Are you still an immigrant after naturalization ?

G

gaurav2005

Registered Users (C)
In legal sense, are you still considered an immigrant after the naturalization ?

There is some news today that the immigrants will be subject to strict scrutiny, they can be stopped any time and ask for their status etc. Even after naturalization, are you supposed to carry your papers always to prove your status ? Also immigrants are supposed to intimate INS the change of address within 10 days (??) if they move. Is this applicable for naturalized as well ?
 
gaurav2005 said:
In legal sense, are you still considered an immigrant after the naturalization ?

There is some news today that the immigrants will be subject to strict scrutiny, they can be stopped any time and ask for their status etc. Even after naturalization, are you supposed to carry your papers always to prove your status ? Also immigrants are supposed to intimate INS the change of address within 10 days (??) if they move. Is this applicable for naturalized as well ?
Click to expand...
gaurav,
Where did you get this information that the immigrants will be subject to strict scrutiny, and being volnurable to beeing stoppted anytime and asked for their status?
Would you please list the source?
thank you.
 
This raises some interesting points of discussion.

As a Permanent Resident, you're supposed to carry your green card with you at at times as evidence of your status -- if asked. If you've followed other discussion threads about this on this site, apparently there have been in-land check-stops for proof of immigration status documentation in some of border state areas, namely the San Diego area (as JoeF has shared).

Once you naturalize, no proof of status need be carried. But let's say you come upon one of these check-stops. How do they really know your status in this case? Are they supposed to just take your word for it? I imagine this could be problematic for those who are of an obvious visible minority / non-native English speaking background.

By the way, let's not re-hash the "carrying the PR card" debate here. Some people choose to follow this to the letter of the law, others (usually because they worry about losing an important document like this) will opt to take the chance that they'll never need to produce it, especially since the instances of being asked for this documentation have been reportedly very rare. It all comes down to a personal decision on competing risks.
 
CanTex said:
This raises some interesting points of discussion.

As a Permanent Resident, you're supposed to carry your green card with you at at times as evidence of your status -- if asked. If you've followed other discussion threads about this on this site, apparently there have been in-land check-stops for proof of immigration status documentation in some of border state areas, namely the San Diego area (as JoeF has shared).

Once you naturalize, no proof of status need be carried. But let's say you come upon one of these check-stops. How do they really know your status in this case? Are they supposed to just take your word for it? I imagine this could be problematic for those who are of an obvious visible minority / non-native English speaking background.

By the way, let's not re-hash the "carrying the PR card" debate here. Some people choose to follow this to the letter of the law, others (usually because they worry about losing an important document like this) will opt to take the chance that they'll never need to produce it, especially since the instances of being asked for this documentation have been reportedly very rare. It all comes down to a personal decision on competing risks.
Click to expand...

My thoughts:

I read somewhere on the USCIS website...that some of the federal agencies now have access to Immigration/Naturalization information from USDHS database. This may make it easier for them to find out if you are a permanent resident Vs. Naturalized USC perhaps with proof of drivers license.

I know for a fact that some registered employers can verify the employment eligibility status online now for Immigrants and naturalized USC's...
 
tangohi said:
While we are on this topic can anyone tell me if it is true that naturalization can be revoked at any time for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

There is an enlightening discussion of this question on http://www.richw.org (which is a site primarily about dual-citizenship).

From my understanding, the 14th amendment denies congress the power to make any law which would revoke the citizenship of any person. (This was originally concieved to protect newly freed slaves.) But, since congress is empowered to regulate naturalization, there remains a small hole - where a citizenship can be revoked if it was obtained by fraud. As long as your citizenship was legitamately obtained, it cannot be revoked.

Please read that site - as it is very scholarly and well researched.

A particularly enlightening case is a man, originally a citizen of Poland, who became a naturalized US. citizen and subsequently immigrated to Israel. He ran for a seat on the Israeli parlament - and as required by Israeli law, signed a sworn statement disclaiming and abandoning any other citizenship than Israeli citizenship. Having failed to be elected, he attempted to claim US citizenship. The case went to court, it being argued that he volunterly gave up US citizenship. The court ruled that no law made by Congress could have the consequence of him losing citizenship - no matter what he did in Israel.

He was considered to still be US citizen.

I may mis-recall details. Please read it there.

Such a case as this make it clear that it is very hard to lose US citizenship.

I wouldn't worry about it.

-Ocelot
 
CanTex said:
This raises some interesting points of discussion.

As a Permanent Resident, you're supposed to carry your green card with you at at times as evidence of your status -- if asked. If you've followed other discussion threads about this on this site, apparently there have been in-land check-stops for proof of immigration status documentation in some of border state areas, namely the San Diego area (as JoeF has shared).

Once you naturalize, no proof of status need be carried. But let's say you come upon one of these check-stops. How do they really know your status in this case? Are they supposed to just take your word for it? I imagine this could be problematic for those who are of an obvious visible minority / non-native English speaking background.

By the way, let's not re-hash the "carrying the PR card" debate here. Some people choose to follow this to the letter of the law, others (usually because they worry about losing an important document like this) will opt to take the chance that they'll never need to produce it, especially since the instances of being asked for this documentation have been reportedly very rare. It all comes down to a personal decision on competing risks.
Click to expand...
Cantex & JoeF:
I was exactly thinking the same thing since I am in SanDiego area and crosses this in-land stop whenever I go to LA or Vegas. So far, I have not been victim of racial profiling(Jees...is that becos I drive BMW ;) )and have never been stoped but it did happned to some of my immigrant friends.
Well, I am thinking to carry a copy of naturalization certi in my car just becos I fall in to SD area.
 
Hi Ocelot
Can you post the website address again.It is taking me t osome softwares consultants web page
 
Pursuant to immigration laws, each and every 'Legal Permanent Resident' MUST carry the original proof of his/her status in the U.S. at ALL TIMES. That means- they need to carry either the plastic green card or their passports with I-551 stamp on it. No photocopy. Only original document issued by USCIS. And they are also required to report their change of address to USCIS within 10 days of moving.

But on the other hand, US citizens (whether natural born or naturalized ones) are not required to carry any kind of proof of their status nor they need to report a ‘change of address’ to USCIS whenever they would move. Nevertheless, it is highly recommended that a US citizen should carry all the times some kind of proof of his/her citizenship, otherwise somebody's legal status/citizenship is not written on the forehead of a person. Govt. officials are not psychic readers. So obviously, they are not able to read automatically a person’s mind/status about his/her citizenship. By the way, govt. officials asks for a legal status of a person to find out whether such person is legal or illegal in this country than finding out whether such person is LPR or US citizen.

Carrying some kind of proof about citizenship becomes more important to those US citizens who are either non-white or have different accent than American. Otherwise, they shouldn't be surprised if they were asked for a proof of their status at any place. Carrying a proof of citizenship will avoid a hassle with govt. officials. Sometimes even big one. I remember many people having being detained by Arizona police who believed that those persons were here without any legal status because of them being Mexicans decent. Even though these people claimed to be a US citizen to police, they were still kept detained until their status were fully verified. Arizona police were under the impression that they were falsely claiming for US citizenship as many people do such a thing. The lesson to learn is-if they had some kind of proof about their citizenship with them, such detention and unnecessary hassle could have been avoided.

I think carrying a passport is the best. I mean- when a person can carry a driver license with him/her at all the times then why not a passport too. Besides if you loose a passport, you can easily get duplicate one. In some instances, obtaining a duplicate passport is more easier than obtaining a duplicate license. Don’t forget that United States is a nation of immigrants. And racial profiling has always been here. After the World War II, there was profiling against Japanese. After 9/11 incident, people who look like Middle Eastern are being profiled. Profiling will never go away from America even though it is illegal. So it’s better to be prepared than sorry in the end. However, Congress has debated a bill yesterday and they are seemed to be in a rush to pass it, wherein each state in the US would require verifying a person’s status before issuing a driving license to him/her. If this bill is passed and becomes a law then I think there won’t be any need to carry any other proof of legal status except a driving license.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyCash said:
Pursuant to immigration laws, each and every LPR MUST carry the original proof of his/her status in the U.S. ALL THE TIMES. That means- they need to carry either the plastic green card or their passports with I-551 stamp on it. No photocopy, instead original document. And they are also required to report their change of address to USCIS within 10 days of moving.

But on the other hand, US citizens (whether natural born or naturalized ones) are not required to carry any kind of proof of their status nor they need to report a ‘change of address’ to USCIS whenever they would move. Nevertheless, it is highly recommended that a US citizen should carry all the times some kind of proof of his/her citizenship, otherwise it is not written on the forehead of a person about his/her citizenship. Govt. officials are not psychic readers. So obviously, they are not able to read automatically a person’s mind/status about his/her citizenship. By the way, govt. officials asks for a legal status of a person to find out whether such person is legal or illegal in this country than finding out whether such person is LPR or US citizen.

Carrying some kind of proof about citizenship becomes more important to those US citizens who are either non-white or have different accent than American. Otherwise, they should be surprised if they were be asked for a proof of their status at any place. Carrying a proof of citizenship will avoid a hassle with govt. officials. Sometimes even big one. I remember many people having being detained by Arizona police who believed that those persons were here without any legal status because of them being Mexicans decent. Even though these people claimed to be a US citizen to police, they were still kept detained until their status were fully verified. Arizona police were under the impression that they were falsely claiming for US citizenship as many people do such a thing. The lesson to learn is-if they had some kind of proof about their citizenship with them, such detention and unnecessary hassle could have been avoided.

I think carrying a passport is the best. I mean- when a person can carry a driver license with him/her at all the times then why not a passport too. Besides if you loose a passport, you can easily get duplicate one. In some instances, obtaining a duplicate passport is more easier than obtaining a duplicate license. Don’t forget that United States is a nation of immigrants. And racial profiling has always been here. After the World War II, there was profiling against Japanese. After 9/11 incident, people who look like Middle Eastern are being profiled. Profiling will never go away from America even though it is illegal. So it’s better to be prepared than sorry in the end. However, Congress has debated a bill yesterday and they are seemed to be in a rush to pass it, wherein each state in the US would require verifying a person’s status before issuing a driving license to him/her. If this bill is passed and becomes a law then I think there won’t be any need to carry any other proof of legal status except a driving license.
Click to expand...

well put johnny cash ....
with all this digitization and electronic gadgetry mechanization coming out ... it would be best to come up with some identifying hologram, or whatever, on a drivers license that states that the person is a citizen ..
they will rule out carrying a passport, or anyone having to produce additional proof ...
the so called green cards to today pretty much have the entire life history of the person in the digitized strip behind ... so why not come out with a scheme for DLs.....

i agree that racial profiling will always be there whether one likes it or not .. given america is made up of immigrants ... and someone out there sooner or later, due to some authority figure's ignorance will have to prove whether he/she is a citizen/greencard holder/visa status holder or not ...
so we have to be prepared for it, but fight it at the same time .... until a solution has evolved ...
 
JoeF said:
In other words, police etc. may be practicing racial profiling...
Do you have any followup if there was a lawsuit about racial discrimination about that afterwards? Even if many people falsely claim US citizenship, police does not have a right to detain US citizens without probable cause.
Actually, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 was unconstitutional, as is racial profiling. The police has no right to do racial profiling, and if they do, they deserve to be hit with a big lawsuit.
This country has laws, and the police is not above the laws. We are not in Al Capone's Chicago anymore...
And that is illegal as well. And people have filed lawsuits.
Being apologetic about these things here is the wrong thing. People lawfully in this country have rights under the US constitution, and racial profiling means violating these rights, and should be punished just like any other law violation.
The police would be sorry in the end.
That bill would essentially create a national ID card. It is basically an acknowledgement that the terrorists have won. We are losing our freedom and our way to live, and that's exactly what the terrorists wanted. Sad to see that Congress doesn't stand up to their constituents' rights.
Click to expand...


Joe ...
why would a national ID card mean victory for terrorists ..? given the age we live in, it's high time we came up with a solution utilizing the technology at hand to identify our friends and foes ....

it may seem like the bad guys are winning, but ultimately, we are winning ... and improving at the same time ...
change is inevitable .. without an improvement in screening and identification .. we are putting ourselves at greater risk ..

we may not be in al capone's time any more, but whether you like it or not, the law will always support cops first, and assume the cop is right first .. burden of proof will always be upon you ... so you go to court, and show your proper ID which you did not have at the time, and you're let go ....
point is, you can avoid this by taking some basic precautions ... like carrying an ID in the first place ....
and believe me, no matter what the law says, there's always an inside thing where the law suppports cops by default .......
just as your boss would probably defend you when you have an argenment with a client ...
This country may have laws .. but there are other laws that work above the laws .... thats why you can only go so far with lawsuits and the like ...

the police will never be sorry in the end ... at least in these matters, infact, that would mean the govt would have to be sorry ...
it's different when police beat up some dude and it gets caught on camera .... and they get sued and pay ....
 
Like I said, I thought this was going to be an interesting discussion.

If an official can compel you to provide proof that you're a PR, why not a citizen? A PR (or an undocumented alien) could lie that he/she is a citizen in such an instance, and since they don't require a citizen to carry proof of status then on what basis are they going to question whatever the person says? This is quite a dilemma for those trying to enforce the laws.

You can see that it's inevitable that some sort of national ID card or DL standard given today's climate and attitudes about immigrants. Just watch Lou Dobbs on CNN every evening, with his relentless tirades about legal / illegal immigration, etc.
 
Though it is true that police cannot inquire about a person's legal status nor they can detain anyone on violation of immigration laws unless it's seemed that a crime is committed or a crime is going to be committed or if they are investigating a crime. However, after 9/11 lot of things has been changed in America. Now, FBI can investigate violation of immigration laws. They have been doing since 9/11. Former Attorney General-John Ashcroft has given the authority to FBI to enforce immigration laws. Many people in NYC were picked up by FBI at midnight at their homes despite of them being married to a US citizen. They were told/charged that they married to a US citizen for conviences.

Some southern states are under tremendous pressure to cut off illegal immigrants. And, AZ is one of them. In above-mentioned particular case-police detained these people until their status is known, even though it was the job of USCIS. By the way, those people were not detained because they claimed to police about being US citizens; instead police were under the impression that they were part of a human trafficking ring. Also, I earlier said that they were still kept detained even though they were claiming to be US citizens. Police did not find them credible at that time since they knew that many people falsely claim to be US citizen in this kind of situation in that part of the country, which is true. There were only detention though, and no arrest. There was no lawsuit ever filed on this case as to the best of my knowledge. Besides, I personally don't know if anyone ever won any lawsuit of such racial profiling against the govt.

As to what is illegal and what is legal then I must remind that the people who were detained after 9/11 incident are STILL detained without having charged them. Federal law states that govt. CANNOT detain a person more than 7 days without charging them first. So, where is the law here, and who is following the law? Further, the hearing on most of those detainee were held in a "closed door" on the special Order of former attorney general-John Ashcroft even though court rules state that a hearing must be held in an open court. So I think it should give idea to everyone about laws and about legality over here. ACLU offices across the nation have filed suit against the govt., but they all lost.
 
I remember reading an article awhile back that a state (can't recall which one) uses a different color combination on id cards to identify citizens and non-citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top