Archive

Visa overstays: Stop fumbling & pick up the ball | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Visa overstays: Stop fumbling & pick up the ball

Given more than 500,000 U.S. visa “overstays” in 2015, a House committee wants the Department of Homeland Security to produce a more accurate record on these interlopers.

What’s needed is what was called for in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act: an electronic entry/exit system. Yet decades later, implementing this system is paid lip service by politicians.

In a letter to Homeland Security, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is demanding more accurate reporting on the number of visa overstays, which some immigration watchers insist was low-balled. Those same critics also remind that four of the 9/11 jetliner hijackers overstayed their visas. Of the visa applications that could be found for the 19 hijackers, none had been properly filled out.

Even after 9/11 and the recommendation by the 9/11 Commission for a biometric entry/exit system, the foot-dragging continues. Although funds reportedly have been appropriated, no system has been put in place.

Meanwhile, it’s estimated that up to 40 percent of illegal aliens entered the United States by visa, then simply ignored the expiration date, reports Genevieve Wood for The Daily Signal.

Three successive U.S. presidents have all dropped the ball on visa enforcement, pre- and post-9/11. The incoming president must pick it up.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.