You’re welcome, December. For those who care to investigate your claims about significant mistreatment of gays in certain Islamic countries: Islam and Homosexuality
Would either of you care to respond to the point that december was supported eliminating Islamic immigration to Europe due to concerns about “significant mistreatment of gay people in certain Middle Eastern countries,” but now complains that his Pakistani-born relative is having trouble getting into the United States?
Oh, the bitter taste of irony.
psssst… Eva luna… I have been trying to get a hold of you to ask you a question or two, if you have time, ‘bout immigration stuffs… n’ your email address isn’t listed! Could you drop me a line?
Carry on, nothing to see here…
I deleted what I assume was an extra word “was.”
I think your irony is at too high a setting, minty. You might try turning it down from cotton to polyester.
There are a few problems with your presentation[ol][]I didn’t support eliminating Islamic immigration to Europe.[]According to several posters on this thread, my cousin’s problems have nothing to do with his having been born in Pakistan.The type of visa investigations we’re discussing involve security, rather than homophobia.[/ol]What it comes down to is that I criticized homophobia among certain Muslim immigrants to Holland. My new cousin who may be a Muslim (I don’t actually know) has encountered a security-related immigration problem with the US. If that’s “bitter irony,” you are welcome to it.
This is what happens when you make a person into a caricature. No wonder God does not appoint us to make moral judgments.
Elenfair, psssst…check your e-mail!
december makes himself into a caricature, Lib. Every once in a while, when it gets particularly ridiculous, I like to point it out. As for our entitlement to make moral judgments, I must have missed the memo from God. If He would be so kind as to forward me a copy, I’ll be happy to give it proper consideration.
I don’t have an iron in this fire. But from where I sit, December is conducting himself with dignity and decorum. He and his family are suffering, and you are engaging in some sort of rhetorical food fight. A caricature is as a caricature does.
I find it enormously entertaining to watch the same folks who constantly bash december for being entirely too partisan closing partisan ranks to condem him for something he didn’t actually say.
This entire thread should be printed out and given to high school and college students so that when they ask the question “Why isn’t Congress more efficient?, Why is it so hard for them to reach a compromise?”, they could see how things work in the real world.
Checking back in after a bit of an absence here.
Firstly, if i did consider myself in a morally superior position, it had nothing to do with my advocacy of any particular security approach. Rather, i was concerned with the fact that december’s arguments on this thread appear, to me at least, to directly contradict many of his long-held views on the Bush administration’s approach to “homeland security,” including issues of preventive detention, border security, right to counsel, etc.
Some believe that this is a red herring, but i beg to differ. While bureaucratic delays may not necessarily be related to issues of homeland security in all cases, it seems to me that there are direct linkages between the problems faced by the underfunded INS and the increased pressure from the current Administration to screen immigrants more thoroughly. I would even include here procedures such as requiring all male immigrants from certain countries and of a certain age who are already in the US to register with the INS (discussed on these threads). This gives the INS an even greater workload, which certainly contributes to what people are calling an “unconscionable delay” in the processing of other applications.
december said:
and minty asked him to show where either of us had ever taken such a stance. I certainly haven’t. If it makes you feel better though, here goes:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, I AGREE THAT THESE DELAYS ARE UNACCEPTABLE and I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR SECURITY MEASURES. The difference between december and me is that i have not spent the last year and a half advocating policies that are likely to exacerbate the delays. And i believe that some procedures being undertaken by the INS under orders from the Administration are, along with other things like certain aspects of “upgraded” airport security, mere window-dressing or band-aid solutions that do little to really improve security and have a deleterious effect on the lives of immigrants, US resident aliens, and even US citizens.
And i think, december, that it might be appropriate to change the “various” in your post to “just about all.” I can barely think of an increase in “security measures” that you haven’t supported over the past 18 months or so. Although i do give december his due: he conceded that, while INS delays were a fact of life under all administrations, it is Bush who has to bear the blame for the current situation because he’s the one in power. Despite my criticism of the current Administration, it was not my intention to turn this into some Dem/Rep slugfest - i’m no big fan of the Donkeys either.
I will ask, however, why it is that the people who constantly deride the services provided by government departments and agencies are often the same ones who continually support cutting back those agencies and making it even harder for them to do their job? The solution for these people seems to be: “Hey, it’s not working, so let’s make it worse” instead of “What do we need to do to fix it?”
Of course, this is the perfect opportunity for some people to weigh in with observations about the growth of government leading to a decline in liberty. I’m aware of the arguments, and though some might not believe it i have quite a strong libertarian streak myself. The only problem i have is with those who seem to believe that government is the only possible curb on liberty, and use this position to act as mouthpieces for rampant corporate behavior.
I would also like to say that, like minty, i have no pesonal dislike for december. While i find many of his positions utterly exasperating, he’s always polite and generally is within the bounds of reasonable debate. But if i see what i believe to be hypocrisy or, if you want to be kinder, inconsistency, in his positions, i don’t feel obliged to ignore it just because a member of his family happens to be the subject of the discussion.
Also, based on a more extensive search than i did yesterday, i retract my assertion that december supports racial profiling, although i do think that his argument that “relevant characteristics should go beyond ethnicity” still leaves the door open to such an interpretation.
I have a couple questions for you, since you seem to know so much about the INS. 
How exactly do they determine that the marriage is a valid one?
How would my husband and I move to the US? (I’m a US citizen, he’s Canadian.) How long would it take?
I’m curious if there is any advantage to keeping my US citizenship in case we want to move to the US at a later date.
And
Whoops, hit reply instead of preview.
And December, waiting three years just to be with your spouse is unacceptable. I would try calling your Representative, maybe they can help.
That would be hypocritical.
Unfortunately for your claims, it’s not logically equivalent to december’s position in this thread. It’s a logical disconnect of staggering proportions, actually.
A better comparison for december’s position would be this:
THAT is logically equivalent to december’s position - in fact, it’s a perfect parallel, whereas your example was a straw man. You are repeating your claim, again, that a complaint about the length of an administrative process is directly self-critical of a position about a rule, and that december either does not actually believe that the delay is unconscionable, or doesn’t believe the things he said before. That’s what hypocrisy is, ya know - presenting as your belief something you do not sincerely believe. I see no evidence december does not legitimately believe what he wrote, even if mhendo can find a loose reason to believe one problem led to the other.
But in any case, december’s OP and his previous claims are NOT inconsistent. There is no inconsistency in holding the positions that security must be increased and that administation should not be horribly slow. You simply have no logical basis for your claim of hypocrisy.
I shudder to think what might be dredged up from the sewers of imaginations if December should inform us that his mother has died or something. They will say that he has always been misogynous and deserves what he got.
That is not my claim at all, and I don’t believe you will find anything I’ve said in this thread that can fairly be construed as such. Moreover, your insistence on a formal distinction between a policy and the administration of the policy makes little sense to me in these circumstances, where the administration (increased delay) is a direct result of the policy (increased scrutiny).
To revisit my hypothetical and your recasting of it, a tax increase does not naturally result in increased processing time of tax returns. A tax increase does, however, naturally result in higher taxes, just like increased scrutiny of foreigners seeking to enter the country naturally results in increased processing time. Thus, if you want to get picky about it, try this hypothetical:
*Imagine, if you will, a poster who repeatedly and stridently argues that the IRS should increase scrutiny of tax returns. People are getting away with murder on their taxes! They’re claiming deductions they’re not eligible for! They’re not declaring income! Nobody’s catching any of this massive fraud, and it’s costing the nation billions and billions of dollars!
Then one day that poster starts a Pit thread complaining that it took the government six months to process his relative’s income tax refund. This is terrible! Why does it take the government six whole months to write a check? His cousin needs that money!*
Better now?
Minty wrote:
That sounds like a dicto simpliciter to me, Minty.
Increased security is not the only reason for delay. Bureaucratic inefficiency, systemic complexity, corrupt administration, insufficient funding, endemic design, inherited problems, political expedience, outside interference — these and many others might be causes for delay.
A presidential policy does not ever translate into clerical level bureaucrats functioning as presidents-by-proxy.
You missed the key word, Lib: increased delay. Everything else was already there before 9/11, but the OP specifically complained about delay in the context of “the need for security in a post-9/11 world.”
**
Then just what the holy hell did you mean by:
Unless you’re speaking a different language than I am, MG, you are in fact claiming that december’s OP is insincere - that is, he does not genuinely believe what he’s saying in the OP, or is being self-critical. What the hell do YOU think “hypocritical” means?
Since december’s OP is, in fact, a complaint about an administrative delay, your accusation that he is being hypocritical in the OP means either that you don’t think he really means it, or - and this is giving some leeway - you don’t think he really meant what he said in all those other posts. One way or the other he’s self-criticizing, according to you. That’s what “Hypocritical in the extreme” means. What else could you have meant??
-
This is an unsupported assertion.
-
IT’S IRRELEVANT. My point is not whether or not the excessive delays have been caused by new security measures. Maybe they have, or maybe they haven’t. My point, which I and several others have been pointing out again and again, is that THAT DOESN’T MAKE DECEMBER A HYPOCRITE. It may make him stupid, or ignorant, or unrealistic. There is ample evidence in other threads that he takes an absurdly simplistic approach to some issues. But what you very specifically, in no uncertain terms, claimed was that the OP was hypocritical. That means that the OP was not sincerely meant or dishonest. Yet you have no evidence the OP was anything of the sort.
Maybe you’re conflating “hypocritical” with “ignorant of the larger scheme of things” or something. But the absolute, inarguable fact is this: the OP complains about the length of an administrative process. There is no necessary contradiction between complaining about that and simultaneously believing that the administation in question should be doing more. “They should do more and should be more efficient” may be an unrealistic expectation in some cases, but it is not “Hypocritical.”
So? It is quite possible, and non-contradictory, to hold the following position:
“I believe the INS should do more to enhance national security and border control. I also believe that, notwithstanding increased security, it’s ridiculous that they take three years to process a form.”
Is that position unreasonable? Perhaps. It is hypocritical? No, it is not. Look the frickin’ word up. Hypocrisy isn’t “ignorance” or “inconsistency.” Calling someone a hypocrite is fundamentally the same as saying they’re lying, which is why I reacted as strongly as I did - it’s not a way of saying “your arguments are incorrect based on gaping inconsistencies and logical fallacies.”
A non sequitur. december did not complain about INCREASED processing time, he complained about a (potential) three year wait. It’s quite reasonable to say “I know you have more work to do, but it’s ridiculous to take three years to do it.” Without knowing what he felt a reasonable timeframe was before - and I’ll bet my big white ass he didn’t think it was three years - how can you know if he’s contradicting himself in this regard?
If you’d increase that wait time to THREE YEARS, I’d say it isn’t hyocritical at all… or even unreasonable at that point. I would think that it’s reasonable to ask the government to increase income tax return scrutiny but not take three frickin’ years to issue a refund.
In fact, funny you should use that example: I have stated in the past that I think the government SHOULD put some more oversight into auditing corporate tax refunds. If they did so and it started taking three years to issue corporations their statement of account, I’d be the first one to say it’s unconscionable and that something should be done. Am I a hypocrite?
I’ve stated my reasons why I believe there is a gigantic discrepancy between december’s past positions and the current OP. You don’t accept those reasons. I’m content to stand on my existing posts, for I see nothing to be gained by dissecting minutiae with you any longer.
**Stephi, ** again I generally handle employment-based rather than family-based issues, but I’ll take a crack at your questions.
The determination of whether a marriage is valid is far from being an exact science. There are no specific documents that can prove this beyond a marriage certificate and/or death/divorce certificates in the case that either party was married previously. Things that may be helpful in establishing the bona fides of a marriage include:
- Your kids and/or an obviously pregnant wife
- Any evidence that shows the two of you have merged your personal lives, such as joint leases, mortgages, other financial documents such as credit cards, loans, bills, paperwork showing you are beneficiaries on each others’ insurance, contracts (such as car loans or financing for other major purchases) you have entered into as a couple
- Photos of you together, especially over a long period of time (mushy letters are always good, of course, but unless you have some reason to believe that INS will doubt you, there’s no need to air your laundry to INS)
- Anything that shows that other people knew you were married, such as correspondence addressed to both of you
- Be creative; it’s much better in this case to overdocument than to underdocument!
How would you move to the U.S. with your Canadian husband? Well, you’d start by filing an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on his behalf. More details on request, but it might help to start by reading INS’ Web site FAQ at:
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/howdoi/spouselive.htm
Citizenship? Well, a better question to ask yourself might be “Is there any reason to give up my U.S. citizenship, since it would be a huge pain in the you-know-what to get it back?” AFAIK Canada has no problem with allowing dual U.S./Canadian citizenship, so there’s probably no reason to give up your U.S. citizenship. Dual citizenship will allow you to keep your options open to the maximum possible extent.
Good luck, and let us know if you run into any problems!