Originally Posted by ryberg
To extend my analogy with my wife's case and some sort of -- I would say unreasonable -- skeptic at CIS considering her residency application, I wonder if one point in the whole affair such as our lack of joint bank accounts will be seized on by someone a bit overzealous and overly skeptical as an indication that therefore the credibility and validity of the entire marriage is somehow in question, much as the quibbling over the amount the sea levels may rise or the degree of reduction in the snows of Kilimanjaro or arctic ice sheets seem to be taken as an indication that the overall IPCC report or gist of Gore's movie or whatever else is all tainted.
Or to take another example, perhaps they'll question the veracity of a letter from Father Bernard offering his firsthand experience with us, from the time before we were married to his participation in the (church) wedding ceremony itself to our contact with him through the hotel's toys for kids collection each Christmas to his dinners at our home from time to time with the extended family. Probably he's just our friend, they may think, and therefore biased; perhaps he even feels he is obliged to do us a favor and bend the truth of the matter because we have tried to help out his kids, or just because of the family's past political connections, you know. If he is biased, well, the whole case may be a sham, that agent might think.
And how completely wrong that CIS agent would be. How foolish it would be to reject all the years of photo and video we can provide, and the documentation of the children's births showing our names, and the bank statements showing we have sufficient funds, and the personal reports of people who know us, just because, hey, you know, no accounts showing both our names? a letter from the priest who married us and is a friend of the family?
Do these particular, arguably unexpected or possibly biased items here and there really throw into question the validity of the entire situation?
The answer in this debate from the skeptics' side seems to be, "Yes, they clearly do."
And again it makes one ask the question, what kind of case would such a skeptic accept, then?
Steve
|