denial because of language barrier

[david_dawei]

Your comments are quite interesting, David. I really need to check in a dictionary to be sure, but tellin' it like it is wasn't part of any definition of "cynical" the last time I looked.

Once you start posting that the governments aim is to prevent the 'browning' and 'yellowing' of america... I think you fitting the definition of cynical... and that might be generous.

 

No, a 5 or 10 minute "interview" ~ conducted from behind 2" of bullet proof glass, with a tiny slot for inserting documents ~ is now going to provide the visa official with new and critical information. Such as what? Whether my wife is a little too cute to be simply in love with her husband? Whether she is dressed too well for her socio-economic status in China? Whether she "looks" like a scammer? Indeed! Exactly what are they expecting to learn from behind their glass fortress that will provide the "smoking gun" of visa fraud that they don't already know?

So you think the consulate so not have any interview? I'm in the other direction; if they want to take fraud seriously, they should require both to interview; put pressure on the USC to show the relationship is truly worth it and see them first hand together.. just like AOS... BTW: I would probably do away with AOS and just do it after 4 years.... test the relationship that long before you give a 10 year GC.

 

As for your comments about "the volume and the pragmatism of [the] Chinese" making it close to impossible to get a system to operate properly, you'll have to explain that one to me. I have no idea what you are talking about. Five minutes in the Citizen's Services section of the Consulate is enough to tell you the US government calls the shots in there. They do whatever they want.

Volume is that they processes alot of people... they are unresourced, which may be intentional... On a certain level, of course they do what they want; they have been given the authority to issue (or not) visas... but they have 9FAM and other manuals which do make up the process and handling.

 

Your final comments regarding the excellent and extremely valuable work everyone does on the Candle is certainly true, and I said as much in my little piece. But it is a little like wishing a man on the gallows good luck.

If that were true, then I'd never write the FAQs and not do stats... the fact is, I think one can 'play the game' too... just need to have a community like this where real-time feedback tells us which way the GUZ winds are blowing.

 

The next step for the Candle is to start a grass roots political action group that will lobby Congress to exercise much greater oversight of the CR-1 and K visa processes, and to make the executive branch live up to the standard the American people expect. That is, simply, you fill out one or two simple forms, pay a reasonable fee, and, if there is nothing objective in your application that speaks of fraud or deception, the USCIS MUST issue the visa. It must be a transparent and totally objective process. Someone's feelings, even a visa official's, don't count.

I think Don could speak historical about any grass roots attempts in the past... I don't think it would have any effect... Some countries around the world are as simple as you say... but the minute they start to get 10,000 applicants a monthy, and some are fraudulent... I think you'd find them moving towards a tighten approach.

[chilton747]

So you think the consulate so not have any interview? huh.gif I'm in the other direction; if they want to take fraud seriously, they should require both to interview; put pressure on the USC to show the relationship is truly worth it and see them first hand together.. just like AOS... BTW: I would probably do away with AOS and just do it after 4 years.... test the relationship that long before you give a 10 year GC.

 

In the perfect world then this is how it should be handled. Other Consulates do this but GZ does not. Why? We will never know. I think that 2 years is more reasonable for AOS. In the first place, the government has no business in our personal lives. Last time I checked, a couple had the right to run their lives as they see fit. I never had government intervention with my past marriages so why should I be under a microscope with this marriage? Because she is Chinese? It sounds like governmental controls need some tweaking.

[david_dawei]

So you think the consulate so not have any interview? huh.gif I'm in the other direction; if they want to take fraud seriously, they should require both to interview; put pressure on the USC to show the relationship is truly worth it and see them first hand together.. just like AOS... BTW: I would probably do away with AOS and just do it after 4 years.... test the relationship that long before you give a 10 year GC.

 

In the perfect world then this is how it should be handled. Other Consulates do this but GZ does not. Why? We will never know. I think that 2 years is more reasonable for AOS. In the first place, the government has no business in our personal lives. Last time I checked, a couple had the right to run their lives as they see fit. I never had government intervention with my past marriages so why should I be under a microscope with this marriage? Because she is Chinese? It sounds like governmental controls need some tweaking.

But this isn't reality; countries want to control their people... and the more legalistic the more control they ultimately want to exert, whether obvious or latent...

[chilton747]

So you think the consulate so not have any interview? huh.gif I'm in the other direction; if they want to take fraud seriously, they should require both to interview; put pressure on the USC to show the relationship is truly worth it and see them first hand together.. just like AOS... BTW: I would probably do away with AOS and just do it after 4 years.... test the relationship that long before you give a 10 year GC.

 

In the perfect world then this is how it should be handled. Other Consulates do this but GZ does not. Why? We will never know. I think that 2 years is more reasonable for AOS. In the first place, the government has no business in our personal lives. Last time I checked, a couple had the right to run their lives as they see fit. I never had government intervention with my past marriages so why should I be under a microscope with this marriage? Because she is Chinese? It sounds like governmental controls need some tweaking.

But this isn't reality; countries want to control their people... and the more legalistic the more control they ultimately want to exert, whether obvious or latent...

 

Well if that's the case, then our freedom has been lost.

[tsap seui]

 

In the perfect world then this is how it should be handled. Other Consulates do this but GZ does not. Why? We will never know. I think that 2 years is more reasonable for AOS. In the first place, the government has no business in our personal lives. Last time I checked, a couple had the right to run their lives as they see fit. I never had government intervention with my past marriages so why should I be under a microscope with this marriage? Because she is Chinese? It sounds like governmental controls need some tweaking.

But this isn't reality; countries want to control their people... and the more legalistic the more control they ultimately want to exert, whether obvious or latent...

 

Well if that's the case, then our freedom has been lost.

 

"...freedom has been lost." Hmmmmmm......

 

I humbly ask, would a complete loss of constitutional rights as an american citizen be considered a loss of freedom?

 

If your loved one gets a blue or white slip from GUZ you will find that you have lost any rights you thought you had as an american citizen. Not only that, you will find that your congressman has absolutely no power...a letter to the president just gets forwarded to the DOS, who in turn tells you that there will be no intervention on what the interviewing VO decides....there is no one to help you.

 

GUZ is it's own entity and you have lost your freedom and rights if they so decide. And if you think differently, you've not only lost your freedom and rights, you've also lost yer marbles.

 

Nobody ever said life was fair. This bullshit with the american clowns in GUZ is just just another part of life....some are lucky and get the lil' 2 or 3 questions and given a smile and a visa, others get to see what america can really be all about.

 

tsap seui

 

I for one will always be thankful to David Z for the FAQ's and the help they gave the lil' rabbit and I while preparing for the interview.

[georgeandli]

Chip away slowly people will not notice. Death of a thousand cuts. tsap seui, just because you get rejected by GUZ doesn't mean You have lost any rights as a citizen. Oh wait, unless you are referring to that one line in I believe the Preamble that says something about Pursuit of Happiness?

[david_dawei]

So you think the consulate so not have any interview? huh.gif I'm in the other direction; if they want to take fraud seriously, they should require both to interview; put pressure on the USC to show the relationship is truly worth it and see them first hand together.. just like AOS... BTW: I would probably do away with AOS and just do it after 4 years.... test the relationship that long before you give a 10 year GC.

 

In the perfect world then this is how it should be handled. Other Consulates do this but GZ does not. Why? We will never know. I think that 2 years is more reasonable for AOS. In the first place, the government has no business in our personal lives. Last time I checked, a couple had the right to run their lives as they see fit. I never had government intervention with my past marriages so why should I be under a microscope with this marriage? Because she is Chinese? It sounds like governmental controls need some tweaking.

But this isn't reality; countries want to control their people... and the more legalistic the more control they ultimately want to exert, whether obvious or latent...

 

Well if that's the case, then our freedom has been lost.

you've hit upon my latent point... Society, civilization, governments, etc are all man-made institutions which decide how people should be, how they should act, and what they should be allowed to do or not do... Ultimately, where is the freedom in this? The concept of freedom is as much man-made as time... it is ultimately defined by those in power... I'm saying on some level, let go of all these concepts and don't worry so much about them... otherwise they control us.

[tsap seui]

Chip away slowly people will not notice. Death of a thousand cuts. tsap seui, just because you get rejected by GUZ doesn't mean You have lost any rights as a citizen. Oh wait, unless you are referring to that one line in I believe the Preamble that says something about Pursuit of Happiness?

 

 

George, the pursuit of happiness is not something I look at as a right from a preamble or a constitution from america. You don't know me from anyone and apparantely the thousands of smiley faces in my posts haven't registered to some that I'm NOT an angry man....actually my sense of humor is fully intact. (That lil' yeller thing there, means I'm laughin')

 

And, we haven't been denied just yet, bubba. If we'd have been "denied" back at the interview we'd be together now, in China, instead of america, but we'd be together now instead of in limbo awaiting a possible visa.

 

Chip away slowly dyin' a death of a thousand cuts.? Not hardly. Two congressmen have inquired to GUZ, a letter was sent to and replied by the president's office and it was forwarded to the DOS, and between the lil' rabbit and I we have over 35 e-mail replys from GUZ. We haven't exactly been sittin' on our asses

 

 

 

 

George, if YOUR case is similar to ours would you care to let us in on what you did? Our case is in GUZ NOT america, was not lost, has not been denied, and started out, over 8 months ago, as an AP (administrative processing) blue slip (no evidence asked for), and for a little over 2 months it has changed to an administrative review blue slip.

 

George, again, if YOUR case is similar to ours and you can tell me something else I can try with GUZ, I'd appreciate it.

 

Oh yeah, if I haven't lost any constitutional rights when dealin' with GUZ, could you please pass me the jelly and tell me WHERE my rights went?

 

Thanks,

 

tsap seui

Edited April 4, 2008 by tsap seui (see edit history)

[georgeandli]

tsap seui, Sorry if I came across the wrong way. I agree 100% with you. My sarcasm is only for the pinheads you know where[just two hints-not on CFL and they are on the fifth floor of a building]. The only problem I have is playing the game and not knowing the rules. The darn penalties [time lost] seem so silly

[NY-Viking]

... just because you get rejected by GUZ doesn't mean You have lost any rights as a citizen. Oh wait, unless you are referring to that one line in I believe the Preamble that says something about Pursuit of Happiness?

 

George, the pursuit of happiness is not something I look at as a right from a preamble or a constitution from america. ...

 

...

 

Oh yeah, if I haven't lost any constitutional rights when dealin' with GUZ, could you please pass me the jelly and tell me WHERE my rights went?

 

Good thing you guys will never have to take the citizenship exam.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution - not in the preamble, not in the main text of Articles 1 through 7, and not in any one of the 27 Amendments - will you find the phrase "pursuit of happiness."

 

The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence (our letter telling England off ... which gives us no rights ...), and yet so many Americans believe it is in the Constitution.

 

I'm not commenting on the rest of your posts (I understand the frustration), but whenever I see or hear someone say this, it really irks me. Sorry, just a pet peeve.

[tsap seui]

tsap seui, Sorry if I came across the wrong way. I agree 100% with you. My sarcasm is only for the pinheads you know where[just two hints-not on CFL and they are on the fifth floor of a building]. The only problem I have is playing the game and not knowing the rules. The darn penalties [time lost] seem so silly

 

George, buddy, I know you've been through your own personal hell with the cluckers in GUZ and in the rest of the dang idiotic government and you won out in the end. My ol' floppy Aussie hat is off to your success.

 

The apology is on my sorry butt, it's not really an excuse for being grumpy, but I had just gotten off the phone with the "specialists" at DOS and heard for the thousandth time that after almost 8 1/2 months we were still in admin review. Those clowns are just f'ing with us, pure and simple. That's okay, I don't really know enough about the american constitution and the preamble and whatever else got written long ago, nor do I care anymore what the hell they wrote, it's all thrown out the window when you deal with GUZ. After two tours flying bloodbath medivac choppers in Nam, and the bullshit from Guano (GUZ) I'm no longer much of a patriotic american. I'm probably gonna have a much better quality of life teaching english and layin' in a hammock with the lil' rabbit...in China.

 

Good luck to ya George, ya beat the jerks at their own game. Good on ya.

 

tsap seui

[georgeandli]

NY-Viking, Thank goodness I was born here. You are right, I could never pass exam. Praise spell check cus no one would be able to figure my stuff out. No sarcasm from my end, please keep me honest. Grammar and fact check next tsap seui, I can never imagine the wringer you are going through. Unnecessary, unacceptable_ _ _ without being deleted you get my drift. After HS in the mid 70's, draw down. Never served myself. I bow in your direction for your service. For them to treat you basically worse than ... Oh that's right, classless society. They are yanking the chain, do not give them the satisfaction. When all is said and done my money is on you to beat the chumps at their game on their court and their rules. I for one would hate to se you have to go, but you da man.

[chilton747]

So you think the consulate so not have any interview? huh.gif I'm in the other direction; if they want to take fraud seriously, they should require both to interview; put pressure on the USC to show the relationship is truly worth it and see them first hand together.. just like AOS... BTW: I would probably do away with AOS and just do it after 4 years.... test the relationship that long before you give a 10 year GC.

 

In the perfect world then this is how it should be handled. Other Consulates do this but GZ does not. Why? We will never know. I think that 2 years is more reasonable for AOS. In the first place, the government has no business in our personal lives. Last time I checked, a couple had the right to run their lives as they see fit. I never had government intervention with my past marriages so why should I be under a microscope with this marriage? Because she is Chinese? It sounds like governmental controls need some tweaking.

But this isn't reality; countries want to control their people... and the more legalistic the more control they ultimately want to exert, whether obvious or latent...

 

Well if that's the case, then our freedom has been lost.

you've hit upon my latent point... Society, civilization, governments, etc are all man-made institutions which decide how people should be, how they should act, and what they should be allowed to do or not do... Ultimately, where is the freedom in this? The concept of freedom is as much man-made as time... it is ultimately defined by those in power... I'm saying on some level, let go of all these concepts and don't worry so much about them... otherwise they control us.

 

Trust me I have no worries. I only comment on what I see and hear. The current legal immigration process is biased. This is easy to see. And some of us get caught in the wake. For the record, my freedom comes from God! Man can never take this away from me.

[shyaushu]

I objected to being branded a ¡°cynic¡±, with an added ¡°and that¡¯s being generous¡± so I used personal messages to communicate. But I was unsuccessful. Reductio ad homenum (attacking the person, rather than arguing the merits of the evidence) is what people do in grade school: adults discuss matters without name calling.

 

So, I offer these indisputable facts to support my statement that the US is bent on preventing the further browning and yellowing of the country.

 

(1) As soon as they arrived, white British Colonialists and Americans imported millions of human beings to work as the equivalent of mules for the sole reasons that their skin was dark and they couldn¡¯t defend themselves. This continued for at least 300 years.

(2) As a byproduct of the Civil War that prevented the US from splitting in two, the slaves were ¡°freed¡±, but most of the country continued in the semi-enslavement of the resident black population. Black people were systematically hanged, tortured and black women raped for another 100 years, with public police authorities doing little, of anything to prevent it. Many times it was the police, themselves, who committed these crimes.

(3) The public safety authorities and even the FBI worked tirelessly and specifically to undermine and suppress any and all efforts to create a truly equal society for decades afterward. The life¡¯s work of one of the greatest human beings of the 20th Century, Martin Luther King, was undermined and subverted by the US Department of Justice.

(4) During WW II thousands of American citizens were rounded up and exiled to concentration camps, and their possessions confiscated, solely because their skin was yellow and their ancestry Japanese.

(5) To this day that pattern continues. As a percentage of population almost three times the number of black people are in prison (mostly on drug charges, using laws specifically targeted at black use of ¡°crack¡± cocaine) compared to whites. The numbers are almost as bad when brown people are considered.

(6) At one time the US Congress passed laws specifically banning Chinese immigration to this country. Can anyone imagine a US law banning British people from emigrating?

 

If saying the Emperor has no clothes is ¡°cynical¡± then I stand convicted. But tell me, exactly what would you call a person who labels a black man "cynical" for holding a sign that says ¡°I am a man¡±?

[credzba]

I believe that what you say has some merit, but also I think Davids remarks have merit.

I am certain that the law does not stipulate that there be only 1 understaffed immigration consulate in China, rather it is the workings of the people put in place to administer the immigration law.

As to the yellowing, or browning, I disagree only because it seems that 12 million illegal immigrants from south are acceptable. Immigrants from India, Japan, and Taiwan are acceptable. The past history of color discrimination does not imply a current trend, and the immigrants from non-China countries seem to bear out that color is not the discriminating factor.

 

In my opinion, it has to do with 2 things.

1) China is not an "American Democratic government".

2) America fears that China will actually replace America as "the world power" within a relatively short time.

These two things are both based on fear, and the result is the illogical prejudice against China.

 

I find it a compelling comparison of India to China. In terms of number of people, and the "yellowing" of america, India or China has the same end result. The number of people in India and China are relatively close, and both are of Asian decent.

 

India people find it an easier path to immigrate versus China. I can only speak from reading, but it seems that India has 3 or 4 immigration consulates, while China has 1.

The wait time from nvc approval to interview in India is approximately 1 month, versus 4-6 for China.

The interview itself is a rubber stamp in India, versus a random chance trial in China.

 

Last, I comment on this only from what Indian colleagues of mine have told me wrt. spouses coming here. When they get their work visas, their entire family comes immediately to America. If they get married after they are here on work visa, their new wife will have her visa before the husband returns to america from the wedding celebration.

It is this ability to have their wife with them after marriage, during AOS that I am jealous of. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the laws that keep us separated from our Chinese spouses during the visa process.

 

I believe it is this comparison of the implementation of the law between India and China that shows the inequity. I will continue to appeal to my senator and anyone who will listen that equal implementation of the law is as important to a democratic process as equal representation in the law.