Inappropriate Interview

[pddp 240]

Essentially this is about whether or not the US government should be allowed to use "harsh interrogation tactics" on people who for whatever random reason raise its suspicions. Going to such lengths in the pursuit of marriage-based immigration fraudsters is both laughable and sad, and at a great cost proves little else except how morally corrupt and dominated by fear and hatred this country has become.

The greatest privilege in my life? Being together with my soulmate. A US visa or a GC? Give me a break. The standard of living and quality of life are much higher in my country of citizenship and a few other countries that I've also lived in. And I've been very happy living in places with a lower standard of living, that to me felt like a privilege too. I don't hate the US, but it's nothing special to me. Just another country with good and bad things. And yes, we're not here to stay. We fully intend to move to either Europe or Asia in a few years. Too many great places to explore in this world!

[Rufus2012 175]

Before you blow an artery or have an aneurysm, "...paper pusher," really? Do yourself a favor and research Stokes Interview and the legal case. You may not like the invasive, personal nature of the questions, however, questions of that nature are accepted and used by USCIC and consulates.

Yes, paper pusher. COs who act like the OP described are near the bottom of my list as human beings, along with TSA agents who think feeling people up as a precondition for travelling is reasonable. I would have expected that a former marine would value freedom, but you seem to be more than happy to tolerate these sorts of intrustions just because court cases and government policy support them.

Thomas Jefferson is no doubt turning in his grave reading all the government apologists here.

Btw, when this couple was being harassed in Ecuador, how many Mexicans crossed the border illegally, and this same government did absolutely nothing?

[Operator 1,927]

Essentially this is about whether or not the US government should be allowed to use "harsh interrogation tactics" on people who for whatever random reason raise its suspicions. Going to such lengths in the pursuit of marriage-based immigration fraudsters is both laughable and sad, and at a great cost proves little else except how morally corrupt and dominated by fear and hatred this country has become.

The people that are most critical of the government for not doing enough for it's citizenry are usually the same who question it's techniques. Protecting a country is a big job and I personally feel that asking some uncomfortable questions is hardly harsh interrogation. I don't agree with your opinion of my country but I am so glad that you have the right to openly state your view, all I can say for that is you're welcome.

We aren't talking about water boarding here and certainly the US doesn't have the market on harsh interrogation. I'm not sure that stokes interviews will morally bankrupt this country.

[Operator 1,927]

Yes, paper pusher. COs who act like the OP described are near the bottom of my list as human beings, along with TSA agents who think feeling people up as a precondition for travelling is reasonable. I would have expected that a former marine would value freedom, but you seem to be more than happy to tolerate these sorts of intrustions just because court cases and government policy support them.

Thomas Jefferson is no doubt turning in his grave reading all the government apologists here.

Btw, when this couple was being harassed in Ecuador, how many Mexicans crossed the border illegally, and this same government did absolutely nothing?

Marines do value freedom but are also aware of the price tag on it. Ruffling a few feathers and asking a few questions about someones sex life is hardly and intrusion considering the security of a country.

I have no doubt that the OP was upset by this interview and it seems like the IV unit in Guayaquil has some serious bad issues from what I have read but I am seriously amazed at how offended people are.

[Hank_ 9,174]

Yes, paper pusher. COs who act like the OP described are near the bottom of my list as human beings, along with TSA agents who think feeling people up as a precondition for travelling is reasonable. I would have expected that a former marine would value freedom, but you seem to be more than happy to tolerate these sorts of intrustions just because court cases and government policy support them.

Thomas Jefferson is no doubt turning in his grave reading all the government apologists here.

Btw, when this couple was being harassed in Ecuador, how many Mexicans crossed the border illegally, and this same government did absolutely nothing?

Hmmm... not a clue.. but 5 more just ran by my window... git my gun ma' !!!

[alizon 77]

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.

I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

Edited February 26, 2012 by alizon

[pddp 240]

I don't agree with your opinion of my country but I am so glad that you have the right to openly state your view, all I can say for that is you're welcome.

What are you talking about? My right to free speech has nothing to do with you or America, in fact where I'm from such freedoms are much wider and more strongly protected than here. Including the right to privacy. This is not a competition but please get off your high horse...

[Peter_Pan 661]

Protecting a country is a big job

I am sure details about an Equadorian's sex life will go a long way whereas protecting the US is concerned.

[newlyweds2010 208]

I wasn't aware sex was mandatory for engaged people.

In fact it's not mandatory. What the IO was looking for were consistent answers. Had they both answered "NO" to the question "Do you have sex with your fiance?", then that was it. If one answered "we won't conduct any sexual activity until we are married" and the other answers "oh yeah, we do it every day", voilà, they got you.

[newlyweds2010 208]

From what I just read about Stokes interview guidelines, the couple is allowed to bring a lawyer to it. I don't think the OP here was made aware of that...

I don't think they need to make you aware of that option. It's not a police interrogation, there's no Miranda here. The worst that can happen is a denied visa, not jail time.

[Leatherneck 693]

Essentially this is about whether or not the US government should be allowed to use "harsh interrogation tactics" on people who for whatever random reason raise its suspicions. Going to such lengths in the pursuit of marriage-based immigration fraudsters is both laughable and sad, and at a great cost proves little else except how morally corrupt and dominated by fear and hatred this country has become.

The greatest privilege in my life? Being together with my soulmate. A US visa or a GC? Give me a break. The standard of living and quality of life are much higher in my country of citizenship and a few other countries that I've also lived in. And I've been very happy living in places with a lower standard of living, that to me felt like a privilege too. I don't hate the US, but it's nothing special to me. Just another country with good and bad things. And yes, we're not here to stay. We fully intend to move to either Europe or Asia in a few years. Too many great places to explore in this world!

OK then...KEEP IT MOVING!

I get really annoyed at you folks that treat the USA like it's some kind of doggy park, you use it to do your business, then off you go. Well, do not let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you! I proudly wore the uniform and was ready at any hour to put it all on the line so ungrateful folks like you could have your say. Well, to some of us, AMERICA IS SOMETHING SPECIAL! There is no other place for us to "...move to" and enjoy the full host of rights under the Bill of Rights.

Some of you Europeans tend to exhibit the biggest 'holier than thou' attitude and contempt for the U.S., of course you're free to do so.

[Leatherneck 693]

I am sure details about an Equadorian's sex life will go a long way whereas protecting the US is concerned.

You still refuse to see the big picture? I think you fully understand, but as long as you keep getting brownie points from others for your Peter Pan comedy take about the issue, then you'll get as much mileage as you can from your position. Rather than offering a comment with any value and substance.

[Peter_Pan 661]

Yeah, incredible as it may seem, we are loyal to the countries we were born into and lived into for so long. Shocking, I know.

As for the whole "I wore the uniform", gimmie a break, both of my grandmothers were caught in a serious war, lived in cities that were bombarded for years and didn't make a fuss about it.

[Peter_Pan 661]

You still refuse to see the big picture? I think you fully understand, but as long as you keep getting brownie points from others for your Peter Pan comedy take about the issue, then you'll get as much mileage as you can from your position. Rather than offering a comment with any value and substance.

The big picture is that the guy was a damn pervert who chose from 100 possible topics, the 1 one got his jollies. I come from a totalitarian background, I know what abuse is, and no, I don't think what he did wasn't offensive.

[Leatherneck 693]

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.

I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

Consular "...officers are not trained to avoid questions about sex." Asking questions about sex during a 'Stokes Interview' is accepted by USCIS and all the way down to the Office of Visa Services.