another day, another dinar
Update: Originally posted 7:37 PM, July 26, 2005, John Mosby added an interesting comment the other day.
Hat tip to Doc In The Box for explaining to me how to conceal URL's behind text, thus keeping my sidebar from constantly being pushed below the visible posts. Doc is getting married this weekend, to Tragic (http://born_to_lose.blogspot.com ). Wish him well. Even better, buy something from his Wedding Registry. For him, that is. After that, buy whatever you like for yourself.
Lots of people want to come to the U.S.
This being the Eurozone, most of my applicants would ordinarily qualify under the Visa Waiver Program so many interviews go much more successfully (for the applicant) than those at my last, Third World, post.
Still, there are an awful lot of TCN's (Third Country Nationals) hereabouts. While some are citizens of other Visa Waiver countries, many are from lesser developed countries.
That's were our refusal rate comes from, mostly.
Still, many of them have become educated and assimilated into Western society. Or so it would appear during their interviews at least.
This is, I think, a glimmer of hope, that not everyone who comes from the Islamic world, and all their descendents forever-and-ever, are unassimilable and a threat to Western civilization.
Update: A thank-ye to Daily Demarche for the kindly mention.
"Finally, fellow FSO blogger Consul at Arms has a seemingly stream of consciousness post and linkfest of his own up, entitled "If Kerry was President...". If I could get away with it I'd print this one out and paper my office with it."
Higher praise one cannot hope for, especially for stream of consciousness stuff.
Hat tip to Doc In The Box for explaining to me how to conceal URL's behind text, thus keeping my sidebar from constantly being pushed below the visible posts. Doc is getting married this weekend, to Tragic (http://born_to_lose.blogspot.com ). Wish him well. Even better, buy something from his Wedding Registry. For him, that is. After that, buy whatever you like for yourself.
Lots of people want to come to the U.S.
This being the Eurozone, most of my applicants would ordinarily qualify under the Visa Waiver Program so many interviews go much more successfully (for the applicant) than those at my last, Third World, post.
Still, there are an awful lot of TCN's (Third Country Nationals) hereabouts. While some are citizens of other Visa Waiver countries, many are from lesser developed countries.
That's were our refusal rate comes from, mostly.
Still, many of them have become educated and assimilated into Western society. Or so it would appear during their interviews at least.
This is, I think, a glimmer of hope, that not everyone who comes from the Islamic world, and all their descendents forever-and-ever, are unassimilable and a threat to Western civilization.
Update: A thank-ye to Daily Demarche for the kindly mention.
"Finally, fellow FSO blogger Consul at Arms has a seemingly stream of consciousness post and linkfest of his own up, entitled "If Kerry was President...". If I could get away with it I'd print this one out and paper my office with it."
Higher praise one cannot hope for, especially for stream of consciousness stuff.
posted by Consul-At-Arms at 1:24 PM
7 Comments:
Yep ,I know about that refusal rate ; up to $300 later ,I am still learning. Latest was based on the invitation letter being in English. Bet Atta's application was letter perfect, though. Must have been a stunner.
Consul, what do you think of the radical suggestion of giving the visa-issuance function to the INS (or ICE, BICE, whatever they call it today)?
Pro: Law-enforcement resources, and more importantly, the law-enforcement mindset, would be brought to this task. Instead of a new Georgetown grad marking time until he gets to do 'real' (pol/econ) diplomacy, an experienced federal agent (hey, they won't give the overseas tours to newbies) would review the apps, look the applicant in the eyes, ask pointed questions and analyze the verbal and nonverbal responses in light of his investigative expertise.
Con: If you take away such a big chunk of the consular function, why the heck do you need a State Department? Why not just staff the posts with DOJ lawyers, Treasury economists, DIMA geographers, GSA property managers, etc.? The ones who have the ability and interest to do their jobs overseas for repeated tours would become the de-facto FS. Now that's an outside-the-box idea.
I imagine this discussion went on when DHS was established, and the FS won.
PS: Consul, I didn't mean to insult you with my snarky remark about new Georgetown grads marking time. As a veteran, you obviously bring more to the visa window than the stereotypical FNG. But you are probably the exception that proves the rule. -JM
Gatorbait,
Still trying to get your Moroccan g.f. a tourist visa, or am I mis-remembering you? So many cases, only one brain . . . .
Why _wouldn't_ _your_ invitation letter be in English, it's pretty-much your mother tongue, nicht wahr?
It's probably got more to do with your friends all-around demographics (age, marital status, education, family members in country vs. in U.S., &tc.). Those are the kinds of factors that generally pull the most weight. For instance, an 18 y.o. single male with h.s. education (or less) and no prospect of higher education with a girlfriend/child/parent/sibling in the U.S. is a bad 214(b) (i.e., "intending immigrant") risk, statistically speaking.
Don't know what Mr. Atta's application looked like, but like a lot of people I saw copies (in the news) of some of our 9/11 hijacker's DS-156 "Nonimmigrant Visa Application" forms. Way too many blank spaces, way to many vague or nonsensical answers for me to have been satisfied enough to issue, even if it was a (no longer permitted) by-mail application.
I honestly don't know what the average application looked like at that post, in that particular consular and NIV section. Maybe that was typical of most applications. The only NIV forms I usually see are, at least, in the Latin alphabet, so perhaps in a country that doesn't even use the same alphabet as us, they cut a certain slack. I just don't know.
Anecdotally, other consular officers with whom I've discussed the 9/11 NIV applications all feel the same way; _they_ would never issue based on such sketchy forms alone.
Sometimes the forms come in like that, you have to decide between simple intending immigrant denial (i.e., "214b") or 221(g). "221(g)" is when they lack proper documentation. You use that one when you're giving them a chance to come up with the missing forms, information, whathaveyou. It means more work, since you're going to spend/waste more time on that applicant in the future, rather than resolving the case once and (at least temporarily, until they applicant comes up with another $100.00) for all.
John,
I think the shop-worn suggestion of giving the visa-issuance function to INS/DHS/ICE-ICE-BABY/BICE sucks frankly.
It was considered, at the highest levels I'm told, after 9/11, and decided against.
Consular officers, post 9/11, are _very_much_aware_ of the sensitivity of this task, let yourself be in no doubt about that. It's not just about economic migration and facilitating travel. The national security aspect of visa interviewing is something that we deal with every day, with every applicant, to one extent or another.
Georgetown grads? They get better-paying jobs in the corporate world.
The biggest single group I see nowadays, insofar as coming from a particular school, is George Washington University (GWU). It's literally within sight of the Harry S Truman Building, a.k.a. "Main State."
While undeniably an excellent school, it's not one of those elitist Ivy or pseudo-Ivy League schools. Many of my FSO orientation classmates had either undergraduate or graduate degrees from GWU.
While there's the occasional tendancy among new vice consuls, at least those who will not remain in the consular "cone," to see visa work as an ordeal which they much endure before they get to their "real" diplomatic work, that's actually much rarer occuring in reality than you might suppose. Vice consuls who don't take it seriously take a serious negative impact on their annual evaluations.
Why wouldn't they give overseas tours to the law enforcement newbies?
Why would the experienced ones, the ones with seniority, want to be bothered with moving overseas?
If they wanted to work overseas, why would they go to work for the federal government in the law enforcement field, rather than the foreign service to begin with?
Rethink some of your assumptions. Look into how hard-fought-over the overseas work positions of other government agencies actually are. Most of them won't be in the glamour spots like London/Paris/Rome.
How are you going to convince an experienced/senior law enforcement officer that it's somehow worth his while to take a position in Nigeria or Mongolia, much less be bothered to learn the local language?
The visa/consular function remained part of the Foreign Service because it's best accomplished by Foreign Service Officers, who have worldwide availability of assignment, who have overseas experience, who actually _want_ to serve overseas.
Splitting-off this function would have essentially meant the creation of _another_ foreign service.
How many do you need? There's already a Foreign Commercial Service.
Don't be too surprised, but consular officers do have training available such as the "Advanced Interviewing" course I attended after I returned to the Foreign Service after my Iraq tour. I also got "Advanced Name Checking" which gave me a detailed understanding of how our computer algorythms compare our applicant's names and other data against our total databases.
These were the advanced courses, the basic courses are part of the overall Basic Consular course which all officers who're going to receive consular commissions must complete.
FSO's without consular commissions do not do consular work. Period.
Advance interviewing included a "Subtle and Micro Expressions Training" component which was fascinating.
I won't deny that my intelligence, security, counterintelligence &tc. background hasn't proven useful in doing consular work. But so has my experience as a former airline employee, for instance.
FSO's bring the sum total of their prior life, work and educational background to the work table with them. Many have lived or worked or studied abroad, often in the very country to which they are assigned. They have, or develop, in-depth knowledge of the local culture, economy, family structure, &tc., both on their own and from their language and area studies preparation before they arrive at post. All of this makes them more effective at interviewing visa applicants and making adjudication decisions.
Lastly, as much as it pains me to admit it, but consular is only one of State's many functions. In the generalist fields alone, there are also Political, Economic, Management, and Public Diplomacy. Plus numerous foreign service specialist career fields necessary for the conduct of overseas diplomatic missions.
If you did away with State and tried to staff it from other agencies, you'd just end up re-constructing a new State Department. And depleting the other agencies of either a pool of considerable talent, or of their happy-to-be-rid-of deadwood losers. Is that what you really want?
Whether constructing an entirely new State Dept. would be a good or bad thing, I will leave for another discussion.
FS didn't win. The nation won, because keeping the consular/visa function in State was the best decision for the nation, IMHO.
Cheers!
Now to bed, as I have to interview a hundred and twenty or so applicants tomorrow. I love my job, I really do, I just sometimes wish there weren't so much of it. We have too many officers out at the moment, for one reason or another, and an increased workload imposed from above. At the moment, we have about half of the consular officers present as we have authorized positions. This means I'm putting in 10-12 hour days with no end in sight. At least once a day I have to remind myself that no one is shooting at me. By the end of the day I'm reflecting that if they were, at least I could shoot _back_.
Consul:
Thanks for moving this post back to the top of the stack, and thanks for your very articulate defense of the FS. You should keep it handy if your bosses ever unmask you and come after you for subversive blogging - it's proof that you've drunk the Kool-Aid! :)
Seriously, my virtual-FS suggestion was meant as a reductio-ad-absurdum: if you put ICE officers in the consular windows, where would the "outsourcing" to other agencies end? That's why I listed it as a "con" argument.
But since you put so much time and effort into rebutting the idea, here are some points of re-rebuttal:
"How are you going to convince an experienced/senior law enforcement officer that it's somehow worth his while to take a position in Nigeria or Mongolia, much less be bothered to learn the local language?" - The same way you convince senior FSOs: through a combination of carrots and sticks. The FS constantly changes its career-track system's hardship requirements as FSOs figure out ways to beat them. The Department tries to make hardship posts the ticket to promotion, or avoidance of such posts the ticket to stagnation. Other agencies would do the same sort of thing. A common technique is offering a hardship foreign slot as a GS-15, for example. For another, the MSG program convinces hundreds of Marines to live either in Eurozone capitals where their E-5/below salary doesn't go far, or in 3rd world capitals where all the money in the world won't keep you from getting giardia. How? By making it into an elite, selective, career-enhancing assignment. Similarly, the Army FAO program draws officers away from the mainstream into a de-facto FS, and this is in a service where it is very possible to spend 20 years without an OCONUS PCS. How? By offering training, appealing to the desire to get out of the mainstream, etc.
"why wouldn't they give overseas tours to the law enforcement newbies?" - Simple: avoidance of embarrassment. LE agencies are paramilitary, and, as in the actual military, superiors are held accountable for their subordinates. Rookies acting up overseas would generate nastygrams from the Ambassador to the agency director.
"depleting the other agencies of . . . a pool of considerable talent" - or, increasing the talents of the pool by giving them experience in the "enemy's" territory. Experience at the POE increases effectiveness at the visa window; experience at the visa window increases effectiveness at the POE. The agency wins both ways.
"[agencies dumping] their happy-to-be-rid-of deadwood losers. Is that what you really want?" - No, but tell me with a straight face that the FS doesn't sometimes dump its own deadwood losers in certain places.
Plus, it's the FOREIGN service - everyone, good or bad, is supposed to be overseas for most of their career. Other agencies do not have most of their personnel overseas, so foreign assignments will always be selective. Could the "selections" become "punitive banishments" under the wrong rules/bosses? Sure. But this is checked by the embarrasment-avoidance phenomenon I mentioned above: just as you won't send a rookie into a high-visibility overseas assignment where she MIGHT screw up, you won't send a burned-out hairbag to such an assignment where he will ALMOST DEFINITELY screw up. Plus, any malcontent worth his salt will deliberately fail the DLAB and disqualify himself from any overseas assignment.
For the most part, though, I do agree with you that not much would be accomplished by wholesale outsourcing of the FS, especially in time of war. Whatever gain in efficiency you get from rewiring the organizational tree is cancelled out by the loss of efficiency as people try to figure out how the new tree works.
But it is important to look at the existing system with fresh eyes now and then, and not take for granted that the way things are is the way things always should be. Armies that do not change lose wars; diplomatic services that do not change allow wars to happen.
Thanks again,
JM
Mr. Mosby,
Please see this AP article: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2005/08/ap-war-on-terror-not-enough-evidence.html
It shows you the results, or lack thereof, of some of what you propose.
Cheers and thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment
<< Home