"Fiance Visa"

     Ever since the terrible day in San Bernardino when Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out a senseless, horrible attack, there have been questions and talk about the so-called "fiancé visa" which allowed Tashfeen Malik to enter the U.S.  Questions have been asked and accusations made as to how did the U.S. government allow a terrorist to enter the U.S. so easily.  Was not there a vetting process?  Did not the visa issuing office do a thorough check on Malik's background?  Did they not check her Facebook page where she had posted her allegiance to ISIS?  These were all legitimate questions, especially if Malik had entered the U.S. with an immigrant visa (IV).  However, given the fact the she used a non-immigrant visa (NIV), she managed to circumvent the rather vigorous vetting process that is required for an IV!
     The non-immigrant visa (NIV) was designed to allow foreigners to enter the U.S. with a minimum amount of hassle.  This was further simplified for those countries that have had a good record of non-abuse of the U.S. NIV by its citizens by instituting the Visa Waiver program, eliminating the need for an NIV for some countries.  The K-1 ("fiancé visa) was established primarily for those countries that had a good record.  The idea was to provide a mechanism for the prospective spouse to first come to the U.S. and see if they really wanted to marry the U.S. citizen partner.  They are given 90 days to decide, at the end of which they either married the U.S. citizen and stayed in the U.S. or left, calling off the whole thing.  I believe there is even a TV reality show called the "90 day fiancé" or something like that.
     As an NIV, the K-1 visa prospect is treated basically just as any tourist applying for a visa.  In countries that have a good record of non-abuse of the NIV, interviews are rarely made for NIVs.  In other countries, those that have a bad record, usually countries with bad economic situation, each NIV applicant has to be interviewed by a visa officer, unless that applicant has had a U.S. visa before and did not abuse it, in which case the visa is simply renewed.
     The whole process of visa issuance, NIV or IV, is extremely labor intensive.  Visa officers don't last long at very busy posts, they burn out!  It is also very difficult to recruit visa officers for they must speak the language of the country for interviewing visa applicants!  It is a very time consuming and expensive process of training a visa officer, especially for difficult languages that require more than a year of training!  At certain Foreign Service posts, the "visa lines" have infamous reputations, lines that form outside of the building the night before!  Fraud is rampant with identity and false documentation heading the list.  The visa officers not only have to be accomplished interviewers, but detectives as well!
     Although for an NIV the vetting processes is minimal, for IV it is very intensive.  I can assure you that had Tashfeen Malik applied for an IR-1 (Immediate Relative -1) Immigrant Visa, she would have been found out for her ISIS interest or connections.  For IV, a thorough background check is run by the visa issuing post.  However, the background check is only partially conducted by Americans, the actual visiting of locations and interviewing neighbors, etc., is done by a local investigator.  So you can see that a local employee could conceivably be paid off!  The entire process is full of pit falls, there is just no getting around it.  In a best case scenario, the local investigator is loyal to the U.S. government and is not susceptible to bribery and will provide accurate and truthful information.  But, unfortunately, that is not always the case.
     To check every NIV applicant thoroughly with background investigations, etc., would be an impossible task.  At a busy Foreign Service post, in a developing country where economy is poor and its citizens are anxious to get to the U.S., by whatever means, usually the NIV lines stretch for blocks.  Daily, there are hundreds to thousands of NIV applicants at such posts.  Mexico City averages about 2,000 NIV applicants daily.  That's just in Mexico City, there are in addition posts at more than half a dozen other locations in Mexico.  The Consulate General in Tijuana used to get anywhere between 500 to a 1000 NIV applicants daily.  At one point in the 1990s the number of visa applicants had increased so much that an annex had to be opened in Mexicali to absorb the increased numbers!  Can you imagine trying to run background investigations daily with such numbers just at one post?  The cost would be astronomical, not to mention time spent doing investigations.
     NIVs are issued the same day, usually within an hour at each post.  If thorough investigations have to be conducted, that would not only delay issuance but create a backlog that would be impossible to get out from under!  There aren't as many immigrant visa applicants as non immigrant, therefore, background investigations are not as big problem.  But IVs are usually not issued the same day, in fact never in the same day as the application!
     It would be silly to tighten the requirements for a K-1 visa, do a thorough background check etc.  If we are to do that, then it becomes just like the IR-1 of the IV, why duplicate it?  The whole idea for the K-1 was to make it easier for the prospective spouse to travel to the U.S.  The visa was primarily designed for countries that today enjoy the Visa Waiver program!
     If we are to change our visa issuing process from the current system, first and foremost we would need at least twice as many visa officers as we have now.  To do so would cost a lot of money that no doubt Congress would never approve!  Secondly, all our visa issuing facilities would have to be increased in size, and local employees doubled in numbers as well.  All of this would require more funding, which Congress is not likely to approve.  Congress is quick to hold hearings and criticize the lack of security etc., at foreign posts, yet, they won't approve the necessary funding for improving security!  So, don't believe everything you hear and see on TV.  Politicians love to grandstand and accuse others when there is security failures or other disasters.  But, they would never admit to the fact that it is their refusal to provide funding that brought about the security failure, etc.  Congress does not hesitate to vote itself a salary increase annually, but increasing funding?  Whenever a government agency goes to Congress asking for funding, it is always, "what's in it for me?" kind of reaction!