Jump to content

1,729 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Lebanon
Timeline

Mine is August. But I follow up all the threads, especially the earlier ones, to take note of any processing patterns and real time case reports.

N400applicant

What is your date of filing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0dQA0vMJxA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wquCCFvbNhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5pdgyOzJtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neqFpWDQ61w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RneoccuJwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUU_ykQbfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdi3Cg2Uq1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HVJdMGAMs

==================================================

First Amendment and separation of Church from State has a lot more to it than most of our contemporaries realize.

The truth is, the Pilgrims were Puritan fascists who were only looking for their
own
religious freedom. They were too ... independent and fanatical even for the more mainstream zealots of English and European Reformations. They called themselves “Puritans” because they were dedicated to
purifying
the Church of England of Roman influences. They
hated
Rome and they
hated
heretics, and they
hated
sinners and they really hated
witches
. Their reigning English King, James I was also a foaming Protestant Scottish witch hunter, and was every bit as fanatical as the Pilgrims were, since they were all theological soul mates. But James I actually had to sophisticate himself a bit, particularly stifling his witch-hating fanaticism when he took power in England. He had to accommodate the more moderate and educated Protestantism that then still held great sway in his English Court and Parliament. This social moderation at home however, didn’t slow him from encouraging the exportation of sharp, Puritan zeal to his growing colonies in the New World though, where raw Puritanism would be free to dominate the new society he intended to found there.

I say with very little exaggeration, that living under Puritan rule in the New England American Colonies would be nearly as religiously oppressive as living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabia. The principle difference between Sharia Law and Pilgrim Law would be that the Pilgrims let women show
puritan-whipping_thumb.jpg?w=244&h=244

their whole faces in public. the Puritans in particular on the other hand, weren’t all that put off by the Inquisition’s tactics or even goals in and of themselves. The Puritans and many other Reformers in truth just wanted the Inquisitional zeal applied unilaterally up and down the Church ranks from clergy to commoner. They just didn’t think you should be able to buy or politic your way out of being tortured into a confession of heresy. They figured that kings, Popes and bishops and priests were just as good candidates for heresy as anyone else—the more the merrier. Puritans in short, actually wanted
more
repression and
more
micromanaging of the Body of Christ. They wanted the power to institute the same sort of fanatical purification of Christendom that the Inquisition only
pretended
to enforce, and then only selectively, often for personal, social, or political reasons. The Puritans wanted their newly cleansed Protestant Inquistition to be
universally
applied to all Christians of whatever rank. The Puritans wanted
everyone
to be beaten into piety whatever his station in the Church or society– they just wanted to insure it was being done fairly and correctly by a dictatorial theocracy of their
own
design.We read about the Salem Witch trials, some decades after the Pilgrims landed, and think that hanging nineteen men and women as witches on the say-so of a couple of snotty little girls looking for attention was a fluke carried out by an isolated, small group of inbred fanatics. We think the old man they crushed under stones for refusing to submit to their trials was the result of some abnormal paranoia due to the bunker mentality of a pioneer colony in a harsh new land. When we read about the dozens of fellow colonists they just let rot in jail for months as they queued them up for their American Inquisition, we assume that this sort of fiendish treatment had to be the product of some sort of atypical mass mental illness brought about through a bad diet and not enough sunlight. But no,
that’s what Puritans did
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Lebanon
Timeline

If you always think about you and how you and only you will get anything out of it, then of course you have nothing to gain if you are like me.

But I guess I am a lot more selfish than you are, and glad that I am, therefore I look at much bigger picture, I almost see it in evolutionary perspective, and to me it's a matter of certain principle (not even my personal existence) which I care about the most.

Because I realize that at the end of the day those evolutionary forces decide our fates, and short sighted "rationalizations" we usually base our decisions on, where we focus only in here and now, or our immediate gratifications, don't always serve us ,and our offspring, well in the long term.

In the long term thousands of generations that will come after me are part of the process, in which I am but a little little passing chain, like a little cell in much larger body, and that bigger body is what I care and look forward to.

And that makes my position also completely invincible and victorious.

I may not win today, but some day ideas I live by will prevail, because they are superior from evolutionary point of view and perspective to those who live by manifesting the opposite.

US Constitution is written by men who thought along those lines and the superior idea of creating a society where Life and Pursuit of Happiness were guaranteed in Consitution was something they were willing to bet everything for.

That passionate feeling and sense of posterity I have in me is where my inner force and confidence come from. And not from something any man can give or take from me.

I know I am not going to get anything from USCIS, or anyone else right now, for speaking up.

I may even become a target of retaliation and those in charge of processing my application may even purposefully delay my case processing to "punish" me for being outspoken about this subject if they care to subpoena the forum owners and obtain my IP address along with my actual name and location.

But what do I care about ME ?

It is not me but the Consitution and Founding Principles of US , the Due Process and Equal Protection under the Law , which are being violated here.

Not mere Aliens wish to get speedy decision on their case. And all this done with false pretence of serving security needs of the United States. Nothing could be farther from reality! If security was real concern no "bad guy" would have his applicaiton pending for more than 24 hours after receipt by USCIS, and local Police SWAT team with FBI would be at the doors of those 0.2% who get ultimately denied for failing background checks. Whereas the remaining 9.8% wouldn't be subject to arbirary, capricious and outright illegal treatment by the case processing agencies.

And for this I speak up. I couldn;t care less if this leads to my case never being approved or getting pending for 20 more years. It's the ability to speak up and say it as is and to bring attention to real predicament many others find themselevs in , that is what matters most to me.

Because in the long run this is the ONLY way to fix these kind of problems.

Even if I live to 90 years and don't get my case aproved, I wish to know that some day others will not be going through what I do, and if my contribution does as much as butterfly effect in chaos theory then my ultimate goal will have been accomplished. Even if I don't live long enough to see it.

Be good Citizen of US. Don't just treat it as a blue piece of paper that allows you to travel the world without Visa. It means a lot more than that.

Bets of luck to you.

Totally agree with you ,I have been here legaly for 9 years married with two kids and still the whole process from the day I filled to my oath is about 10 month .like I said It ducks that nobody will give you a clear cut answer so just be patient

Edited by N400applicant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0dQA0vMJxA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wquCCFvbNhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5pdgyOzJtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neqFpWDQ61w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RneoccuJwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUU_ykQbfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdi3Cg2Uq1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HVJdMGAMs

==================================================

First Amendment and separation of Church from State has a lot more to it than most of our contemporaries realize.

The truth is, the Pilgrims were Puritan fascists who were only looking for their
own
religious freedom. They were too ... independent and fanatical even for the more mainstream zealots of English and European Reformations. They called themselves “Puritans” because they were dedicated to
purifying
the Church of England of Roman influences. They
hated
Rome and they
hated
heretics, and they
hated
sinners and they really hated
witches
. Their reigning English King, James I was also a foaming Protestant Scottish witch hunter, and was every bit as fanatical as the Pilgrims were, since they were all theological soul mates. But James I actually had to sophisticate himself a bit, particularly stifling his witch-hating fanaticism when he took power in England. He had to accommodate the more moderate and educated Protestantism that then still held great sway in his English Court and Parliament. This social moderation at home however, didn’t slow him from encouraging the exportation of sharp, Puritan zeal to his growing colonies in the New World though, where raw Puritanism would be free to dominate the new society he intended to found there.

I say with very little exaggeration, that living under Puritan rule in the New England American Colonies would be nearly as religiously oppressive as living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabia. The principle difference between Sharia Law and Pilgrim Law would be that the Pilgrims let women show
puritan-whipping_thumb.jpg?w=244&h=244

their whole faces in public. the Puritans in particular on the other hand, weren’t all that put off by the Inquisition’s tactics or even goals in and of themselves. The Puritans and many other Reformers in truth just wanted the Inquisitional zeal applied unilaterally up and down the Church ranks from clergy to commoner. They just didn’t think you should be able to buy or politic your way out of being tortured into a confession of heresy. They figured that kings, Popes and bishops and priests were just as good candidates for heresy as anyone else—the more the merrier. Puritans in short, actually wanted
more
repression and
more
micromanaging of the Body of Christ. They wanted the power to institute the same sort of fanatical purification of Christendom that the Inquisition only
pretended
to enforce, and then only selectively, often for personal, social, or political reasons. The Puritans wanted their newly cleansed Protestant Inquistition to be
universally
applied to all Christians of whatever rank. The Puritans wanted
everyone
to be beaten into piety whatever his station in the Church or society– they just wanted to insure it was being done fairly and correctly by a dictatorial theocracy of their
own
design.We read about the Salem Witch trials, some decades after the Pilgrims landed, and think that hanging nineteen men and women as witches on the say-so of a couple of snotty little girls looking for attention was a fluke carried out by an isolated, small group of inbred fanatics. We think the old man they crushed under stones for refusing to submit to their trials was the result of some abnormal paranoia due to the bunker mentality of a pioneer colony in a harsh new land. When we read about the dozens of fellow colonists they just let rot in jail for months as they queued them up for their American Inquisition, we assume that this sort of fiendish treatment had to be the product of some sort of atypical mass mental illness brought about through a bad diet and not enough sunlight. But no,
that’s what Puritans did
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

I got inline 7 months after my biometics, and "Interview Schedule" 3 days after inline notice. You only get inline status if you security check is completed.

Usually You get inline notice 72 hours after bioethics, Sometimes month, after and sometimes months after. No one knows.

Inline status has nothing to do with USCIS office, but its has to do with FBI background check.

Interview is schedule by National Benefit center, They check the online system and if there is slot available so they go ahead and Schedule. Once the interview is Scheduled they ship your file via USPS to your local USCIS office:)

Local Office only act as Interview taker or Ceremony assistance. Main job is done by Benefit center( Department of Homeland Security ) and FBI .

You are confused again.

Status changes to "interview scheduled" just before you get interview letter. But that's not what I am taking about.

"In line" to schedule is what you get couple of days after biometrics. It may then take 60 days or more for your status to change to "interview scheduled" , depending on how busy the local office is.

"IN LINE" status update happens right after biometrics and has nothing to do with how busy your local office is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Lebanon
Timeline

I understand that.

What I am saying is treating two people in similar circumstances differently is illegal.

For example, the fact that you had your interview scheduled is a PROOF that your background checks came CLEAR.

So, what was a hold up about? Why you waited 9 months while some German born Manfred waited only 72 hours to be placed in line?

Most likely your hold up was about your country of birth (or some other algorithmically assigned "risk" factor which has nothing to do with you as an individual), and the alleged "suspicion" was that since you were born somewhere where a lot of "suspicious" people live, then there is a high likelihood that you too are a "suspect". So, DHS, FBI or whoever it might be spent nine months searching for a black cat in a dark room in your case. Finally, they gave up on finding what doesn;t exist and decided to schedule your interview. You are lucky. It took only 9 months for them to give up on looking for black cats in a dark room. There are some other "suspicious" MATRIX profiled people who wait longer, some wait for years.

Overall, if my memory serves me right, there are 10% of applicants (out of the total submitted) who fall into this alleged "suspected" category and wait indefinitely for their cases to move forward. ONLY 0.2% of them get ultimately denied on security grounds. That's 9.8% of made up "suspects".

Something is wrong here. 9.8% is being mistreated and arbitrarily denied a due process as well as equal protection of the law, with the false pretense of "security" being a reason.

But nothing harms security more than putting application in indefinite HOLD and NOT apprehending/denying a suspect. That gives a lot of time to bad guys to do whatever harm they want to do. If SECURITY was of real concern, those bad guys would have to be dealt with in fastest possible time frame.

And the rest , or 9.8% who has nothing to do with 0.2% should not be mistreated in such a way so that some private contractor can masquerade and rake in a lot of tax payer dollars in collaboration with close friends in high places who give out those lucrative contracts.

There is something sisnister about this whole business and it doesn't sit well with our Constitution.

Not sure if people have slightest understanding of what I am trying to say here.

I got inline 7 months after my biometics, and "Interview Schedule" 3 days after inline notice. You only get inline status if you security check is completed.

Usually You get inline notice 72 hours after bioethics, Sometimes month, after and sometimes months after. No one knows.

Inline status has nothing to do with USCIS office, but its has to do with FBI background check.

Interview is schedule by National Benefit center, They check the online system and if there is slot available so they go ahead and Schedule. Once the interview is Scheduled they ship your file via USPS to your local USCIS office:)

Local Office only act as Interview taker or Ceremony assistance. Main job is done by Benefit center( Department of Homeland Security ) and FBI .

Edited by N400applicant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0dQA0vMJxA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wquCCFvbNhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5pdgyOzJtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neqFpWDQ61w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RneoccuJwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUU_ykQbfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdi3Cg2Uq1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HVJdMGAMs

==================================================

First Amendment and separation of Church from State has a lot more to it than most of our contemporaries realize.

The truth is, the Pilgrims were Puritan fascists who were only looking for their
own
religious freedom. They were too ... independent and fanatical even for the more mainstream zealots of English and European Reformations. They called themselves “Puritans” because they were dedicated to
purifying
the Church of England of Roman influences. They
hated
Rome and they
hated
heretics, and they
hated
sinners and they really hated
witches
. Their reigning English King, James I was also a foaming Protestant Scottish witch hunter, and was every bit as fanatical as the Pilgrims were, since they were all theological soul mates. But James I actually had to sophisticate himself a bit, particularly stifling his witch-hating fanaticism when he took power in England. He had to accommodate the more moderate and educated Protestantism that then still held great sway in his English Court and Parliament. This social moderation at home however, didn’t slow him from encouraging the exportation of sharp, Puritan zeal to his growing colonies in the New World though, where raw Puritanism would be free to dominate the new society he intended to found there.

I say with very little exaggeration, that living under Puritan rule in the New England American Colonies would be nearly as religiously oppressive as living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabia. The principle difference between Sharia Law and Pilgrim Law would be that the Pilgrims let women show
puritan-whipping_thumb.jpg?w=244&h=244

their whole faces in public. the Puritans in particular on the other hand, weren’t all that put off by the Inquisition’s tactics or even goals in and of themselves. The Puritans and many other Reformers in truth just wanted the Inquisitional zeal applied unilaterally up and down the Church ranks from clergy to commoner. They just didn’t think you should be able to buy or politic your way out of being tortured into a confession of heresy. They figured that kings, Popes and bishops and priests were just as good candidates for heresy as anyone else—the more the merrier. Puritans in short, actually wanted
more
repression and
more
micromanaging of the Body of Christ. They wanted the power to institute the same sort of fanatical purification of Christendom that the Inquisition only
pretended
to enforce, and then only selectively, often for personal, social, or political reasons. The Puritans wanted their newly cleansed Protestant Inquistition to be
universally
applied to all Christians of whatever rank. The Puritans wanted
everyone
to be beaten into piety whatever his station in the Church or society– they just wanted to insure it was being done fairly and correctly by a dictatorial theocracy of their
own
design.We read about the Salem Witch trials, some decades after the Pilgrims landed, and think that hanging nineteen men and women as witches on the say-so of a couple of snotty little girls looking for attention was a fluke carried out by an isolated, small group of inbred fanatics. We think the old man they crushed under stones for refusing to submit to their trials was the result of some abnormal paranoia due to the bunker mentality of a pioneer colony in a harsh new land. When we read about the dozens of fellow colonists they just let rot in jail for months as they queued them up for their American Inquisition, we assume that this sort of fiendish treatment had to be the product of some sort of atypical mass mental illness brought about through a bad diet and not enough sunlight. But no,
that’s what Puritans did
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

My brother got inline for interview after 3 days biometics, and he became citizen in less then 3 months. we are from same country of course:)

But his name is not common , he have very very complicated name.

I understand that.

What I am saying is treating two people in similar circumstances differently is illegal.

For example, the fact that you had your interview scheduled is a PROOF that your background checks came CLEAR.

So, what was a hold up about? Why you waited 9 months while some German born Manfred waited only 72 hours to be placed in line?

Most likely your hold up was about your country of birth (or some other algorithmically assigned "risk" factor which has nothing to do with you as an individual), and the alleged "suspicion" was that since you were born somewhere where a lot of "suspicious" people live, then there is a high likelihood that you too are a "suspect". So, DHS, FBI or whoever it might be spent nine months searching for a black cat in a dark room in your case. Finally, they gave up on finding what doesn;t exist and decided to schedule your interview. You are lucky. It took only 9 months for them to give up on looking for black cats in a dark room. There are some other "suspicious" MATRIX profiled people who wait longer, some wait for years.

Overall, if my memory serves me right, there are 10% of applicants (out of the total submitted) who fall into this alleged "suspected" category and wait indefinitely for their cases to move forward. ONLY 0.2% of them get ultimately denied on security grounds. That's 9.8% of made up "suspects".

Something is wrong here. 9.8% is being mistreated and arbitrarily denied a due process as well as equal protection of the law, with the false pretense of "security" being a reason.

But nothing harms security more than putting application in indefinite HOLD and NOT apprehending/denying a suspect. That gives a lot of time to bad guys to do whatever harm they want to do. If SECURITY was of real concern, those bad guys would have to be dealt with in fastest possible time frame.

And the rest , or 9.8% who has nothing to do with 0.2% should not be mistreated in such a way so that some private contractor can masquerade and rake in a lot of tax payer dollars in collaboration with close friends in high places who give out those lucrative contracts.

There is something sisnister about this whole business and it doesn't sit well with our Constitution.

Not sure if people have slightest understanding of what I am trying to say here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: England
Timeline

Mine is August.

Wait, August 2015? I don't know if you've been burnt in the past with other parts of the immigration journey or not, but having at least seen your posts over the last month or so all over this forum I had presumed you'd been waiting a long, long time. Don't get me wrong, it's annoying when others seem to 'jump ahead' (such is the nature of immigration and the lack of transparency and regularity), but just a few months? I had to wait longer than was necessary for my original AOS (I am from a 'safe' country with a 'safe' name) and eventually put in a service request, which resolved the issue shortly afterwards. It was a pretty rubbish position to be in, but sometimes it happens and you have to take the ride along, and occupy yourself with other things.

This is from some time ago, but:

I am one of those who can set my mind off N-400 and think of other things I can do.

Having read your (often long and reasonably regular) posts, I honestly don't believe this. It's not written with ill-will or out to offend/not sympathise, but it's clear this situation is in your mind all the time and you're bitter over it.

Edited by Berty

There's that smell again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Lebanon
Timeline

Not sure if I make my self clear enough, but it's not N-400 Per Se. It's the matter of principle to me.

I just want to bring some transparency and light to what is actually happening and no body seems to voice critical opinion about. What I do is more like political activism, and what I write is a political speech more than personal quest. Of course, I can just take my mind off it and forget for a while about my N-400.

But, on a second thought, why should I? In a Democratic society it's my duty to meaningfully participate in the government of State I live in. And Free Speech allows for balances and checks to work as much as let people peacefully express their grievances. It exists for a reason.

Wait, August 2015? I don't know if you've been burnt in the past with other parts of the immigration journey or not, but having at least seen your posts over the last month or so all over this forum I had presumed you'd been waiting a long, long time. Don't get me wrong, it's annoying when others seem to 'jump ahead' (such is the nature of immigration and the lack of transparency and regularity), but just a few months? I had to wait longer than was necessary for my original AOS (I am from a 'safe' country with a 'safe' name) and eventually put in a service request, which resolved the issue shortly afterwards. It was a pretty rubbish position to be in, but sometimes it happens and you have to take the ride along, and occupy yourself with other things.

This is from some time ago, but:


Having read your (often long and reasonably regular) posts, I honestly don't believe this. It's not written with ill-will or out to offend/not sympathise, but it's clear this situation is in your mind all the time and you're bitter over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0dQA0vMJxA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wquCCFvbNhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5pdgyOzJtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neqFpWDQ61w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RneoccuJwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUU_ykQbfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdi3Cg2Uq1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HVJdMGAMs

==================================================

First Amendment and separation of Church from State has a lot more to it than most of our contemporaries realize.

The truth is, the Pilgrims were Puritan fascists who were only looking for their
own
religious freedom. They were too ... independent and fanatical even for the more mainstream zealots of English and European Reformations. They called themselves “Puritans” because they were dedicated to
purifying
the Church of England of Roman influences. They
hated
Rome and they
hated
heretics, and they
hated
sinners and they really hated
witches
. Their reigning English King, James I was also a foaming Protestant Scottish witch hunter, and was every bit as fanatical as the Pilgrims were, since they were all theological soul mates. But James I actually had to sophisticate himself a bit, particularly stifling his witch-hating fanaticism when he took power in England. He had to accommodate the more moderate and educated Protestantism that then still held great sway in his English Court and Parliament. This social moderation at home however, didn’t slow him from encouraging the exportation of sharp, Puritan zeal to his growing colonies in the New World though, where raw Puritanism would be free to dominate the new society he intended to found there.

I say with very little exaggeration, that living under Puritan rule in the New England American Colonies would be nearly as religiously oppressive as living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabia. The principle difference between Sharia Law and Pilgrim Law would be that the Pilgrims let women show
puritan-whipping_thumb.jpg?w=244&h=244

their whole faces in public. the Puritans in particular on the other hand, weren’t all that put off by the Inquisition’s tactics or even goals in and of themselves. The Puritans and many other Reformers in truth just wanted the Inquisitional zeal applied unilaterally up and down the Church ranks from clergy to commoner. They just didn’t think you should be able to buy or politic your way out of being tortured into a confession of heresy. They figured that kings, Popes and bishops and priests were just as good candidates for heresy as anyone else—the more the merrier. Puritans in short, actually wanted
more
repression and
more
micromanaging of the Body of Christ. They wanted the power to institute the same sort of fanatical purification of Christendom that the Inquisition only
pretended
to enforce, and then only selectively, often for personal, social, or political reasons. The Puritans wanted their newly cleansed Protestant Inquistition to be
universally
applied to all Christians of whatever rank. The Puritans wanted
everyone
to be beaten into piety whatever his station in the Church or society– they just wanted to insure it was being done fairly and correctly by a dictatorial theocracy of their
own
design.We read about the Salem Witch trials, some decades after the Pilgrims landed, and think that hanging nineteen men and women as witches on the say-so of a couple of snotty little girls looking for attention was a fluke carried out by an isolated, small group of inbred fanatics. We think the old man they crushed under stones for refusing to submit to their trials was the result of some abnormal paranoia due to the bunker mentality of a pioneer colony in a harsh new land. When we read about the dozens of fellow colonists they just let rot in jail for months as they queued them up for their American Inquisition, we assume that this sort of fiendish treatment had to be the product of some sort of atypical mass mental illness brought about through a bad diet and not enough sunlight. But no,
that’s what Puritans did
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Jordan
Timeline

Filed in February and didn't receive anything since March (the biometrics). All of us (PRs and USCs) probably need to start a campaign to demand reforming immigration laws, especially when it comes to transparency. We need to remind them that neither USCIS nor anyone can do illegal or "shady" stuff with immigrants, such as discrimination or unnecessary delay in processing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Jordan
Timeline

It is funny that when I bought a gun (my employer requested that I open carry a gun in my work), the background check came back clear in less than 24 hours! Now, it is taking them more than 6 month! What the heck are they doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Lebanon
Timeline

Most of the people who buy and own guns belong to constituency which has powerful lobby behind it and , most importantly, has a voting base which is extremely passionate about their Second Amendment Rights.

If they did to gun buyers what they do to immigrants, randomly profiling and foircing to wait for years to purchase a gun, then lots of Congressmen would get fired from their seats in the next election. And I don't think any President can afford to mistreat that group either. This is despite the fact that there are a lot more USC lunatics who buy guns and kill innocent people than immigrants doing any sort of violent crime.

Why this is so? Answer is self evident: because immigrants are easy target, anyone can profile, target, arbitrarily discriminate against and treat us anyway they want. Who will object?

Most immigrants don't even have a clue what rights they have and how the political system here works.

So, obviously, since there are two vastly different groups of people we are talking about (gun owners, who are mostly conservative, Rush Limbaugh listening Americans, passionate about 2nd Amendment Rights versus poor basdards, immigrants like ourselves, the Shudra's of XXI century) , the treatment is also vastly different.

It is funny that when I bought a gun (my employer requested that I open carry a gun in my work), the background check came back clear in less than 24 hours! Now, it is taking them more than 6 month! What the heck are they doing?

Edited by N400applicant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0dQA0vMJxA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wquCCFvbNhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5pdgyOzJtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neqFpWDQ61w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RneoccuJwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUU_ykQbfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdi3Cg2Uq1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HVJdMGAMs

==================================================

First Amendment and separation of Church from State has a lot more to it than most of our contemporaries realize.

The truth is, the Pilgrims were Puritan fascists who were only looking for their
own
religious freedom. They were too ... independent and fanatical even for the more mainstream zealots of English and European Reformations. They called themselves “Puritans” because they were dedicated to
purifying
the Church of England of Roman influences. They
hated
Rome and they
hated
heretics, and they
hated
sinners and they really hated
witches
. Their reigning English King, James I was also a foaming Protestant Scottish witch hunter, and was every bit as fanatical as the Pilgrims were, since they were all theological soul mates. But James I actually had to sophisticate himself a bit, particularly stifling his witch-hating fanaticism when he took power in England. He had to accommodate the more moderate and educated Protestantism that then still held great sway in his English Court and Parliament. This social moderation at home however, didn’t slow him from encouraging the exportation of sharp, Puritan zeal to his growing colonies in the New World though, where raw Puritanism would be free to dominate the new society he intended to found there.

I say with very little exaggeration, that living under Puritan rule in the New England American Colonies would be nearly as religiously oppressive as living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabia. The principle difference between Sharia Law and Pilgrim Law would be that the Pilgrims let women show
puritan-whipping_thumb.jpg?w=244&h=244

their whole faces in public. the Puritans in particular on the other hand, weren’t all that put off by the Inquisition’s tactics or even goals in and of themselves. The Puritans and many other Reformers in truth just wanted the Inquisitional zeal applied unilaterally up and down the Church ranks from clergy to commoner. They just didn’t think you should be able to buy or politic your way out of being tortured into a confession of heresy. They figured that kings, Popes and bishops and priests were just as good candidates for heresy as anyone else—the more the merrier. Puritans in short, actually wanted
more
repression and
more
micromanaging of the Body of Christ. They wanted the power to institute the same sort of fanatical purification of Christendom that the Inquisition only
pretended
to enforce, and then only selectively, often for personal, social, or political reasons. The Puritans wanted their newly cleansed Protestant Inquistition to be
universally
applied to all Christians of whatever rank. The Puritans wanted
everyone
to be beaten into piety whatever his station in the Church or society– they just wanted to insure it was being done fairly and correctly by a dictatorial theocracy of their
own
design.We read about the Salem Witch trials, some decades after the Pilgrims landed, and think that hanging nineteen men and women as witches on the say-so of a couple of snotty little girls looking for attention was a fluke carried out by an isolated, small group of inbred fanatics. We think the old man they crushed under stones for refusing to submit to their trials was the result of some abnormal paranoia due to the bunker mentality of a pioneer colony in a harsh new land. When we read about the dozens of fellow colonists they just let rot in jail for months as they queued them up for their American Inquisition, we assume that this sort of fiendish treatment had to be the product of some sort of atypical mass mental illness brought about through a bad diet and not enough sunlight. But no,
that’s what Puritans did
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interview cancelled for "unforeseen Reason" I will go to interview regardless see now what Bullshit they have to give.

That is strange. When was your interview scheduled and how did you receive the message about the cancelation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received the letter today, my interview was suppose to be on 9 nov.

I hope it is just the scheduling and the field office load issue and they will be rescheduling it soon for you.

Edited by FSI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Lebanon
Timeline

It could be cancelled due to logistical reasons. But it could also be cancelled because his background checks were not complete yet. If latter is the case then he goes back to the same limbo he was in before, and it may take as many as 7 years for his interview to take place. I have read a case where someone's interview was cancelled few times and it took applicant 7 years to get a Citizenship (and it was finally granted by Federal Court, after intervention of Immigration Attorney, not by USCIS).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0dQA0vMJxA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wquCCFvbNhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5pdgyOzJtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neqFpWDQ61w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RneoccuJwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUU_ykQbfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdi3Cg2Uq1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HVJdMGAMs

==================================================

First Amendment and separation of Church from State has a lot more to it than most of our contemporaries realize.

The truth is, the Pilgrims were Puritan fascists who were only looking for their
own
religious freedom. They were too ... independent and fanatical even for the more mainstream zealots of English and European Reformations. They called themselves “Puritans” because they were dedicated to
purifying
the Church of England of Roman influences. They
hated
Rome and they
hated
heretics, and they
hated
sinners and they really hated
witches
. Their reigning English King, James I was also a foaming Protestant Scottish witch hunter, and was every bit as fanatical as the Pilgrims were, since they were all theological soul mates. But James I actually had to sophisticate himself a bit, particularly stifling his witch-hating fanaticism when he took power in England. He had to accommodate the more moderate and educated Protestantism that then still held great sway in his English Court and Parliament. This social moderation at home however, didn’t slow him from encouraging the exportation of sharp, Puritan zeal to his growing colonies in the New World though, where raw Puritanism would be free to dominate the new society he intended to found there.

I say with very little exaggeration, that living under Puritan rule in the New England American Colonies would be nearly as religiously oppressive as living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabia. The principle difference between Sharia Law and Pilgrim Law would be that the Pilgrims let women show
puritan-whipping_thumb.jpg?w=244&h=244

their whole faces in public. the Puritans in particular on the other hand, weren’t all that put off by the Inquisition’s tactics or even goals in and of themselves. The Puritans and many other Reformers in truth just wanted the Inquisitional zeal applied unilaterally up and down the Church ranks from clergy to commoner. They just didn’t think you should be able to buy or politic your way out of being tortured into a confession of heresy. They figured that kings, Popes and bishops and priests were just as good candidates for heresy as anyone else—the more the merrier. Puritans in short, actually wanted
more
repression and
more
micromanaging of the Body of Christ. They wanted the power to institute the same sort of fanatical purification of Christendom that the Inquisition only
pretended
to enforce, and then only selectively, often for personal, social, or political reasons. The Puritans wanted their newly cleansed Protestant Inquistition to be
universally
applied to all Christians of whatever rank. The Puritans wanted
everyone
to be beaten into piety whatever his station in the Church or society– they just wanted to insure it was being done fairly and correctly by a dictatorial theocracy of their
own
design.We read about the Salem Witch trials, some decades after the Pilgrims landed, and think that hanging nineteen men and women as witches on the say-so of a couple of snotty little girls looking for attention was a fluke carried out by an isolated, small group of inbred fanatics. We think the old man they crushed under stones for refusing to submit to their trials was the result of some abnormal paranoia due to the bunker mentality of a pioneer colony in a harsh new land. When we read about the dozens of fellow colonists they just let rot in jail for months as they queued them up for their American Inquisition, we assume that this sort of fiendish treatment had to be the product of some sort of atypical mass mental illness brought about through a bad diet and not enough sunlight. But no,
that’s what Puritans did
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Didn't find the answer you were looking for? Ask our VJ Immigration Lawyers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...