To "Facts"----What the procedures do not cover

Submitted by Straight_Talk_Luigi (United States), Apr 7, 2010 at 16:19

The reason for such screening has much more to do with keeping terrorists, child sex traffickers, drug dealers out and, to some degree, reducing international piracy.

That is the primary focus government or private businesses---not to determine if Lisa and her man will be happy and live in a world rich with unicorn and rainbows.

As someone who dated on-line for over ten years and grew up with the internet, I've seen all there is to see. They aren't going to be vetting Simo for her compatibility with Lisa and they would only reject him if they thought he was a security threat or if there was some glowing evidence of fraud.

The fact that Lisa does not trust Simo 100% is not reason enough, nor are her lack of visits to Morocco.

As I keep saying, the problem with on-line communication is that it is difficult to REALLY know what is going, whether you are in relationship or a security screener for DHS. And they are not going to spend a lot of time on that.

Our society operates on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Difficult to do for a formal agent in a formal investigation where the Constitution is paramount, but women leave men all the time over such uncertainty whether its legally just or not.

As it is, most scammers can get away with visa fraud. The trick is to get your partner/sponsor all emotional energized and thinking what they have is real.

Whether it actually is not is pretty much irrelevant as far as the principle is concerned, but past cases have shown such fraud can take months even years to come to fruition.

The evidence is quite clear on here that Lisa is not all secure about this situation. I for one, do not blame her.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".