oregonknl Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 CLR, As one with substantially more experience here than you --- you are forgiven for your unkind, and off topic comments.... Many of the brightest people here are spell check challenged (myself included)----- But I am quite confident that you have not read this thread as closely as many of us "old timers" have ---- and your breezy dismissal of Mengxin's thoughts leaves me wondering (as he did) if you really have closely purused this material --- the article and the responses on this thread.... I for one, took the article point by point, and quite carefully documented its inconsistancies... as did others here but perhaps in not such great detail.. This is an important subject, because this is not some HS produced by the National Endowment for the Arts (my advanced degree is in fine arts) ---- but rather by the very Gate Keepers who rule on one of the most important aspects of our lives---- who act as administrative law judges--- almost --- in a process that is very difficult to reverse if it goes badly. I'm sorry to say, that it appears to me that you don't really understand bias ---- and the true repercussions that this prejudice can have when faceless bureacrats ---- get the wink and the nod ---- FROM THEIR OWN USCIS WEBSITE to view one group of society as undesirable --- and yes, undesirable is what this is all about ---- directed at us and historically at others seeking to bring their SOs, or indeed their whole families to this country ----are you aware of that part of immigration history??? You sir, fall into the same trap that those writing the article do --- you cite an instance of horrible spouse abuse at the hands of her husband ---- but my reading in the last week of the local paper here in Portland has story after story of horrible family crimes ---- none commited by anyone who brought their family members throught the visa process, at least from the details resented in the news ---- how do you explain that?? Have you "studied the matter" to the point that you are confident in your assumptions? Can you refer to emperical data to support your claims?? This is very much want this entire subject is about --- and yes, it is a serious subject ---- either the authors are correct (with valid documentation) ----suggest you read it again ---- or they have horribly maligned a large segment of Americans involved in the LEGAL immigration process... I will be discussing how we identify the USCIS prejudice in a later post... Link to comment
MoonCarolCafe Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Yeah, what oregonkml said. Link to comment
Trigg Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Yeah, what oregonkml said.I second and triple what Kim said. Damn Kim, when did you get so smart?? I'm impressed---no wonder I never argued with you. Kidding aside I have a good friend who is a professor of sociology at WKU. I haven't talked with him in a while but I think I'll give him a call and see if he can dig up the "real" research on this crap. Hmm, does poor spelling really equate to stupidity?? I have administered at least a thousand IQ tests and never remember, not even one time, asking someone to spell something. Maybe I done did it wrongly, reckon???? Link to comment
C_L_R2004 Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 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. Link to comment
Guest DragonFlower Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 CLR It is a shame,here we all are,sharing a somewhat common goal.Yet I find the same old bigotry of the unaware.I am glad you were fortunate enough to meet your SO in person,but why does that make those of us who use some technology to assist our search for Our"perfect match" a bunch of scumbags?Perhaps our lives are not blessed enough tomeet our dream girl in person.My wife and I feel that fate has brought us together.Who are you to question what path fate may take? YES,my wife and I were actively looking for our soulmate.What gives you the right to judge us?You know,we have to put up with enough BS from the few closeminded people that we happen to know in person.I would think that by the time someone has found there way to CFL ,they would be a little more enlightened. The tragic irony of our situation is that while the USCIS fiddles with denying a few thousand" evil" Chinese women access to the US.(catching us all up in the big net).Untold millions of 'undocumented immigrants" flood across our southern border.I am as patriotic as the next guy,but I really think that the crackdown on immigration from China has nothing to do with the security of the country. I am happy for you.I wish you great happiness.Try to be a little more open-minded please. long Link to comment
warpedbored Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Thank goodness someone around here is articulate. What Kim said. I feel the same way Doug does. In a nutshell the author of the article is saying that we are all control freaks who want to totally dominate our wives who are all just whores anyway who are scamming us for a green card. Even though we have a lower divorce rate it is really a higher divorce rate because they are going to dump us in two years after they have their conditions lifted anyway. Look I am no dumb ass. I know there are men out there that have the misguided notion that Asian women are obedient little sex toys just dying to be dominated by them but I doubt that the majority of us are like that. Furthermore I doubt that many of those men's relationships stay intact to the end of the visa process. The truth is the internet makes the world a smaller place and men and women are finding each other from all corners of the globe. This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Also the term "mail order bride" It conjurs up the image of some perv looking through some sleazy catalog for a beautiful desperate woman looking for a way out of dire poverty. Excuse me but the internet allows us to look at and read a little about another person's interests and views and decide if that is someone we would like to get to know better. Beats the hell out of singles bars. If that person is another American it's an internet romance but if it is a she and from a foreign country she's a mail order bride? We don't need our government prepetuating this stereotypical bullshit to the rest of the american public. I for one don't appreciate this smear campaign. It is no different than dirty politics at its' worst. Hmmmm I'm getting all worked up again. Time to go back to my corner and resume grumbling. Link to comment
C_L_R2004 Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 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? Link to comment
Carl Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I thought I would throw my two cents in.... First off, my wife was far from a mail order bride, If anything I was more of a mail order husband, because it seems more like she selected me ( I was her first and only choice ) Second, I really doubt I would be the one in control, My wife is not going to meekly submit and declare me her lord and master. She has pretty much proven to me that she can handle anything and if anything she could chew me up and spit me out if I so much as do anything out of line. Third and to me the most important, any two people willing to go through all this GOVERNMENT BULLSHIT REQUIREMENTS, EXCESSIVE DELAYS and EVER INCREASING FEES, has to either be in love or both real gluttons for punishment and disappointment. When I talk about Ying to my friends my exact words are "She is so much better than my ex-wife." "Better looking, better dressing, better educated, better mannered, better tempered and.......better in bed.... " Link to comment
oregonknl Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 CLR: "Maybe if posters could be more specific about claims, such as citing pages or giving quotes, I'd be more convinced.." I though that is what I did. (particularly related to the original article) But if you want to quote from my posts, you are certainly welcome to.... I will be happy to answer -- by quoting from yours. Link to comment
cqhk Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I just read the article in the original post. It looks like it's meant to be a warning to both US citizens and foreign correspondence, that utilize the internet or picture bride services, to beware of those they come into contact with. Pretty much common sense. It also looks like the article is in some way trying to justify the longer waits for both K-1 and K-3 petitions, by saying the additional background checks on the petitioner and the SO are necessary to prevent fraud. When I was in highschool one of my football coaches ordered a picture bride from the P.I. They're still married, happily I might add. She was a shy person, and my coach was a very nice person. He was never married prior, and he is only three years older than his wife. He met her and her family several times in the P.I., before he was granted permission to marry her. He also met other women that he didn't feel were right for him. People talked behind his back, but those of us who played for him knew he was a nice person. As far as going there to have sex, coach was a virgin until his his wife decided it was time for him not to be. Coach's younger brother is one of my good friends, and he's never heard them argue. True love is out there for anyone to find, but of course people should be cautious in their pursuit of happiness. There will always be a stigma associated with mixed international couples, especially those who met via the internet or via match making services. The reason is ignorance. I can see how the article might offend other couples or US spouses. The profile he gave of US males who should be watched was alarming, and probably not called for. It does appear many on CFL fit the age profile and marriage status he gave, and if I was one of them I'd be offended definitely. I will reread it again, and read more of the posts. Right now, after only reading it once, it just appears to be a warning to both sides and some justification of longer wait times. Just my thoughts. I'm in no way an expert, and I still consider myself a newbie on CFL. I also make a lot of spelling and grammar errors. My mistakes are your corrections. Link to comment
warpedbored Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I'm surprised none of our CFL sisters have chimed in on this topic. I would be very interested in their take on the issue. Link to comment
oregonknl Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 cqhk, you are no where near a "newbie" ---- but I do wish you would post more often... .... But yeah, when I think of smart members who are "spell check challenged": naturally, thoughts turn to Trigg.... Link to comment
oregonknl Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 CARL ~!! .... I've been wondering the same thing! Link to comment
Trigg Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 .... But yeah, when I think of smart members who are "spell check challenged": naturally, thoughts turn to Trigg.... Are you implying that my spelling is less than adequet??? Surley you jest. I once won a spelling bee, bea, B, bie, bey, be---well yu no wat eye meen. Link to comment
warpedbored Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 .... But yeah, when I think of smart members who are "spell check challenged": naturally, thoughts turn to Trigg.... Are you implying that my spelling is less than adequet??? Surley you jest. I once won a spelling bee, bea, B, bie, bey, be---well yu no wat eye meen.Kinda reminds me of the old Cheech and Chong gag "Effer sense I tuk the effelin wud sped reddin korse mai reddin hass imprauved wunderfully." Link to comment
Recommended Posts