in US Embassy visa policies and culture.
As an American, I am proud of my country. But isn’t it interesting that the US criticises the rest of the world for the way it treats people when the US too often treats people applying for visas as if they weren’t worth considering? The US legal system is a global model. A person is considered innocent until proven guilty, is protected under the US Constitution against self-incrimination and is always read their rights – which include free legal representation – when accused of a crime. Yet when it comes to filling out a US visa application, people are considered guilty until proven innocent and are supposed to disclose any wrongdoing in their past. Who is going to do that? Certainly not the people who’ve actually done something wrong. But the application form is a large part of the basis for granting or refusing a visa. Again, in the US legal system, even those found guilty of a serious crime such as murder are allowed to make multiple appeals. Why aren’t people who apply for visas given similar treatment, instead of having to reapply, pay again and perhaps encounter the same interviewer or another with a similar attitude?
The US legal system enshrines that a citizen has the right to trial by a “jury of his or her peers”.
Yet in the visa system the decision to grant or deny is made by a single person. In most instances in life, major decisions are made by more than one person so that different ideas and viewpoints can be considered. Why isn’t that true of granting US visas?
Although it shouldn’t happen, there are times when individuals take an irrational dislike to someone. I’m sure that happens at the US Embassy in Bangkok, as they are only human. But such impressions should have no bearing on whether a person meets the visa qualifications.
Visa applications should be reviewed by a minimum of three people before a decision is made, removing the chance of prejudicial judgement based on an applicant’s appearance, or the interviewer having “a bad day”.
There are enough people in the world who consider the US as a bully or worse. Why create more enemies? Of course some people should be rejected, but it should be done in a friendly, non-confrontational way using a transparent set of rules and the principles of fairness that the US is supposed to stand for.
Mark Harris
