Class action suit

[kkimm]

Can we file a class action suit again the fed gov't if there are enough evidence/difficulty both financially & emotionally

[AZwolfman]

Hmmmmmm

I think you will get your desired result (obtaining visa) much faster if you direct these energies to getting the gov't to issue your visa (proactive), instead of wasting time (negative) and effort into trying to punish the gov't, get compensation, or provide for the security of another lawyer.

[avastar]

Sorry AZwolfman, I have to agree with kkimm. I realize you are a veteran and I'm a newbie, but the whole patience thing plays into their hands and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Its not about punishing the gorvernment or getting compensation, its about getting DOS and Guangzhou to follow our laws.

 

The LIFE Act enacted by Congress says that K1/K3 visas are to be treated as nonimmigrant visas to quickly reunite families in the U.S. so they can then proceed with the further processing. Then 9/11 occurred, which resulted in the Patriot Act, but this act only requires DOS to join the other law enforcement agencies in developing an integrated computer system for sharing information on foreign individuals and potential terrorists and then DOS is to submit all potential visa applicants to this system, which should take a second. Unfortunately, the computer system is not up and running yet, but they submitted the names anyway, hence all of our problems. Anyway 9/11 also resulted in the new Immigration and Nationality Act, which incorporates the Patriot Act and low and behold the LIFE Act. And it still says that K1/K3 visas are supposed to be nonimmigrant visas to quickly reunite families.

 

It seems to me that DOS and Guangzhou have arbitrarily decided to treat K1/K3 visas as immigrant visas without any authorization that I can find to date, thus breaking two laws that have been enacted by Congress to reunite us with our loved ones as soon as possible. That is the reason to file the suit, to help prevent future applicants from going through what we have. I back you all the way kkimm.

[chinadave2001]

Hi all. I am not a lawyer - just a mere high school history teacher - but here are my thoughts:

 

While I agree with your desired intention guys, what you are suggesting is highly unlikely to have the desired effect of getting their attention and making them change the law.

 

Assuming that we could organize enough interest (which in itself is a real question - look how little interest there is in letter campaigns on this site alone) and raise funds to get an attorney to take this case, all the government has to do is point how the Patriot Act created an unreasonable demand on the system which wasn't designed to process so many name-checks. Thus, in the interest of national security, the issuance of these visas were necessarily delayed while the government updated its ability to issue some 10,000,000 visas a year. We have all seen this in countless e-mails and other communications from the government on this issue.

 

While we could certainly show damages, how can we show negligence? On what grounds can we sue them? Are you suggesting that the government should ignore the Patriot Act because of the Life Act? I don't think there is anything arbitrary about their interpretation of the Patriot Act. These folks clearly believe that they have a mandate from Congress to do these visa checks.

 

Next, even if we did have a case, it would be easy for the government to stall so long that it would be meaningless by the time it was resolved.

 

After all is said and done, I still believe that the problem is the lack of resources/manpower/technology needed to do the job right. We are also not a high priority right now. It's a bit like trying to sue Motor Vehicle Department for having to wait a couple of hours to get a vehicle registration. However, I am still open to the idea. You just have to convince me that it would not be a huge waste of time.

 

Dave

[tonado]

The case probably will take a long time to go to court. Ten years maybe. By that time, all the loveones will already be here and the visa process would probably have changed so much. Then the case might be throw out. Lawyers are the ones that would gain.

[AZwolfman]

After all is said and done, I still believe that the problem is the lack of resources/manpower/technology needed to do the job right. . . .

 

Dave

Correct. And add, lack of proper training and instruction in how to best institute the new changes and security checks.

[wolf]

The suit is a great idea, but after 9/11 we could never find a lawyer to take the case. Since 9/11 the government has had a green light to do what it wants in the name of > National Security < Bush when into Iraq when the world and UN were against him, and he came out smelling like a rose. Many of our constitutional rights have been pushed aside in the name of security. Our's is a small fight in the face of the economy, which is also hurting us, because so many citizens are out of work, so every foreign that enters this country posses a threat for jobs.

The people that are working for the DOS and all the rest of the agencies know that they can keep a file on their desk for months and no one will question why. They only need say>Still checking it< and they keep their jobs.

About 2 months ago in Washington State they had complaints that customs officers were refusing some visitors with legal visa into the country and sending them back to their home country. Many had been living in this country for years and had visas, but they didn't have any appeal at the airport so they were sent back and had to appeal from their countries. They were finally allowed back in, but nothing was done to the customs people, or to pay them for their expenses.

I think we most just keep writting warm letters to everyone in government and hope the system will change before we die. It sucks but that's the government for you.

[avastar]

Sorry guys, but I still disagree. The arguments I hear are basically making rationalizations for the "enemy". Dave you make some good points, but we are not asking them to change the law, but to uphold it. There is nothing in the Patriot Act changing the status of K1/K3 visas to immigrants versus nonimmigrants. You are comparing apples and organges, we are supposed to be getting nonimmigrant visas, 2-3 week turn around time. Also the Patriot Act was not retroactive it only applied to immigration by telling DOS to join the info sharing of the integrated computer system of law enforcement and to then submit all visa applicants to that system for a namecheck, it did not specify a time to start the namechecks. It allowed an extended amount of time to accomplish this, somewhere in the 12-18 month time frame. Hence the beginning of our troubles in July of 2002. The Patriot Act was enacted shortly after 9/11/2001.

 

My guess is that the integrated computer system is not operational yet, and some bureaucrat, maybe to save his job, decided in order to show progress that he would begin the namechecks, before the system was ready to accept them. Even to the "black holers" who had already had their interviews. We've all seen the FBI computers work, submit a guys name from Nome, Alaska and it takes 3 seconds, 10 tops if the computers are slow, to bring him up. If the system was working our times would not be close to reasonable. And the Patriot Act calls for namechecks of all visas, immigrant and nonimmigrant, it has to be quick for nonimmigrants so either they are not submitting them or they are the ones taking all the resources, especially if the computers are not online yet. Thus causing the rubber-stamping at each Dept.

 

Dave have you had a chance to read the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 2002 yet. The Partriot Act and the LIFE Act is not either or, so its not ignoring one for the other. The INA incorporates both the Patriot Act and the LIFE Act and says almost word for word what each of the others say. Therefore the intent of the INA is to maintain the status of K1/K3 as nonimmigrant visas and still have namechecks performed quickly in the framework of the speed of nonimmgrant processing in order to have families quickly united or reunited as the case may be. And yes by law DOS is arbitrarily changing the status of K1/K3 visas to immigrant versus the nonimmigrant that the law says it should be.

 

ttlee_99 you are also right, but the idea is to bring attention to our plight, CNN covered the guy sueing fast food restaurants for making him fat, surely they would cover husbands and fiancees fighting to stop the government from holding our loved ones hostage. And you don't need a lawyer to file a suit, but you better have one if it does go to court.

 

Finally, even if it is the lack of resources/manpower/technology needed to do the job right..., should that be acceptable to us? The law mandates that we are to be united with our loved ones as soon as possible, both President Bush and Secretary Powell have written letters/memos to that effect, and the government should be held accountable if they are not accomplishing this task. As we all know our situation has nothing to do with "National Security" especially since our foriegn nationals will be under constant surveillance..., by us. :-)

 

Sorry about the length of the comments as you can tell I'm passionate about this, as I'm sure all of you are. I met my wife last summer here in Indiana, we spent the summer together, fell in love, and married just before she left. She could have stayed here and got her hand slapped, while applying for permanent status, but was in charge of a group of students and felt responsible for their safe return. If we only knew then what we know now...

[Guest R2D2]

For every pro immigration person, there is a hundred anti-immigration people. Check the web sites. With this current political climate (everything is politics), all one can do is hope for change in the not to distant future. For those that wish to keep the status quo, you deserve what you get. I have not seen things as bad since the Reagan administration. Jobs are harder to find, unions are broken, and wages are going down. I hope the trickle down will get to you. The trickle down bull crap has gotten to me.

[chinadave2001]

For those that wish to keep the status quo, you deserve what you get.

I not sure what you are suggesting here. I doubt there is anyone on this site who "wishes to keep the staus quo." it's just a question of how best to attack the problem.

Dave

[rfsun]

Yes, how best to attack the problem? Who shall be our attack person of the week? Ashcroft was in the news today talking about Haitian illegal refugees. I think if they get in the news we pound them. Why? Because they stuck their heads up like little prarie dogs, or ducks in the shooting arcade. They need to work on our case, LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

[AZwolfman]

Yes, how best to attack the problem?  Who shall be our attack person of the week?  Ashcroft was in the news today talking about Haitian illegal refugees.  I think if they get in the news we pound them.  Why?  Because they stuck their heads up like little prarie dogs, or ducks in the shooting arcade.  They need to work on our case, LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

Good idea. Attackee of the week. They stick their heads out for attention; give them some.