let me just put this in perspective here. I am in favor of this amendment. The reason I am in favor of it is that the whole notion of a visa refusal rate, if you understand that, means almost nothing, because if 100 people show up in an INS office and/or in a consular office, and two out of that 100 are refused a visa, then you have a 2 percent refusal rate. If three out of 100 are denied a visa, then you have a 3 percent refusal rate. If the consular officer in that office is sitting there, and they have a criterion that says, I do not like people who look poor, or I do not like people who look black, or I do not like people who look a particular way, then the refusal rate may be 98 percent. It could be 100 percent. The point I am making is that that is an irrational basis, a subjective basis, for setting up our whole Visa Waiver Program in the first place. So whether it is 2 percent or 3 percent, I cannot get all bent out of shape about it. This amendment would move it from 2 percent to 3 percent.
Melvin Watt: “let me just put this in perspective here. I am in favor of this amendment. The reason I am in favor of it is that the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of visa refusal rates during a debate on an amendment.
Share
More from Melvin Watt
I think if you ask most people out in the public, there is actually the opinion that there is an unlimited guarantee to this space, and that is not true.
Congress has given us this mandate: Do lending, back loans that are safe and sound, and provide liquidity in the market.
The real problem was that I think because there was this competition to make money for the private sector, there developed a race to the bottom.
I simply wanted to rise and pay tribute to the memory of my dear friend and colleague, Major Owens, who passed last week. I express my condolences to his family. As new Members, we take for granted sometimes that there is a system in place…





