Speech #1100051622

I just tell them to leave. they dont get to go to court over it. We can equate the role of homeowner to that of a consular officer. Currently and historically. all decisions by consular officers with regard to the granting. the initial granting of visas are final and not subject to review. Revocations shouldnt be treated differently in the case of terrorists. Why is this important to do? Consider visa revocations related to terrorism. Consider the 2003 Government Accountability Office report revealing that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on the grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. This loophole came to light after the Government Accountability Office found that individuals were granted visas that were later revoked because there was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations. The FBI and the intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism in hundreds of applications. The FBI did not share this information with our consular officers in time. so the consular officers granted the visas. So I suppose at that point you cannot blame the consular officers when they did not have the information the FBI should have given to them. So then when they got the derogatory information about these individuals from the FBI. then it was too late. They had already been granted visas. They were already here. The consular officers then had to go through the process of revoking the visas. What the Government Accountability Office found was that even though the visas were revoked. immigration officials could not do a thing about it. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. I wish to give you an example of how this hurts us today. A consular officer grants a visa to a person. and that person makes his or her way where they were intended to come. to this great country of the United States. After arriving in the United States. a consular office finds out that the foreign individual has ties to terrorism. Maybe the consular officer found out that visa holder attended a terrorist training camp or maybe the intelligence community just informed the consular officer that the visa holder was linked to the Taliban or maybe our Government just learned that visa holder gave millions of dollars to a terrorist organization before they applied for a visa. These are all very good reasons for revocation of a visa. If a person should not have received a visa in the first place. then the consular officer has to revoke it. Well. I mean if they had the visa then. you have to go to the trouble of getting it revoked. Three key points to consider: First. the decisions to revoke a visa are not taken lightly. If a consular officer needs to revoke a visa. the case is thoroughly vetted. In fact. the case is decided back here in Washington. DC. at the highest levels. Second. consular officers do not have the authority to revoke a visa based on suspicion. A revocation must be based on actual finding that an alien is ineligible for the visa. Third. consular officers give the visa holder an opportunity to explain their case. They may ask them to come to the embassy and defend themselves. So when a visa is revoked. it is very serious business. But the current law handicaps law enforcement and makes it nearly impossible to deport the alien if they already made it to the United States. Current law allows aliens to run to the steps of our countrys courthouses and take advantage of our system. Allowing review of a revoked visa. especially on terrorism grounds. jeopardizes the classified intelligence that led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and the CIA to be hesitant to share any information. Current law could be reversing our progress on information sharing. the very major thing we did to make sure September 11 didnt happen again.