The dreaded DS-5535 thread for Montreal. Post here and support each other (split)

[ice-qube 648]

2 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

It's their duty to represent and advocate for their constituents.

The specific protocols followed to perform such duties and how successful they are at it is another matter. 

The word "duty" as used here is romantic/poetic and although I agree, they do have a *moral* duty to represent and advocate (in the broadest sense) for their constituents, this does not, per se, translate to "legally or administratively obligated to". The only remedy likely against a failure for them to do so: voting them out at the ballot box.

[ice-qube 648]

9 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Splitting hairs.

 

Maybe those on this thread would have more luck if the USC/LPR petitioner was the one to reach out, vs. the intending immigrant.  Elected US officials have no obligation (implied or otherwise) to help people who do not live within their constituency.

Just an FYI, the inquiry is made by my wife (although i helped put it together for her to send). I did not make the request coming from myself, as no doubt, you are right, they have no obligation to people outside their constituency.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

4 minutes ago, ice-qube said:

The word "duty" as used here is romantic/poetic and although I agree, they do have a *moral* duty to represent and advocate (in the broadest sense) for their constituents, this does not, per se, translate to "legally or administratively obligated to". The only remedy likely against a failure for them to do so: voting them out at the ballot box.

They are actually legally obligated. The issue is that representing and advocating are up to interpretation. You can say that advocating should imply pressuring a federal agency to act on an individual's case while they could sustain supporting certain causes through social media is enough to fulfill their advocating duties.

The fact that their duties are not defined in full detail is not by chance. 

[Redie 124]

1 minute ago, Jorgedig said:

Splitting hairs.

 

Maybe those on this thread would have more luck if the USC/LPR petitioner was the one to reach out, vs. the intending immigrant.  Elected US officials have no obligation (implied or otherwise) to help people who do not live within their constituency.

My petitioner who is a USC did reach out to his state reps but as I said before one office was not willing to help at all while in AP. 

[SalishSea 17,444]

2 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

They are actually legally obligated. The issue is that representing and advocating are up to interpretation. You can say that advocating should imply pressuring a federal agency to act on an individual's case while they could sustain supporting certain causes through social media is enough to fulfill their advocating duties.

The fact that their duties are not defined in full detail is not by chance. 

Future citizens who may wish to pass the exam, take note 😉

 

I knew my 8th grade US civics hadn't failed me.  😂

[ice-qube 648]

2 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

They are actually legally obligated. The issue is that representing and advocating are up to interpretation. You can say that advocating should imply pressuring a federal agency to act on an individual's case while they could sustain supporting certain causes through social media is enough to fulfill their advocating duties.

The fact that their duties are not defined in full detail is not by chance. 

This is possibly a defensible statement, but I do not know what legally binds them, explicitly speaking--it is possible there is wording contained the US Constitution that sets out some precedent. For the purposes of this discussion--and this is not an attempt to move goalposts, just to focus what we are really talking about--there is no evidence that a member of Congress are specifically, legally or administratively obligated to make an inquiry to a consulate or any other agency on the behalf of a constituent. This would be a specific instance of fulfilling "duty" but this duty is not spelled out as such. I am virtually certain there is no remedy other than voting them out if they fail to do so. If anyone has evidence that I am wrong, I and likely many others here would love to hear it.

[ice-qube 648]

8 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Future citizens who may wish to pass the exam, take note 😉

 

I knew my 8th grade US civics hadn't failed me.  😂

Well, ha! Funny. Can you admit, though, that references to Grade 8 civics class, while laudable in its own merits, as well as hella clever, may not really be a compelling piece of evidence to prove that a member of Congress has a legal obligation or not?

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

Just now, ice-qube said:

This is possibly a defensible statement, but I do not know what legally binds them, explicitly speaking--it is possible there is wording contained the US Constitution that sets out some precedent. For the purposes of this discussion--and this is not an attempt to move goalposts, just to focus what we are really talking about--there is no evidence that a member of Congress are specifically, legally or administratively obligated to make an inquiry to a consulate or any other agency on the behalf of a constituent. This would be a specific instance of fulfilling "duty" but this duty is not spelled out as such. I am virtually certain there is no remedy other than voting them out if they fail to do so. If anyone has evidence that I am wrong, I and likely many others here would love to hear it.

As you just said, those specific duties are not spelled out as such -and again, that's intentional-.

Voting a specific member out would serve no purpose, as the next one would follow the same pattern.

 

Unrelated to representatives but related to the whole immigration process, I've read a good amount of publicly available internal audits that are very thorough and specific regarding the obstacles/issues/mistakes within the system and the possible viable solutions.

But reality shows us they have not been implemented.

 

So someone has been actively advocating for a more efficient machinery, but not as successfully as one would expect.

[ice-qube 648]

3 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Voting a specific member out would serve no purpose, as the next one would follow the same pattern.

OK, this is a bit baffling. So there is no purpose of using the primary remedy an average citizen has to express discontent with the way a member of Congress behaves towards them as a constituent? The foundational principle of the electoral mechanism is "throw the bums out". 

 

4 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

 

Unrelated to representatives but related to the whole immigration process, I've read a good amount of publicly available internal audits that are very thorough and specific regarding the obstacles/issues/mistakes within the system and the possible viable solutions.

But reality shows us they have not been implemented.

I am sure that there have been many internal audits and subsequent proposals to fix the system, and yes, very few have been implemented. This is a political problem more than anything. And I fail to see how it will be solved until someone actually has a mandate from voters to fix it--which I don't see that happening any time soon in the prevailing political climate, for all sorts of reasons.

[Federico 147]

There is a big difference when you think how everything should be and how it really is. Trump used to say “It is what it is”.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

9 minutes ago, ice-qube said:

OK, this is a bit baffling. So there is no purpose of using the primary remedy an average citizen has to express discontent with the way a member of Congress behaves towards them as a constituent? The foundational principle of the electoral mechanism is "throw the bums out". 

 

I am sure that there have been many internal audits and subsequent proposals to fix the system, and yes, very few have been implemented. This is a political problem more than anything. And I fail to see how it will be solved until someone actually has a mandate from voters to fix it--which I don't see that happening any time soon in the prevailing political climate, for all sorts of reasons.

You can express discontent but that won't change the way things work. You could even find a representative willing to change things but they would stumble upon the rest that will do everything to keep the status quo.

 

And when it comes to immigration, yes, there might be some political interests in play, but it is mainly that the system became so insanely convoluted that it has escaped everyone's grasp.

[ice-qube 648]

Just now, Allaboutwaiting said:

You can express discontent but that won't change the way things work. You could even find a representative willing to change things but they would stumble upon the rest that will do everything to keep the status quo.

 

And when it comes to immigration, yes, there might be some political interests in play, but it is mainly that the system became so insanely convoluted that it has escaped everyone's grasp.

Ultimately, that is the voters' fault. They have it the way they want, over the long run, whether they want to take responsibility or not. If voters truly want politicians to fix the system, they could--but there is no overall political will for that. Indeed, "it is what it is", but the blame rests on the people who actually elect their representatives and what they communicate to them as being important. One idiotic popular faction of voters, in fact, wants to make sure it is very hard for immigrants of any sort to come to the USA. Another idiotic popular faction of voters has no interest in having any rules at all, and thinks any rules at all are oppressive. And the majority of the rest outside of these two insane factions are more or less disinterested in the subject, and certainly even less interested in policy details. Yes, voters are to blame. And that is why it will not be fixed.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

1 minute ago, ice-qube said:

Ultimately, that is the voters' fault. They have it the way they want, over the long run, whether they want to take responsibility or not. If voters truly want politicians to fix the system, they could--but there is no overall political will for that. Indeed, "it is what it is", but the blame rests on the people who actually elect their representatives and what they communicate to them as being important. One idiotic popular faction of voters, in fact, wants to make sure it is very hard for immigrants of any sort to come to the USA. Another idiotic popular faction of voters has no interest in having any rules at all, and thinks any rules at all are oppressive. And the majority of the rest outside of these two insane factions are more or less disinterested in the subject, and certainly even less interested in policy details. Yes, voters are to blame. And that is why it will not be fixed.

We humans are lazy and ignorant -mainly due to laziness-. And we act just when we're directly affected. 

 

When it comes to immigration, the average person is clueless. 

One is forced to learn the hard way by dealing with it.

Some people have it easy, with no obstacle along the journey and they end up thinking that's the way it works while for others the path is torturous. Either way, everyone ends up doing their best to avoid dealing with any immigration matter ever again.

 

[ice-qube 648]

6 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

We humans are lazy and ignorant -mainly due to laziness-. And we act just when we're directly affected. 

 

When it comes to immigration, the average person is clueless. 

One is forced to learn the hard way by dealing with it.

Some people have it easy, with no obstacle along the journey and they end up thinking that's the way it works while for others the path is torturous. Either way, everyone ends up doing their best to avoid dealing with any immigration matter ever again.

 

While I agree with you, ignorance and laziness is no excuse. Being only concerned with what directly affects you is no excuse. And yes, that is all true. That is what the majority of people are like. No good excuse in moral or ethical terms, but very true in realistic terms. Still, they get the blame--a moral judgment--no one else.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

2 minutes ago, ice-qube said:

While I agree with you, ignorance and laziness is no excuse. Being only concerned with what directly affects you is no excuse. And yes, that is all true. That is what the majority of people are like. No good excuse in moral or ethical terms, but very true in realistic terms. Still, they get the blame--a moral judgment--no one else.

I think we all end up being like that. 

At the risk of being wrong, I dare say not a single member of this forum became an immigration advocate focusing on actively fighting the system once they finished their own immigration process.

We are programmed to survive -as every other living being- and those of us who have some sort of moral notion -which is entirely a social construct- end up here, answering questions to the best of our knowledge in order to help others avoid all the possible issues they might face. 

Making a career out of immigration activism might be a commendable endeavour but a futile one in my opinion if your actual goal is making an appreciable change.