The principle thing that frustrates me about it is not any kind of dishonesty, simply the fact that too many things in the US, including visa approval, has no room for personal judgement whatsoever. The overriding concern on limiting who comes in from other countries ostensibly is to try to keep out dangerous, or criminal, elements and try to filter out people who are likely to overstay their visa and remain illegally.
We put together so much proof that my wife has serious ties to both Argentina and Paraguay that there was no doubt, in at least one of the interviewer's minds - she told us so, just told us that the decision had already been made and even though supposedly she had the ability to override that decision, the reality was quite different and rightly so that she felt it wasn't worth losing her job over. She even took it to her supervisor to ask if it was possible for the supervisor to override the decision made back in the States, but the supervisor wouldn't do it either. The guy I talked to in the consulate afterward confirmed to me that the interviewers have more leeway to reject someone that has already been approved than they do to approve someone who has been rejected.
Maybe I can get her in on some kind of refugee status...
As Ajo, I believe in open borders as well. Maybe one difference there is that I also believe that if someone comes to the country (whichever it be) they do not automatically deserve to be taken care of by government programs that they have not paid into. But very few people believe like I do anyway
