Separation of Church and State/Non-bonafide relaton

[HKG]

I wonder if the State Department is crossing the line of the separation of church and state by using this non bonafide excuse they use, if one can show some communication, pictures, travel, letters so forth, are they not making a "moral" decision, when they say in essence what you have presented for your evidence of a relation is not true. I think that would be the fostering of a State sponsored religion.

[Richard & Li]

That is one of the most interesting conclusions about the government being involved in our personal lives that I've read.

 

IMHO: The government generally does a relatively poor job administrating most things it gets involved in. People with little or no experience in the area they're regulating form committees and create policy which can be millions of lines of legalese gibberish (often contradicting itself) and then hire more people with little or no experience in that area to administer it.

 

Having them getting actively involved in the private sector by making tax dollars available to corporations with proven failure records is truly worrisome.

 

Having them involved in making judgments about my personal life is barely tolerable. (But, for Li, I'll do whatever is necessary.)

[Guest Tony n Terrific]

Politics and religon is a stick of dynamite ready to go off in your face.

[Sebastian]

I don't think is 'church and state' issue.

 

A marriage is legally recognized because paperwork is filed with the county. The feds are 'taking over' the county responsibilities for proving up the marriage, or in this case, a relationship, when you are submitting a petition for yer lass.

 

Sure, is possible in the USA to be married in a Church, and not file for a 'legal marriage certificate' - but then the issue of 'legally married' comes into play - and each jurisdiction has different rules about it - with the common denominator being 'if you got a marriage certificate from us, then you are legally married, church ceremony or no'.

 

There is already a boundary between Church and State when it comes to marriage - are you studying any US LAW about this?

 

I've been reading and reading and reading, here on CFL, visa journey, and the USCIS site, along with some immigration attornies sites. For the most part - this is what I've gleaned about 'not a bonafide relationship':

 

Please remember if you are dinged for 'not a bonafide relationship' - it falls into three camps:

1. the petitioner didn't do the paperwork properly, as well as NOT supply enough evidence

2. GUZ/DHS found something about the beneficiary that would tag VISA FRAUD during the name check process. When this happens, the beneficiary gets some silly interview questions, designed to trip her up, so that 'not a bonafide relationship' reason is easy to decide.

3. The time ticks on a timeline between your last divorce and filing for a Visa petition are way too close and you, the petitioner, could not prove up the time gap effectively.

 

I'm sorry, I wish I had some good legal fodder to support your position, but I don't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but based on what I've read so far, I can't see a written legal decision or law that supports your position.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Darnell (see edit history)

[Randy W]

Yes - the church doesn't sanction all marriages (you can marry at the JP, or a common law marriage in some states), neither is the state required to recognize a church marriage (e.g., FLDS), or a same-sex marriage.

 

No connection here. They are not telling you who you can or cannot marry. They are simply awarding or denying visas.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Randy W (see edit history)

[shushuweiwei]

I wonder if the State Department is crossing the line of the separation of church and state by using this non bonafide excuse they use, if one can show some communication, pictures, travel, letters so forth, are they not making a "moral" decision, when they say in essence what you have presented for your evidence of a relation is not true. I think that would be the fostering of a State sponsored religion.

 

You seem confused about what the word religion means,

 

re·li·gion (r-ljn)

n.

1.

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

Yes, at some point GUZ may realize that to truly have power and compliant clientele, nothing beats inventing a deity and stamping your opinions with the deity's approval. So far they seem to be taking a more legalistic than supernatural course.

 

Did you have specific cases in mind where GUZ invoked a supernatural explanation or the teachings of a spiritual leader for their decision? I would note that "wrong" or "far-fetched" would not pass the line into supernatural.

 

Addendum: I should add that I don't believe that W's purported ability to receive military instructions from a supernatural being that he hears in his head qualifies him as a spiritual leader, but one could argue that his admission to be governing according to these voices in his head puts the entire govt in violation of the separation of church and state. I think that would be a tough sell if you wanted to use it to get a visa, however.

Edited January 4, 2009 by shushuweiwei (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

We tend to make too emotional a reaction to the process; and maybe GUZ makes too impersonal an action... but I'm convinced that most just view the idea of "not a bona-fide relationship" wrongly. Here are my top 3 myths which I hear over and over on CFL, and top 3 Reality Checks we all need:

 

1. Myth: GUZ controls who gets married.

Reality: GUZ is not a match maker and doesn't get involved in who wants to get married to who. They do not control if you want to marry in China. GUZ controls who can enter the US (married or not).

 

2. Myth: GUZ says our relationship is not true love.

Reality: GUZ is not Dr. Phil... GUZ is less concerned with the intentions of your filing a marriage paper and more about the intention of filing for a visa for a person who has previously no right to enter the US.

 

3. Myth: We are all guilty until proven innocent.

Reality: GUZ is neither prosecutor nor DA. This is not a court of law with rights. This is more akin to interrogation and verification. Better yet, this is more like a credit card application; Nobody is entitled to the credit card without an application, credit checks, and the company still has the final decision on who gets their 'visa card' or not.

 

When someone says, we love each other; it's a true relationship; we want to be together... this may or may not have anything to do with influencing GUZ's decision. Most focus on the [love] 'relationship' of the two and GUZ focuses on what that relationship is asking of the US government.

 

1. Reality Check: Your free to marry and live abroad.. but GUZ generally knows otherwise

How serious does any USC start the relationship thinking they will go live in China? GUZ is smart enough to know that most relationships are a one-way relationship; Most USCs have NO intention of living in china...

 

So, the USC has presented GUZ with an emotionally loaded scenario, where they are filing for one and only one expected outcome with not real bi-directional Plan B.

 

2. Reality Check: most chinese nationals meet a USC online; So, GUZ is generally aware of a premeditation of foreign nationals wanting to go to the US.

 

So, it's a very reasonable question (possibly a presumption): Did the beneficiary simply meet the USC first with no intented encounter, or did they decide to try and meet a USC? which would result in a 99% chance of a one-way relationship outcome, of going to the US.

 

3. Reality Check: The foreign national whom you are filing for has no basic right to enter the US. For all our claims of a 'true relationship', GUZ is faced with the fact of a relationship which was most likely entered into for the intentional purpose of filing a petition leading to a visa.

 

Based on all the above, I am more and more surprised that GUZ issues visas at the rate they do.. and am more and more surprised that the US allows a K1 visa (unlike Canada, who took away the fiancee visa a few years ago when they got more serious about their immigration issuance).

 

Now I have to ask... how easy can that really be? How is it even possible to decide which relationships get approved and which ones do not. Most will tend to share the same signs; So, it may be that the smallest discrepancy or smallest issue will cause one to simply get caught in the net...

 

and that issue will rarely be whether you truly are in love or not. Or whether you have 1000 chat logs and 300 pictures. On the other hand, the best way to play the game is to follow a set of guiding rules which puts you in the norm or better. The problem is, many of the issues which should be paid attention to are prior to the filing and often too late for many to consider. And for all the top reasons for denial, there are exceptions as well... One couple is told they are too young, or too wide in age; another doesn't have that issue...

[Randy W]

Although correct, I would take issue with the wording on your second #1 - Whether or not the USC would ever be willing to re-locate to China is not an issue - the application is for a visa to live in the US.

 

Any Plan B or no does NOT enter into the picture. They might be interested statistically, though, in how many relationships are dropped as the result of a visa denial.

 

The "You're free to marry and live abroad" statement is generally made here to someone who has been denied a visa and is claiming GUZ is not allowing their relationship.

 

I believe GUZ DOES recognize the increasing occurrence of Internet relationships as being a valid approach. The filing of a petition is your legal declaration that you intend to (or are already) married.

 

As has been stated before, "Love" is not a requirement for a visa.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Randy W (see edit history)

[jhammer]

I wonder if the State Department is crossing the line of the separation of church and state by using this non bonafide excuse they use, if one can show some communication, pictures, travel, letters so forth, are they not making a "moral" decision, when they say in essence what you have presented for your evidence of a relation is not true. I think that would be the fostering of a State sponsored religion.

Yeah, those are two separate things. Marriage in Western culture didn't originate in religion, anyway. Marriage was a secular institution, originated in the aristocracy, specifically, the royal families as a way to solidify power and politically and geographically. Not having thought about it much, I would guess the Church, actually decided to get in the game and to take over marriage as a means of revenue and power themselves. If I had to choose, I am more comfortable with the State having authority over marriage than the Church, and both being out of the marriage business would be ideal.

[georgeandli]

jhammer, Are you advocating only common law unions?

[jhammer]

jhammer, Are you advocating only common law unions?

 

I don't know too much about it, but it seems as worthy as any to me.

[Richard & Li]

Wow, this thread had turned interesting!

 

One thing I'll add about myself:

 

I had no confidence (even though we were very well prepared) that Li would get her visa. So, I was making plans to move out of the USA long before the GUZ interview.

 

David is right in my case: I didn't see China as a realistic possibility. I was seriously looking at New Zealand and a job opportunity was available in Seoul, South Korea.

 

Fortunately, things have worked out and I was able to keep my job (which I like very much).

[HKG]

I think a form of Secular Humanism is being applied in these non-bona fide

decisions after reading some of the reasons why people seem to think, these rulings appear, non-secular.

[jhammer]

I think a form of Secular Humanism is being applied in these non-bona fide

decisions after reading some of the reasons why people seem to think, these rulings appear, non-secular.

 

Sounds about right to me. Remember a visa, such as a K1, is a form of Family-based visa, so this is what the government is attempting to provide - a way to bring families together where they ordinarily would not have much chance to because of immigration waiting lists. The fact that we can be considered a family when there are two, perhaps childless and non-childbearing-inclined adults, is even somewhat of a stretch to me because I understand family to at least include some children. "I want to have a family" :-) What does that mean when you hear it? That's my surface analysis, but reading the applicable legislation line by line to determine the role of marriage in the provisions would get you closer to the judicial intent. My guess is it is primarily a fulfillment of the definition of family, which is also state-sponsored and being sponsored with these visas. I always thought Families were the smallest unit of Feudalism, so we cannot take it for granted that a government would respect that at all.