Inappropriate Interview

[Leatherneck 693]

True, it's not going to change USCIS policy to discuss it here. But as an American, I'm free to discuss the issue, particularly as I'm just trying to learn more about it. You're free to be annoyed by my asking questions, but I'm free to be annoyed by people making claims with no evidence to back it up. For example: I searched my university's legal database for "stokes" and "stokes interview" and came up with nothing related to immigration. So I'm still not convinced that Stokes has "survived legal challenges."

I am not annoyed at all, you are one of the few with a reasoned approach to the issue. I appreciate your willingness to educate yourself, rather than throw out statements based on emotions and not logic.

[Rufus2012 175]

You have no idea what my attitude is about much of anything, besides the 'Stokes Interview' issue. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, which 'Stokes' has ZERO connection.

If you don't like it, then you have a right to "redress of grievances"

A pity your oath didn't include some testing to make sure you understood it, esp. the 4th amendment. Oh, and Stokes is very connected to the constitution, as the constitution defines government power.

[alizon 77]

I am not annoyed at all, you are one of the few with a reasoned approach to the issue. I appreciate your willingness to educate yourself, rather than throw out statements based on emotions and not logic.

Okay, great! This just comes across as a discussion/debate killer:

Now if you and the others don't like it, you have the right to "redress of grievances" as guaranteed by the Constitution. Trying to make a case here about not liking it is futile.

Switching directions slightly, my guess is that a court would uphold the right of USCIS to question in this way someone who had no legal status in the US, but those with legal status in the US could challenge it on the basis of a right to privacy. Might be harder to challenge on the 4th amendment, because you're submitting yourself to search when you're asking for special favors from the government, like the right to get on an airplane for example.

Edited February 26, 2012 by alizon

[mari&Ryan 93]

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.

I'm not saying that you would consider become a U.S citizen someday in the future. Nobody can predict on way or other. However, would be good if some immigrants keep in mind that one of the first things that they must willing to do in order to become an U.S. citizen is Give up loyalty to others countries" it includes our countries of birth. As shocking as it sounds. Right?

Oath of Allegiance

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Edited February 26, 2012 by mari&Ryan

[Leatherneck 693]

No one is arguing that this process hasn't survived legal challenges. My point is, it's wrong. It's disgusting, it's embarrassing to me as an American that my government hires people who stoop to this level; and at the same time that same government doesn't address the real immigration problems on the Mexican border. There were 35,000 K1s last years, even if all were fraudulent, that still pales in comparison to the number of illegals already in this country.

I don't think a CO or USCIS offical as part of AOS should be allowed to ask questions about activities which would be illegal to perform in public. The CO who interviewed my fiance was courteous and professional. He asked some detailed yet entirely reasonable questions about our timeline and history together, which to me indicated he had done his homework, and he would have easily tripped her up if we had been faking it - they can catch the frauds if they're willing to work at it without resorting to demeaning questions, and I applaud those who do.

You're entitled to your opinion, just as others don't see it your way.

I do agree with you about the government's posture with regards to immigration, grandma and the 5 year old get worked over and groped while we still have large sectors of the border unsecured.

Glad you and your fiancee were successful in obtaining a visa. Congrats!

Edited February 26, 2012 by Leatherneck

[Leatherneck 693]

Okay, great! This just comes across as a discussion/debate killer:

Switching directions slightly, my guess is that a court would uphold the right of USCIS to question in this way someone who had no legal status in the US, but those with legal status in the US could challenge it on the basis of a right to privacy. Might be harder to challenge on the 4th amendment, because you're submitting yourself to search when you're asking for special favors from the government, like the right to get on an airplane for example.

I'm sure some sharp Yale or Harvard law school educated esquire would've done so by now, perhaps. Sure it can be challenged.

[alizon 77]

I'm sure some sharp Yale or Harvard law school educated esquire would've done so by now, perhaps. Sure it can be challenged.

Nah, that's the problem with a lot of situations like this...you have to have a party with standing willing to challenge the policy, which means someone who went through Stokes would have to sue in federal court. It's unlikely that a recent immigrant and their spouse, people who have just finally gotten the tenuous right to be together, would do that. It takes time, it takes money...and if it were me, I'd be afraid of reprisal when removing green card conditions or getting citizenship or whatever. Unfortunately, you can't challenge Stokes in court just because you're interested in this kind of issue.

Edited February 26, 2012 by alizon

[Rufus2012 175]

Switching directions slightly, my guess is that a court would uphold the right of USCIS to question in this way someone who had no legal status in the US, but those with legal status in the US could challenge it on the basis of a right to privacy. Might be harder to challenge on the 4th amendment, because you're submitting yourself to search when you're asking for special favors from the government, like the right to get on an airplane for example.

"Right" to get on an airplane is a "favor" from government? You have to stop thinking of rights as favors from the government; rights are inherent to us as human beings. I'm not opposed to metal detectors and some inspection of belongings given the vulnerabilities of an aircraft, but things have gone way too far and this idea that government officials can grope me without any evidence that I am a criminal is repugnant in a free society. And, beware that the TSA is poking around trains as well. Don't be surprised if you see roadblocks in a few years at the rate they are going.

[Rufus2012 175]

Nah, that's the problem with a lot of situations like this...you have to have a party with standing willing to challenge the policy, which means someone who went through Stokes would have to sue in federal court. It's unlikely that a recent immigrant and their spouse, people who have just finally gotten the tenuous right to be together, would do that. It takes time, it takes money...and if it were me, I'd be afraid of reprisal when removing green card conditions or getting citizenship or whatever. Unfortunately, you can't challenge Stokes in court just because you're interested in this kind of issue.

You are absolutely correct. I think most immigrants feel relieved to be here, and there is always the fear of retribution. Furthermore, there's no political incentive for any legislator or president to fix this; the anti-immigration drumbeat is very loud and any serious, deliberate thought would be drowned out by demagoguery on either side of the issue.

[alizon 77]

"Right" to get on an airplane is a "favor" from government? You have to stop thinking of rights as favors from the government; rights are inherent to us as human beings. I'm not opposed to metal detectors and some inspection of belongings given the vulnerabilities of an aircraft, but things have gone way too far and this idea that government officials can grope me without any evidence that I am a criminal is repugnant in a free society. And, beware that the TSA is poking around trains as well. Don't be surprised if you see roadblocks in a few years at the rate they are going.

Yes, rights are supposed to be inherent in us as human beings, but those rights are pretty vague, the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" variety. More specific rights take constant negotiation between citizens and their government. I don't want restaurants to have the right to refuse inspection, or lawyers to refuse to be tested for a license to practice law, and I also don't want airline passengers to be able to refuse metal detectors and still fly. There is always a balancing act between the common good and individual rights when it comes to issues like this, often figured out in courts, which is why it's so disappointing that no one has produced any legal challenges here. In the case of the Stokes interview, my feeling is that the OP's interviewer took too many liberties in his questioning. But do I think people should be questioned to verify their relationship? Yup.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Nah, that's the problem with a lot of situations like this...you have to have a party with standing willing to challenge the policy, which means someone who went through Stokes would have to sue in federal court. It's unlikely that a recent immigrant and their spouse, people who have just finally gotten the tenuous right to be together, would do that. It takes time, it takes money...and if it were me, I'd be afraid of reprisal when removing green card conditions or getting citizenship or whatever. Unfortunately, you can't challenge Stokes in court just because you're interested in this kind of issue.

I believe Jim referenced some relevant court cases in this thread earlier.

[Rufus2012 175]

Glad you and your fiancee were successful in obtaining a visa. Congrats!

Thank you, I appreciate it. It was a lengthy process, lots of waiting for NOA2, but the people at her embassy were really nice and helpful. They helped her sort out the documents (we had everything imaginable just in case), they were kind, professional and downright friendly.

I do know of one example where sex came up, but no one was offended - a friend of mine from the UK was petitioning for a green card after marrying an American. She was about 8 months pregnant at their interview, and after swearing them in, the USCIS guy asked her, apologetically, if he was the father. She said yes, and he immediately told them they were approved and that he better take his wife home in case she's ready to deliver.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Rufus2012

[Leatherneck 693]

A pity your oath didn't include some testing to make sure you understood it, esp. the 4th amendment. Oh, and Stokes is very connected to the constitution, as the constitution defines government power.

Maybe it's you that doesn't understand the oath taken by members of the armed services.

Care to explain how 'Stokes' is not Constitutional?

Thank you, I appreciate it. It was a lengthy process, lots of waiting for NOA2, but the people at her embassy were really nice and helpful. They helped her sort out the documents (we had everything imaginable just in case), they were kind, professional and downright friendly.

To add some humor to all this arguing, a friend of mine from the UK was petitioning for a green card after marrying an American. She was about 8 months pregnant at their interview, and after swearing them in, the USCIS guy asked her, apologetically, if he was the father. She said yes, and he immediately told them they were approved and that he better take his wife home in case she's ready to deliver.

The bit of humor was appreciated!

[alizon 77]

I believe Jim referenced some relevant court cases in this thread earlier.

Thanks for the tip. I looked back and the only specific case he cited was "Stokes v. INS , No. 74 Civ. 1022," which is I guess the case that gave the interview its name and sets the guidelines for evaluating these interviews (in NY only, by the way). He says there have been several legal challenges, but doesn't name any of them. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps "Stokes" is a casual name for these interviews and the legal cases refer to it by a different term? Otherwise, I'm still coming up empty on the database searches.

Thanks for indulging my intellectual curiosity all...but should get back to my actual work.

Edited February 26, 2012 by alizon

[Leatherneck 693]

I'm not saying that you would consider become a U.S citizen someday in the future. Nobody can predict on way or other. However, would be good if some immigrants keep in mind that one of the first things that they must willing to do in order to become an U.S. citizen is Give up loyalty to others countries" it includes our countries of birth. As shocking as it sounds. Right?

Oath of Allegiance

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Thank you for pointing that out to Mr. Peter Pan.