Re: rajum
Originally posted by poongunranar
Kudos, my friend. I applaud you for painstakingly redacting a lengthy reply. I beg to differ as well as concur on most of it. This is the power of debate and arguments. You, with all your frustration, haven't given up hope to challenge facts. So, once again I want to applaud you....
Poongunranar,
Thanks for your positive words about me. Also I appreciate your clarifications..
I wish I can articulate like you....
I am not in this country on the mercy of CIS...I am here on my own merits and on the goodwill of people of America..on America's innate sense of justice and it's courage to stand up to its priniciples embedded in its declaration of independence....
Bush era is clearly an aberration in its 230 years of independence, may be with an exception of Mccarthyism period in 50s....and I believe that this country will come out of this mob-frenzy mode and will revitalizes itself on sane policies...if that hope is lost, then I will pack my bags on the first day....
I read in Rajiv posting's about your mentioning about Judge Kyle's observations ...in fact the judgement was posted in this forums couple of months ago by Cinta and some other people...Judge made the right observations...
I never attended a court...but I know how the court proceedings will be and what can the classic example than Clinton's testimony.....How he defended that he didn't had sex with her...rather she had sex with him...
However,I got great respect for Clinton and his presidency is one of the best years in American history.
Sometimes, despite having merits in the case we may not win the case...In that respect, I agree with you..
But in some of the postings, I felt that you have stretched the reasonableness in projecting an alternative position or defendants position in some of the issues.
Like for ex: in FIFO or LIFO situations, I don't think CIS will argue that it is the prerogative of its agency to process and courts cannot dictate agency on FIFO. I don't think CIS will take that position. If someone confronts CIS with that question then CIS will simply say that in priniciple, we will follow FIFO order but however every case is different and depending on the complexity of the case, the processing time may vary. We can prove that there is nothing like complexity and it is simply the agency callousness only if court allows us. So, it depends on the judge....
I am eager to see what position it takes on 180 days. Unlike you suggested, I don't think that it will confront that it is not enforceable and hence it has denied in its reply It might take the position that 180 day is only a guideline but not binding and it tries to explain that it has made every effort to reduce the backlogs and might say that still it is committed to 180 day rule..
I strongly believe, CIS will never take the position that they got resource or logistics problem.They argue that security checks are placing them under additional responsibility for extra scrutiny and that is delaying the cases.
In all the above three counts, it all depends on how far the judge allows us to question the defendants. In that respect, I agree with you that if one enters the court one really knows how helpless an individual might feel despite having good points..
lastly, I might have wrongly interpreted your stand and if so, I apologize for the same and withdraw my statement .
-rajum
