C_L_R2004

My SO has the same problem--membership in the CP. How did you answer the related question on the GNI-2 form?

My apologies. I really just wanted to inject an outsiders point of view. Now I've descended into name-calling and have upset the usual genial atmosphere. My presence seems to only add negativity, so I'll leave now. I'm leaving to visit my fiancee and really need to get ready anyway. Good luck. I do believe most of you have pure motives.

DragonFlower, I do think some of you are scumbags, but hardly a majority. But if the shoe fits, wear it.

Oregonknl, Yes you did use quotes and logic pretty well, but I'm still unconvinced. You condemn the reports cited, but offer up none of your own. The 80% rate of successful marriages is interesting, but hardly conclusive given it comes from the same report you're complaining about. I'm not sure it's fair to pick and choose the arguments you like and dismiss the rest. Can you build a case based on other research? The reports themselves acknowledge their own weaknesses, but unless you offer up something better I'm inclined to go with what has already been written. And what about my points? I think you can find the numbers in one of the other reports, but the OP sloppily refers to the wrong one in the first post. And you complain about the government? Where else has he done it? And racism? Just because the OP found out for the first time that racism has historically been a part of the US immigration policy doesn't mean it exists today to a similar degree. I want evidence, not speculation. I can speculate too, but I'll try not to waste your time with it. If you can't convince somebody like me who is at least somewhat sympathetic with your position, how are you going to get the government to do anything? Ranting on a website seems to be really useless behavior. Unless it's just to make you feel better, which is OK by me. Just don't mislead yourself that many outside of this forum will agree with you. That's a little harsher than I intended, but I really do worry about you guys sometimes.

I don't consider you scumbags for finding your loved ones on the net. How do you draw that conclusion? I said I don't understand it and wouldn't do it myself. It's probably better than finding your mate in a bar or a number of other "traditional" ways. OK. As long as I'm writing, let's deal with the accusation of racism. The paper does hit hard on those who use international matchmaking services, but that would seem to hit the Russians and Ukrainians just has hard or harder than the Chinese. So, why the charge of racism here?

Dear Oregonknl, I will try to refrain from condescending remarks if you will. My problem with this thread remains--wild accusations of bias and racism based on the reports cited. Can they really be justified? Let’s take a look at why I might not be convinced, starting with the first post. The OP mentioned 96,033 cases in 1994 and 0 cases of fraud. Is that really mentioned in the first paper, or did the OP get it from somewhere else? No cases of Chinese fraud? Frankly I didn’t try to find that number after not seeing the 96,033, but surely anybody who has spent time on this site knows there’s plenty of it in the visa process. If they didn’t find any cases, I’d be shocked by the government’s incompetence. This wasn’t a major point, but I always like to start at the beginning. The problem isn’t with bad spelling, I too know plenty of smart people who can’t. That’s why I apologized. Why do you feel the need to rub it in? The real problem is sloppy research. I think there was some in the report cited, but I don’t think the posters on this thread have done a good job either. Maybe if the posters could be more specific about claims, such as citing pages or giving quotes, I’d be more convinced. When I read through the documents, I just don’t see how some of the expressed conclusions were drawn. A link is nice, but in this case I don’t think it’s specific enough.

Sorry, that last comment was uncalled for. It's just that your accusations get wilder and wilder and I have no idea what the basis of your position is. I simply did not get the same thing from the paper first cited. I think we're getting too emotional here for rational debate. Try to get an opinion from a disinterested party.

A man who can't even spell should not take on academics. Yes, I read the string and was not impressed.

I'm afraid this will make you guys mad. I really don't think the study was that bad. Although it was speculative in some places, particularly about the potential for abusive American spouses, for the most part it had a reasoned and neutral tone. Are you guys so sure the speculation was actually that far off? I've certainly read a number of newspaper stories, at least one of which was referenced in the study, where a controlling American spouse killed his foreign spouse. Of course, this is only antecdotal backup, but at least it's food for thought. I didn't get the feeling the report considered itself to be the final word on the subject of foreign spouses, just a review of the best information available at the time of writing. Sure, one can always pick out weaknesses in any study, but you guys don't offer much of rebuttal, just outrage and unsubstantiated countercharges that make the study look all the more reasonable in comparison. I hope any response sent to the government is more measured than what I've read so far. So why are you guys so mad? I tried to figure that out before responding, but I'm still puzzled. The report ended by recommending possible closer examination of the American petitioner in the future. Is it so bad to question the motives of those with histories of domestic violence, men who have had multiple foreign brides, or those with mental illness or drug and alcohol problems? Are the study's accusations just a little too close for comfort? I don't know why I'm not offended. I'm like the rest of you in most ways--waiting for my Chinese fiancee to be granted a visa. I met her while I was working in Beijing for two years, but by chance and not by intentionally looking for a wife on the internet. Before that, I really wasn't interested in getting married and had no preference for Asian women. I really can't imagine looking for love on the web, so maybe that is the difference. Let me apologize in advance for my comments. Most of the people on the forum seem to be kind, helpful people. However, a few of you sound just like the types who should be weeded out in the visa process. I feel for the poor Chinese women who have no idea what they're getting into. I hope your anger isn't an indication of control issues. Forums like this are a great place to exchange information and provide emotional support for people who would otherwise be unlikely to find those in similar circumstances. But occasionally your home on the net can get too insular from a lack of differing opinions. I really think you guys should pause before getting too carried away with your righteous indignation.

Thanks. Then GZ policy really isn't "don't ask, don't tell", because 17© asks about past and present membership in a "totalitarian party". I see there is a place just below that question that allows the applicant to explain why he/she shouldn't be denied a visa because of this. At least that's how I read the form. It's got so many words that are open to interpretation and such a convoluted sentence structure that I'm sure this is where lawyers make their living. So, assuming my fiancee truthfully answers this question, is there a line of reasoning that works best in the explanation section? I sense that it's time for me to visit an attorney.

John, thanks for the search tip. I've already read pretty much all of the "communist" threads, and they were very informative. But I don't recall any reference to GNI-2 forms, and I got no hits when I searched on "GNI-2". Did I miss something? Maybe I'm focusing too much on one form, but it's the only form I can't find on the web, and on the 1990 version the question about previous CP membership was asked. If that question is still there, my fiancee will answer it truthfully and stands a reasonable chance of being refused the visa, at least until an appeal can be made. I understand that some people have had no trouble with getting the visa after answering yes to the question. But since I know nothing about their potentially unique circumstances or have any idea of the success/failure ratio, I feel uncomfortable. If the form only asks about current membership, we're home free. (Unless of course the VO decides to probe in that area for some reason.) I appreciate all of the advice and information this forum has to offer, and given the number of persons here in the final stages of the visa process there must be someone here with specific and recent knowledge of the GNI-2 form. If the question is already covered in another thread, my apologies for bothering everyone.

I agree, never lie. What I'm trying to decide is whether or not to hire an immigration attorney. If the GNI-2 form asks about prior membership, then I think my fiancee has a much higher chance of being refused a visa. I assume an appeal would then have to be made based on her membership being required for employment, or something else along similar lines. If the issue of membership in the Communist Party doesn't come up, I think my fiancee will breeze through the visa process. But if it does come up, I think I'll need a lawyer. I need to find out how likely it is that the issue will come up. What does the GNI-2 specifically ask?

Sorry if this is old, but does the current GNI-2 form ask about previous membership in the Communist Party? My fiance has quit, but we're afraid the issue will come up somehow. I've read the threads on this forum that indicate a "don't ask, don't tell" policy is in effect at the GZ consulate, but my fiance just found a 1990 version of the GNI-2 form that asks about prior membership. Is this version still used, or has it been revised?

143Xin, I recently started the K-1 visa process for my fiancee and would like to clarify a couple points. First, the State Department rule appears to bar any former Chinese Communist from getting a visa if their membership was terminated less than 5 years from the date on their visa application. Why are they giving your wife a hard time if she quit 6 years ago? Second, how did they find out? I recently read an enlightening thread on this forum that indicated a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was in place at the Guangzhou consulate. And the forms I’ve seen so far ask about current party membership, not previous. Did the VO ask in the interview? Or maybe I’m just not familiar with all of the K-1 forms yet. This is starting to worry me. Any thoughts out there? Dave

Sorry if this is an old question. During her university years my fiancee was advised to join the Chinese Communist Party in order to make it easier to find a job. Being from a poor, unconnected family, she needed all the help she could get, so she joined. Now it seems that her membership is a potential barrier to getting a visa. I've read about the rule and potential waiver, but I don't know what the actual practice is at the Guangzhou consulate. Anybody out there with experience in this issue?