GUZ Doesn't Speak

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Just noticed GUZ answered all questions in their special area except this one. Perhaps we should rename the area the GUZ spin zone?

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17362

[stacato]

Just noticed GUZ answered all questions in their special area except this one. Perhaps we should rename the area the GUZ spin zone?

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17362

208562[/snapback]

I think they have a pattern of checking the site every few days or so. I am sure they will come up with some kind of a NONE explanation to this question soon.....

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Maybe they don't want to respond to it. They are certainly under no obligation to do so.

208585[/snapback]

Yes, indeed. Also, there is really no way of telling whether or not we're getting good information, although much of it looks on target. Case in point, David's question was answered by GUZ today, but contradicts both the information on their website, and what many have been doing.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17366

[jemmyell]

Maybe they don't want to respond to it. They are certainly under no obligation to do so.

208585[/snapback]

Yes, indeed. Also, there is really no way of telling whether or not we're getting good information, although much of it looks on target. Case in point, David's question was answered by GUZ today, but contradicts both the information on their website, and what many have been doing.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17366

208589[/snapback]

In the case of a directly contradictory response, I think that BOTH the english and chinese forms should be filled out. AND maybe print this topic from CFL and have it on board too.

 

-James

[hunter]

Just a thought, but if someone asks me a question and i follow it up with a threat, Your help would be greatly appreciated as many of us are willing to assist in lobbying US Government officials to increase funding for GUZ to meet the current workload. I'd probably be evasive or get mad and not answer it. Its more a question of human psychology and tact. =) just my 2 cents really.

[david_dawei]

Maybe they don't want to respond to it. They are certainly under no obligation to do so.

208585[/snapback]

Yes, indeed. Also, there is really no way of telling whether or not we're getting good information, although much of it looks on target. Case in point, David's question was answered by GUZ today, but contradicts both the information on their website, and what many have been doing.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17366

208589[/snapback]

I think that it only shows more clearly the blurred line between considering the K-# visas a non-immigrant one at times vs an immigrant one...

 

This is one of the cases where they don't lump it in with non-immigrant visas procedures...

[jim_julian]

There's an obvious reason why GZ may not answer the work load / staffing question. It could be interpreted by officials above as encouraging citizens to lobby on behalf of the visa section. That's something, from my government experience, that would be frowned upon and not particularly career enhancing.

 

I continue to think that, on balance, the GZ subforum is quite helpful. I know that some here feel differently and they have the right to their opinions of course.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

There's an obvious reason why GZ may not answer the work load / staffing question.  It could be interpreted by officials above as encouraging citizens to lobby on behalf of the visa section.  That's something, from my government experience, that would be frowned upon and not particularly career enhancing.

 

I continue to think that, on balance, the GZ subforum is quite helpful.  I know that some here feel differently and they have the right to their opinions of course.

208706[/snapback]

Yes, agreed Jim. First, let me say that I'm in no way attempting to diminish my repect for those at GUZ for helping us in that forum. I did not intend to do that. However, I am one that is quite in tune with the business world, and have certain expectations from those that are paid to perform tasks; especially tasks that are of a well-documented and legal level.

 

I do not consider it offensive when someone questions my work, and my performance. I got over that a long time ago. I have a job to do each day, and if I fall short of requirements I expect an ass chewing.

 

I posted my question to GUZ in repsonse to a request from our friend King, the attorney in Guanzhou. He is the one that pointed out the increase in petitions with no increase in staff. If his statement is true, it indeed is a VERY important issue. An issue that requires corroboration. So, I went to the source with a question that was direct, but not disrespectul. To the contrary, it was supportive of those that are working in Guanzhou.

 

Now, before anyone pounces on my cultural insensitivity, remember, that I said nothing in my question that was disrepectful of GUZ. I simply posed the question and left it to GUZ to either confirm, or deny.

[Luo_Bin_&_Jialu]

Yeah...that is quite a ridiculous statement to post on GUZ speaks. It is a great thought..but not at all worth my time if I am a busy GUZ employee/staff member. Could really be interpreted as a little brown-nosey..

 

Just my thoughts...but I lobby on the side of utilitarianism as it relates to GUZ speaks..

[change2marrow]

Just noticed GUZ answered all questions in their special area except this one. Perhaps we should rename the area the GUZ spin zone?

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17362

208562[/snapback]

An unanswered questions should be is just that.... Unanswered. Assuming other wise, could lead to "a mother of all mess ups."

 

In my opinion, the question itself is indirect to visa immigration processes. It's a good question, don't get me wrong. But, the staff at GUZ have legal obligations (policies and guidelines) and it's possible such information can't be answered by them. Asking the head of GUZ could be a start.

 

Sometimes statically information that is released is done through a "press releases" or "Public Notice".

 

My 5cents.

[warpedbored]

Don is right, they are not under any obligation to answer anything here. Indeed we are extremely fortunate to have any link to them at all. They certainly don't have to answer questions about staffing. I had thought about deleting it since it isn't really a question about the visa process or a problem that needs an answer but I left it there on the off chance it would be answered. I am not surprised it wasn't. This doesn't mean you can"t ask tough questions of them. For instance I have never been quite satisfied with the reply to the question about whether or not the outcome of the visa is pre-disposed. GZ says no but also says the VO doesn't read the file before the interview. If that's true then a lot of peoples lives are controled by a 5 minute interview with no prep.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Lets be perfectly clear here. The question posted in GUZ was NEITHER ambiguous NOR inflammatory. To the contrary, it was direct and helpful, with the intent to confirm whether or not GUZ is having staffing shortages as stated by attorney King.

 

Some people don't like asking direct questions. Fair enough. Don't ask the question. Others, out of concern for both their families and friends, will ask tough questions.

 

Those that disagree should take the time to read the question posted to GUZ very carefully. Are you concerned that GUZ may have experienced an 80% increase of petitions this past year with NO increase in staff? I, and many, many others are.

 

Why did GUZ choose NOT to answer the question? Does anyone know? Of course not. Certainly we all can speculate as to why. I think most of us would agree it's because it may well have placed the one that answered it in the line of fire from their superiors, especially given the current climate in the US regarding immigration.

 

So, what does one do? Quit asking the question altogether? Perhaps the more passive types may. I think the question is a good one that both needs to be asked and verified for the reasons stated so clearly by King.

 

Drawing attention to a staffing shortage at GUZ won't help those of you that already have your visas, and likely won't help those that are well-along in their process. Drawing attention to a staffing shortage at GUZ will make many in Washington uncomfortable, and do what they can to spin it in another way.

 

Some CFL members moved through the visa process from one point to another relatively unscathed, though albeit slow and steady. Others, have had their hearts and their partners hearts ripped out by incompentency and needless delays. It doesn't have to be this way. There are thankfully a few that will stand up.

 

This ia an idea I am throwing out for the CFL to consider. It will probably only help the newer members or future members, but it might be something CFL can put its muscle into and get results.

 

Recently I got word directly from the horse's mouth that GUZ has seen a grow in petitions sent it of 80% over last year with NO INCREASE IN STAFF.

 

The thought is to have CFL spearhead a push with Congress and at DOS to increase funding at GUZ and getting more staff in hopes of meeting the demand of more petitions and improving the processing time.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16096

 

They certainly don't have to answer questions about staffing.  I had thought about deleting it since it isn't really a question about the visa process or a problem that needs an answer but I left it there on the off chance it would be answered.  I am not surprised it wasn't.  This doesn't mean you can"t ask tough questions of them.  For instance I have never been quite satisfied with the reply to the question about whether or not the outcome of the visa is pre-disposed.  GZ says no but also says the VO doesn't read the file before the interview.  If that's true then a lot of peoples lives are controled by a 5 minute interview with no prep.

Thanks Carl. You were quite instrumental in having the GUZ Speaks forum placed out there during the time when some debated that it should be a moderator only area.

Edited April 21, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[chef4u]

Lets be perfectly clear here. The question posted in GUZ was NEITHER ambiguous NOR inflammatory. To the contrary, it was direct and helpful, with the intent to confirm whether or not GUZ is having staffing shortages as stated by attorney King.

 

Some people don't like asking direct questions. Fair enough. Don't ask the question. Others, out of concern for both their families and friends, will ask tough questions.

 

Those that disagree should take the time to read the question posted to GUZ very carefully. Are you concerned that GUZ may have experienced an 80% increase of petitions this past year with NO increase in staff? I, and many, many others are.

 

Why did GUZ choose NOT to answer the question? Does anyone know? Of course not. Certainly we all can speculate as to why. I think most of us would agree it's because it may well have placed the one that answered it in the line of fire from their superiors, especially given the current climate in the US regarding immigration.

 

So, what does one do? Quit asking the question altogether? Perhaps the more passive types may. I think the question is a good one that both needs to be asked and verified for the reasons stated so clearly by King.

 

Drawing attention to a staffing shortage at GUZ won't help those of you that already have your visas, and likely won't help those that are well-along in their process. Drawing attention to a staffing shortage at GUZ will make many in Washington uncomfortable, and do what they can to spin it in another way.

 

Some CFL members moved through the visa process from one point to another relatively unscathed, though albeit slow and steady. Others, have had their hearts and their partners hearts ripped out by incompentency and needless delays. It doesn't have to be this way. There are thankfully a few that will stand up.

 

This ia an idea I am throwing out for the CFL to consider. It will probably only help the newer members or future members, but it might be something CFL can put its muscle into and get results.

 

Recently I got word directly from the horse's mouth that GUZ has seen a grow in petitions sent it of 80% over last year with NO INCREASE IN STAFF.

 

The thought is to have CFL spearhead a push with Congress and at DOS to increase funding at GUZ and getting more staff in hopes of meeting the demand of more petitions and improving the processing time.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16096

 

They certainly don't have to answer questions about staffing.  I had thought about deleting it since it isn't really a question about the visa process or a problem that needs an answer but I left it there on the off chance it would be answered.  I am not surprised it wasn't.  This doesn't mean you can"t ask tough questions of them.  For instance I have never been quite satisfied with the reply to the question about whether or not the outcome of the visa is pre-disposed.  GZ says no but also says the VO doesn't read the file before the interview.  If that's true then a lot of peoples lives are controled by a 5 minute interview with no prep.

Thanks Carl. You were quite instrumental in having the GUZ Speaks forum placed out there during the time when some debated that it should be a moderator only area.

208861[/snapback]

Long time ago I remember taking a few political science courses in college. Actually, I had to take a bunch as that was my major. One such course was Political Theory/US Governement. I remember the common denominator to all the course discussions were the words and meanings of, A Right, A Power and A Duty, (i think there was a fourth...but I forget...maybe one of our lawyer members knows). Anyway, the model would go like this...Jesse has the RIGHT and the POWER to question our government. The government has the DUTY to answer. Perfect, in its theory. right? Unfortunate, that some government agencies reverse this model. My point, I think it is good that we have members like Jesse, who will ask direct and tough questions. The worst that can happen to asking such tough and maybe uncomfortable questions....... is to receive no answer.

[Guest pushbrk]

Lets be perfectly clear here. The question posted in GUZ was NEITHER ambiguous NOR inflammatory. To the contrary, it was direct and helpful, with the intent to confirm whether or not GUZ is having staffing shortages as stated by attorney King.

 

Some people don't like asking direct questions. Fair enough. Don't ask the question. Others, out of concern for both their families and friends, will ask tough questions.

 

Those that disagree should take the time to read the question posted to GUZ very carefully. Are you concerned that GUZ may have experienced an 80% increase of petitions this past year with NO increase in staff? I, and many, many others are.

 

Why did GUZ choose NOT to answer the question? Does anyone know? Of course not. Certainly we all can speculate as to why. I think most of us would agree it's because it may well have placed the one that answered it in the line of fire from their superiors, especially given the current climate in the US regarding immigration.

 

So, what does one do? Quit asking the question altogether? Perhaps the more passive types may. I think the question is a good one that both needs to be asked and verified for the reasons stated so clearly by King.

 

Drawing attention to a staffing shortage at GUZ won't help those of you that already have your visas, and likely won't help those that are well-along in their process. Drawing attention to a staffing shortage at GUZ will make many in Washington uncomfortable, and do what they can to spin it in another way.

 

Some CFL members moved through the visa process from one point to another relatively unscathed, though albeit slow and steady. Others, have had their hearts and their partners hearts ripped out by incompentency and needless delays. It doesn't have to be this way. There are thankfully a few that will stand up.

 

This ia an idea I am throwing out for the CFL to consider. It will probably only help the newer members or future members, but it might be something CFL can put its muscle into and get results.

 

Recently I got word directly from the horse's mouth that GUZ has seen a grow in petitions sent it of 80% over last year with NO INCREASE IN STAFF.

 

The thought is to have CFL spearhead a push with Congress and at DOS to increase funding at GUZ and getting more staff in hopes of meeting the demand of more petitions and improving the processing time.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16096

 

They certainly don't have to answer questions about staffing.  I had thought about deleting it since it isn't really a question about the visa process or a problem that needs an answer but I left it there on the off chance it would be answered.  I am not surprised it wasn't.  This doesn't mean you can"t ask tough questions of them.  For instance I have never been quite satisfied with the reply to the question about whether or not the outcome of the visa is pre-disposed.  GZ says no but also says the VO doesn't read the file before the interview.  If that's true then a lot of peoples lives are controled by a 5 minute interview with no prep.

Thanks Carl. You were quite instrumental in having the GUZ Speaks forum placed out there during the time when some debated that it should be a moderator only area.

208861[/snapback]

Long time ago I remember taking a few political science courses in college. Actually, I had to take a bunch as that was my major. One such course was Political Theory/US Governement. I remember the common denominator to all the course discussions were the words and meanings of, A Right, A Power and A Duty, (i think there was a fourth...but I forget...maybe one of our lawyer members knows). Anyway, the model would go like this...Jesse has the RIGHT and the POWER to question our government. The government has the DUTY to answer. Perfect, in its theory. right? Unfortunate, that some government agencies reverse this model. My point, I think it is good that we have members like Jesse, who will ask direct and tough questions. The worst that can happen to asking such tough and maybe uncomfortable questions....... is to receive no answer.

208882[/snapback]

I don't see any problem with Jesse's question whatsoever. While it may be "the government's" responsibility to answer, it is not necessarily the responsibility of this specific government employee to answer THIS question.

 

As such, I would prefer people refrain from denegrating him/her for not doing so. The question was not inflamatory but if I were USCONGUZ, I would consider suggestions to rename the forum "GUZ Spin Zone" and other remarks in this thread to be quite inflammatory. I hope this thread isn't seen by that person. If it is, I hope they will understand how much we DO appreciate their participation and that they will continue to respond.