Disturbing article in today's NYT, "Legal Immigrants, Until They Applied for Citizens

xenogear

Registered Users (C)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/12naturalize.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin#


Legal Immigrants, Until They Applied for Citizenship




Dr. Pedro Servano and his wife, Salvacion, legal residents facing deportation, and two of their children, Phoebe and Steven.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/12naturalize.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin#


Legal Immigrants, Until They Applied for Citizenship

A growing group of legal immigrants who seek citizenship are running afoul of highly technical statutes and being threatened with expulsion.

By JULIA PRESTON Published: April 12, 2008 SELINSGROVE, Pa. — Dr. Pedro Servano always believed that his journey from his native Philippines to the life of a community doctor in Pennsylvania would lead to American citizenship.

But the doctor, who has tended to patients here in the Susquehanna Valley for more than a decade, is instead battling a deportation order along with his wife.

The Servanos are among a growing group of legal immigrants who reach for the prize and permanence of citizenship, only to run afoul of highly technical immigration statutes that carry the severe penalty of expulsion from the country. For the Servanos, the problem has been a legal hitch involving their marital status when they came from the Philippines some 25 years ago.

Largely overlooked in the charged debate over illegal immigration, many of these are long-term legal immigrants in the United States who were confident of success when they applied for naturalization, and would have continued to live here legally had they not sought to become citizens.

As applications for naturalization have surged, overburdened federal examiners, under pressure to make quick decisions and also weed out any security risks, prefer to err on the side of rejection, immigration lawyers and independent researchers said. In 2007, 89,683 applications for naturalization were denied, about 12 percent of those presented.

In the last 12 years, denial rates have been consistently higher than at any time since the 1920s.

Though precise figures are not available, an increasing number of these denials involve immigrants who believed they were in good legal standing, according to lawyers and researchers. Under the law, a number of grounds for naturalization denial can lead to an order of deportation, and appeals are more limited than in criminal cases.

"It's no wonder there are so many illegal immigrants," said Brad Darnell, an electrical engineer from Canada living in California who applied for citizenship but is also now fighting deportation. "The legal method is so intolerant and confusing."

A legal immigrant since 1991, Mr. Darnell is married to an American and has two American-born sons. But after he presented his naturalization application last year, Mr. Darnell discovered that a 10-year-old conviction for domestic violence involving a former girlfriend, even though it had been reduced to a misdemeanor and erased from his public record, made him ineligible to become a citizen — or even to continue living in the United States.

Since 1996, when an immigration law overhaul first brought intensified scrutiny of citizenship applications, at least 85,000 naturalizations have been turned down each year.

The record year was 2000, when 399,670 applications were denied, one-third of those presented, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization. More recent denial rates remain high, but have fallen from the peak because more immigrants have prepared with civics classes and immigrant advocates before applying to become citizens, researchers said.

In three recent cases in Florida, aspiring citizens thought their green cards entitled them to vote or register to vote before they were sworn in as Americans. When the immigrants reported their elections activities on their applications, not only were their naturalizations rejected, but they were also ordered to leave the country, according to their lawyer, Jeffrey Brauwerman.

In a current Florida case, a British-born businessman saw his naturalization derailed and was detained for deportation because he forgot to update his home address with the immigration agency, Mr. Brauwerman said. He was charged with ignoring a notice in which immigration examiners mistakenly accused him of a felony he had never committed.

In a case that drew Congressional attention this year in Illinois, Marin Turcinovic, an immigrant from Croatia, was twice denied citizenship because he did not show up at the immigration office to be fingerprinted. As his lawyer explained to no avail, Mr. Turcinovic was a quadriplegic, dependent on a ventilator and unable to leave his home.

Mr. Turcinovic died in April 2004 without becoming a citizen, creating an immigration crisis for his French widow, Corina, who had taken care of him. In January Representative Daniel Lipinski, Democrat of Illinois, presented a bill that halted her deportation.


Immigration officials say denials have increased in the last decade because naturalization applications are increasing. They note that approvals are rising as well. In 1996 naturalizations soared for the first time to more than one million, and they remained above 450,000 each year through 2007.

"Whenever we see a period when large numbers decide to apply, there tend to be larger numbers of people who are not ready or might not meet the requirements," said Chris Rhatigan, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Officials said the majority of denials went to applicants who failed a required civics and English language test or fell short of residency requirements. Those immigrants generally can try again.

But as the case of the Servano family illustrates, some denials come as a shock to both the applicants and the communities they call home.

Dr. Servano's mother, five siblings and eight of his wife's siblings became naturalized citizens, including one brother and two brothers-in-law who made careers in the Navy. His four children are Americans by virtue of being born here. He has been a legal immigrant in the United States for 25 years.

Following an outcry from neighbors, patients and local officials,Department of Homeland Security officials in December temporarily suspended the Servanos' deportation. The Servanos and their supporters, including Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, are using the unusual reprieve to pursue new legal efforts to resolve the couple's case.

For the federal government and for many Americans, naturalizations — the legal process by which legal immigrants become citizens — are a measure of immigrants' willingness to join the society and embrace its civic values.

To become a citizen, a legal permanent resident must have lived in the United States more or less continuously for five years, or three years for the spouse of a citizen. The immigrant must demonstrate good moral character and allegiance to the Constitution, and pass a test of English ability and civics. Since 2002, citizenship applicants also undergo an extensive background check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


Applicants fail the moral character standard if they have been convicted of certain sex, drug or gambling charges or are "habitual drunkards." They also can fail if they give "false testimony," a term immigration lawyers say is subject to broad interpretation.

Dr. Servano and his wife, Salvacion, lived for years in the United States with no inkling they might have violated the law. They met in the Philippines when she was a nurse and he was a young traveling doctor. Her strict father insisted she marry, they said, but his family wanted him to wait.

In the early 1980s, their mothers came separately to the United States as legal immigrants and petitioned for residence visas, known as green cards, for Pedro and Salvacion under the category of unmarried children. But between the time the visas were requested and when they were issued in 1985, Pedro and Salvacion, hoping to escape conflicting parental demands, secretly married in the Philippines.

Unaware that their marriage could have violated the terms of their green cards, the Servanos settled in the United States. He completed a second medical residency here and began to practice in blue-collar towns where he made house calls and was known for attention to everyday ills. He and Salvacion married in New Jersey in 1987. They renewed their green cards punctually.

"My goal is to be fully functional and integrated into the society," Dr. Servano said. They presented their 1991 naturalization applications without seeking a lawyer.

Immigration inspectors reviewing their applications discovered a record of their Philippine marriage. Accused of lying, they were ordered deported. In years of immigration court appeals, the Servanos had no opportunity to present broader evidence of their character, their lawyers said.

People in Selinsgrove and nearby Sunbury, Susquehanna Valley towns where Dr. Servano practices, were surprised to hear in October that the couple had received a final order with a November date for their deportation. Aside from his medical work, he and his wife had bought two blighted buildings on the square in Sunbury, refurbishing them with apartments and offices. Mrs. Servano opened a store, selling lottery tickets, homemade Filipino bread and DVDs in Tagalog, a Philippine language.

In November, more than 100 residents gathered in the Sunbury square for a candlelight vigil on behalf of the Servanos. Thousands of Filipinos in the United States have signed petitions supporting them.

"The fact that they want to displace and get rid of people we here feel are exceptionally good citizens quite frankly just doesn't make any sense," said Mayor Jesse C. Woodring of Sunbury.

The Servanos, huddled on the couch in their home in a Selinsgrove development, seemed numb at the prospect of returning to the Philippines.

"I live here, so I like America now," Mrs. Servano said. "For 25 years we've been here; we didn't even visit the Philippines. So it's really hard."

Their son, Peter, 16, an American, expressed his siblings' anguish about being forced to separate either from their parents or from the only home they know.

"I want to stay here because all my friends are here, and I've grown up here, so it would be hard to leave," Peter said. "But it would be hard not to go."

Michael Gilhooly, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles deportations, said the Servanos' removal had been suspended based on new information from Mr. Specter about their humanitarian role. Other immigration officials said the Servanos could recover their legal status by applying for new green cards as parents of citizen children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A legal immigrant since 1991, Mr. Darnell is married to an American and has two American-born sons. But after he presented his naturalization application last year, Mr. Darnell discovered that a 10-year-old conviction for domestic violence involving a former girlfriend, even though it had been reduced to a misdemeanor and erased from his public record, made him ineligible to become a citizen — or even to continue living in the United States.


they forget that americans and not immigrants aree the ones who has no respect for family...
 
Just think Ghantabro..once you become citizen who can beat your wife, apply for position at USCIS office and sexually harass applicants, and smoke all the pot you want..all without fear of deportation..what a strange world we live in.
 
Good one

Just think Ghantabro..once you become citizen who can beat your wife, apply for position at USCIS office and sexually harass applicants, and smoke all the pot you want..all without fear of deportation..what a strange world we live in.

Good one Bobsmyth, well said.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/u...&hp&adxnnlx=1208020365-JfytxDvkM QmIK U0pUHDg

There is nothing disturbing about it. Servanos committed immigration fraud when they received immigrant visas as unmarried children of US citizen parents. They did it, because if they were to admit that they were married, it would take them another 10 years to immigrate. These lies were discovered by vigilant USCIS adjudicators while examining their naturalization applications (kudos to them). Their Green Cards were cancelled and they are to be deported. What is so disturbing about it?

I know, liberals will cry foul that Servanos are good people serving community for many years, that they have US born children, and that it would be extreme hardship for them all go back to Philippines. Well, there are millions of people who'd love to come here. It should be lawful. They committed fraud - it's time to pay for it. No sympathy from me.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/u...&hp&adxnnlx=1208020365-JfytxDvkM QmIK U0pUHDg

There is nothing disturbing about it. Servanos committed immigration fraud when they received immigrant visas as unmarried children of US citizen parents. They did it, because if they were to admit that they were married, it would take them another 10 years to immigrate. These lies were discovered by vigilant USCIS adjudicators while examining their naturalization applications (kudos to them). Their Green Cards were cancelled and they are to be deported. What is so disturbing about it?

I know, liberals will cry foul that Servanos are good people serving community for many years, that they have US born children, and that it would be extreme hardship for them all go back to Philippines. Well, there are millions of people who'd love to come here. It should be lawful. They committed fraud - it's time to pay for it. No sympathy from me.

Well said. It's even so shameful that our Senator (from PA) intervened into this matter and has been able to halt the deportation for this Dr. who committed immigration fraud. He wasn't eligible for US residency at first place under the category he was admitted into the US. Just because he is a doctor and living here for 25 yrs and has US born US citizen then doesn't cut the fact that he committed immigration fraud and obtained his legal residency fraudently.

Rather than appreciating the immigration officer who was able to detect the immigration fraud, US Senator got involved in parade for him. Congress is the body of US govt. that made all these immigration laws, but then they are choosing to imply these laws on certain people and not all. This doctor thought that nobody would know and he would be able to become a proud US citizen just because he was able to dodge US govt previously. Just because fraud couldn't be detected before, that doesn't mean he was admitted rightfully and legally.

I know thousands of immigrants who were deported under the same situation. Not even one case I know wherein immigrants weren't deported being under the same circumstance despite of them having US born children. So, if govt. would halt his deportation permanently, then it would be the first case ever in the history of this country of this kind. Going to media is the last resort attorneys normally try when they see their clients have no case based upon facts and laws. So, this case is no exception to it when they got their story in NYT especially when this doc has money.

His case has already been tried/appealed up to US Appeal courts as per my understanding, and verdict remains the same. So, their attorneys are playing this trick by going to media to win public sympathy to seek cancellation of deportation on humantarian ground. This case doesn't fall under humantarian ground at all because separation from family and losing of economic opportunity is not a ground to be considered as a humantarian ground. So, it's so shameful that our govt. halted his deportation, even temporary though, under this "humantarian" ground.

Though he can be able to obtain his legal residency again thru his US born children if children are at least of 21 yrs of age. Otherwise, he is not eligible to seek a waiver based upon his US born children because immigration law in this regard has been changed in 1997 when Congress took out the previous provision of obtaing the waiver based upon US resident/born child. However, he can be able to seek waiver based upon his mom/spouse who is a US resident or US citizen but then there must be a very high standard of hardship (EXTREME hardship) which is not easy to prove in his situation.

To be honest, he should be barred for LIFETIME to enter into the US as per immigration laws. Why? Because lying and misrepresenting to US govt. is a lifetime bar as per 1997 immigration laws. I know a very good friend of mine whose mother entered into the US on a visitor visa in 1985 but she actually came here to work for someone she knew of. A few years later, she filed an application for green card and chose to be interviewed in US consulate at the abroad. During the interview, she told the truth that she went there to work in 1985, of which interviewing officer took as an immigration fraud because officer said that she intentionally obtained the tourist visa to enter into the US to work instead of visiting someone, which is a clear cut violation of US immigration laws. But this lady knows not even a word in English. So, when she obtained US tourist visa in 1985, someone filed the application for her for it and dropped in the mail with her passport. She was never interviewed. When she came at the US port, nobody asked her what was her purpose of coming here because they realized that she doesn't speak English at all.

Further, she didn't even know that she should have another visa to enter here to work than a tourist visa; otherwise she had not disclosed about all this by herself during her green card application in 1997. If she had not being truthful to the officer, officer had no way to know about all this because there was no record of her working or violating the US immigration law unlike this doctor's case wherein he intentionally and deliberately concealed the MATERIAL fact of him being married at the time of obtaining green card. And, there is marriage record existed to back up the fact, but this wasn't the situation with my friend's mom case.

My friend is a naturalized citizen and living here with his family (wife and children) for the last 20 yrs. His mom, who is very old and VERY sick, lives ALONE in her home country because her parents and husband died more than 15 yrs ago and she doesn't have any more children or family. My friend tried all he could to bring her here, but no avail because immigration laws prohibit forgiving someone based upon children, and there is a lifetime bar to enter to the US who misrepresented to the US govt. There is nobody to take care of her. They are suffering all along during this separation, yet still nobody thought of "humantarian" ground for her. So, I'm VERY upset that USCIS has considered this doctor's case as a "humantarian" in order to halt his deportation temporary. Thus, it's so shameful that US Senator got involved in this case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for other case wherein a Canadian is on a deportation proceeding because of his conviction on domestic violence charge then USCIS is just following the laws. Laws clearly state that a conviction of domestic violence is a ground of deportation...a done deal for deportation. So, why this person is so suprised and making so big fuzz about his deportation??

Just because his conviction on a domestic violence charge falls under misdemeanor, and record has been sealed/expunged then that means nothing. Why? Because just because someone's record is sealed/expunged and even if s/he is pardoned, yet still fact remains the same that there was a conviction. And conviction alone is the ground for a deportation. Sealing and expungment of record doesn't mean there was never a conviction. Only vacating the conviction means there was never a conviction, but not sealing and expungement.

Further, when it comes to a conviction on a domestic violence crime then it doesn't matter whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony because a conviction on a domestic violence crime is a deportatable ground.

By the way, if someone doesn't know the consequences of filing the application for naturalization then it's not anyone's fault. People should know that their whole immigration journey would be up for scrutny at the time of naturalization. But many people mistakenly believe that since they already have a green card and living here for a long time then all of their past "holy" acts are not matter anymore. But they are wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure that Dr.Servanos' ignorance can be labeled as fraud. My feeling is that some immigrants are not fully aware of the immigration laws and just go on living not realizing the consequences until it's too late.
 
We should not be judging them as frauds immediately nor be uncompassionate about their situation, for there are others (legal and illegal) who have done worse. We are all immigrants here after all. It seems to be more of ignorance than anything else.
 
Just think Ghantabro..once you become citizen who can beat your wife, apply for position at USCIS office and sexually harass applicants, and smoke all the pot you want..all without fear of deportation..what a strange world we live in.

Never thought about that.... damn it will be like heave. I will go ahead and buy 6 wife-beater undershirts.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/u...&hp&adxnnlx=1208020365-JfytxDvkM QmIK U0pUHDg

There is nothing disturbing about it. Servanos committed immigration fraud when they received immigrant visas as unmarried children of US citizen parents. They did it, because if they were to admit that they were married, it would take them another 10 years to immigrate. These lies were discovered by vigilant USCIS adjudicators while examining their naturalization applications (kudos to them). Their Green Cards were cancelled and they are to be deported. What is so disturbing about it?

I know, liberals will cry foul that Servanos are good people serving community for many years, that they have US born children, and that it would be extreme hardship for them all go back to Philippines. Well, there are millions of people who'd love to come here. It should be lawful. They committed fraud - it's time to pay for it. No sympathy from me.

You have a valid point, but the irony is that if they had not married, but instead had slept with each other and generally had a whoopee, their morality and character, although questionable in eastern cultures, which set much higher standards than western cultures, would have been perfectly acceptable to US immigration.

I know, law is law and people need to abide by it. But, how justifiable is this pre-condition on permanent residency? Forget the liberals, where are the conservatives and their sense of family values?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For any kind of immigration application/benefit, interviewing officers DO ALWAYS ask EVERY applicant UNDER OATH about the accuracy/truthness of the information contained/submitted on the application, which is the main purpose of conducting the interview anyway. If there was any change occured since the application was filed then it's solely applicant's responsibilty to disclose that information to the interviewing officer even if officer doesn't ask about it; otherwise it's considered an immigration fraud as far as immigration laws go...And it's so true when it's about a MATERIAL fact/information such as eligibilty for the benefit.

It's similar to the fact when an applicant filed an application for naturalization on the basis of being married to a US citizen under 3 yrs rule, but if s/he is NOT happily living with his/her spouse or divorce/separation has occured then the applicant MUST need to disclose this MATERIAL fact/information VOLUNTARILY to the interviewing offcer than just not saying anything about it. Why? Because if ever US govt. would find out about it then the person would be stripped away from his/her citizenship and would be deported because s/he wasn't eligible for the naturalization based upon 3 yrs rule of being married to the US citizen.

I know a lot of people don't like to say about this material fact to the interviewing officer because they don't want their application to be denied + they have pressing need to obtain US citizenship soon. They think (obviosly mistakenly) that nobody would know about it and that once they become a US citizen then nobody could do anything to them. Believe it or not, I've seen so many people being deported. It's just a matter of time when and how US govt. would find out. Many time their US citizen spouses have gotten married with immigrants and when they filed the applications to adjust the status, USCIS found out that they were divorced when their previous spouse got naturalized. Similar situation when applicants got separated when I-751 (petition to remove the condition) is pending.

Some may argue that they are now eligible for the benefit by their own such as naturalization based upon 5 yrs rule or removing the condition on temporary green card status based upon divorce, but their previously filed application MUST be withdrawn or denied first because even though applicants are eligible for the benefit by their own merit at the time of adjudication of their previously filed application, yet still they need to file a new application because their previous application was based upon DIFFERENT eligibility. Sometime some officers do change the eligibilty on the previously filed application at the time of interview which could bypass of filing new application for the same benefit, but not many officers do so since it's a matter of their own discretion.

I personally don't think even for a second that this Dr. was that naive to not knowing his eligibilty for the green card especially when he seems a smart fellow given his profession. Even slow-minded people know about their eligibilty when they file any kind of immigration benefit. To me, Dr. is making a story behind his marriage just to justify his action, and he knew well that if US govt. would find out at the time of green card interview the he would be found ineligible for the immigrant visa, which was the reason he didn't tell about his marriage to the interviewing officer; otherwise there was no other reason not to tell to the USCIS officer about the marriage at that time especially when he would have loved his wife to have accompanied with him to the US. Not telling to anyone was different than not telling to the interviewing officer.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether he intentionally committed the fraud or he was not aware of immigration laws because fact remains the same that he was ineligible for the green card at first place. Period. Ignorance of the laws doesn't make his action justifable and right, nor does it allow him to stay in this country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question is that of statute of limitations. At what point in time does a minor crime commited years ago become legally irreleveant ? For example if someone unintentiopnally harmed you there is a statute of limitation eg: time period after the occurance after which that crime becomes legally irerlevant.
 
The question is that of statute of limitations. At what point in time does a minor crime commited years ago become legally irreleveant ? For example if someone unintentiopnally harmed you there is a statute of limitation eg: time period after the occurance after which that crime becomes legally irerlevant.

lotechguy, obviously from the cases mentioned in the article, it doesn't look like the statute of limitations applies to immigrants.

Neither is whether people should follow the laws and regulations being questioned. Lost somewhere in that article is the question if the immigration laws are reasonable enough? If most decent people can run afoul of these laws, are these laws realistic enough? As others on this thread have pointed out, many of the standards of good moral character for immigrants are routinely flouted by citizens, without so much of a slap on their wrist.

Laws are not made in vacuum, they have to be in touch with daily realities of that society. At one point in time, one could not get a divorce in western societies. Today, half of american marriages end in legal divorce.

We all appreciate that the US is a land of laws, but look how litigious it has become. You need to have umbrella insurance in case you are sued by someone who slipped in your driveway.

If you throw law at every one, you'll only end up with many bloody noses. Laws and penal code should be based on a sense of justice and not revenge.
 
Just because his conviction on domestic violence charge falls under misdeamor, and record has been sealed/expunged that means nothing. Why? Because just because someone's record is sealed/expunged and if s/he is pardoned, yet still fact remains the same that there was a conviction. And conviction alone is the ground for deportation.
Yes, that's what the law is, but that doesn't mean it is a good law. It is certainly reasonable to make noise against a law that treats a decade-old expunged misdemeanor as grounds for deportation.
 
Hey, I like their arguments -

Oops, sorry I broke the law, now I admit it since you have already discovered it. But wait!
1. I didn't know about this law, I'm not a lawyer in the first place.
2. I'm a good person after all, so I deserve to get my citizenship even if I broke the law.

Not sure there's any court in this country where this argument will fly, thou...

What disturbs me most in this story is how much disrespect some senators can show the law and get away with it. Way to go Senator Specter, make another example of "humanitarion" exception BS...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know about their case fully so I cannot comment. But what about doing something on humanitarian grounds for people who applied on family basis for greeen cards? For people from India, phillipines who apply through family category the wait times can be more then 20+ years. Those are long long wait times. What about children whose parents apply for them when the children fall under 21 category - due to wait times the children then move into the adult category and then have to wait much longer. Why not help people who are in such situations? May be the publicity will help just like the doctors case. :confused:
 
Yes, that's what the law is, but that doesn't mean it is a good law. It is certainly reasonable to make noise against a law that treats a decade-old expunged misdemeanor as grounds for deportation.


Whether a specific law is good or not is a matter of each person's individual views and opinion. Some might see it as a bad, but then others might see it as a good. So, there is never a right answer to it.

As for my personal view then I totally agree that many immigration laws are not good being unfair and unjust especially the ones that I have described in my friend's mom situation. Prior to changes in immigration laws in 1997, a waiver was able to someone who have children who are either US citizen or green cardholder, but Congress took that option away by saying that many people, they specifically quoted about Mexicans, make children here to avoid deportation. So, they changed the waiver statute in seeking forgiveness based upon parents and spouse alone.

Also, before the standard of proving the hardship to their spouse/parents/children on waiver application was just a mere hardship but after 1997 they require EXTREME hardship which is a very tough standard to sustain upon.

Further, there was a 10 yrs bar to re-enter into the US if someone is found to have lied/misrepresented to the US govt, but after 1997 changes it is now LIFETIME bar.

My friend's mom have no any record of violating any immigration laws except her own words. And of course she doesn't have any criminal conviction unlike this Canadian guy mentioned above who has conviction on domestic violence charge, yet still she is barred for LIFETIME despite of her son being a US citizen for the last 20 yrs.

By the way, there is NO any statue of limitation for a crime/conviction/lie/misrepresentation when it comes to immigration. If US govt. would find out about THIS (material lie/misrepresentation/fraud/crime) then they would not only revoke US citizenship but also would place the person on deportation proceeding...even if 100 of years have been passed by. Revoking of the citizenship and deporting those who lied on their citizenship application more than 50 yrs ago about their involvement with Nazi is the perfect example of statue of limitation doesn't imply with immigration laws. That means, if law states that someone is not eligible to be naturalized if s/he participated with Nazi one way or another then s/he cannot be naturalized. S/he could lie, but once govt would find out then it would be a deportation for that person. S/he cannot foul cry then by bring statute of limitation or being living here for 50-100 yrs, or by having US born children, or by saying that s/he has been so good with others. Law is law, no matter what. So, it applies the same to Canadian even though his domestic violence charge was reduced to misdemeanor and later expunged. Law doesn't say that if someone's record is expunged/sealed, or if he is only convicted to misdemeanor for domestic violence charge then s/he should be forgiven after a few years later.

By the way, sealing and expungement of record doesn't mean the person has had no conviction, nor it matters to USCIS in any fashion. Vacating the conviction is something different and all matter to everyone including USCIS but not the sealing and expungement.

That being said, I acknowledge that many immigration laws are totally unfair and unjust. But we can do nothing except contacting our congresspersons to make a change into these laws.
 
More than the law, it is the punishment that seems to be unjust. If an immigrant commits a crime, then s/he is not only penalized in the criminal court but also in the immigration court. I'm not saying that there should be no link between the two; you do need to keep out criminal elements that are a threat to the society. The question is do all criminal convictions require a punishment in the immigration court? Is there no difference between career criminals and ordinary idiots?

As the article depicts, the 1997 changes seem to have raised the bar so high that ordinary folks, who are not habitual criminals, can get caught in it due to mere stupidity. It has become a 'one strike and you are out' system that aims to produce Mahatma Gandhi's and Mother Teresa's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Role of Laws

I think this issue really brings out a very important question for all of us to think. What is the Role of Laws in a country. To take one side or another just trivializes the problem. Clearly, if a law is broken, the person breaking the law must pay for it. If this is not implemented people will start breaking more laws and it will just lead to anarchy. On the other hand it is also important to recognize the severity of the breach of the law. The punishment should be commensurate with the severity of the breach. Consider the three examples below:

1. I believe almost all the people driving on roads world wide break the laws of speed limit. People get away with it only because the chance of getting caught is low. If there was a law that said, if you are caught you will be, stoned to death, perhaps most will obey the word of the law. But then I think most of us will agree this is too severe a punishment for speeding.

2. In many countries there are laws against indecent exposure, where indecency is defined according to the moral standards of the country. Again, if people get caught, they are punished, but in some countries like the middle east they are very severe. Is this reasonable?

3. There was a recent case involving WalMart and a woman who was hit by a truck and was severely incapacitated. She won the case with the truck company. But Wal Mart sued the woman for the settlement money since she was their employee and they were paying for her treatment. The law was clearly on the side of Wal Mart, but for everyone it was clear that Wal Mart should not have sued the woman. Finally, bowing to social pressure, Wal Mart bowed in and allowed the woman to keep the money.

In the present issue, it is clear that the couple broke the law. They should be punished. But what is their punishment? Should we kill them? Obviously I am sure all would agree that is crazy? But what if the deportation is as good as killing them mentally? They have been in the country for 25 years, contributing to the society. They may not adapt to the situation back in their country. Is the punishment commensurate with their crime? I feel it requires quite a careful consideration, especially they are indeed a part of the US society for a long time. How old were they when they received their green cards? Were they aware that they were breaking any laws? Did they do it willfully? Answers to all these questions should then be used to determine the punishment.

I feel the laws of a reasonable country should be designed in such a way that the punishment for breaking it should be commensurate with the crime. Perhaps when it comes to immigration matters, this has not yet been tackled completely. Who has the time? This issue poses a good case for all to think more about immigration laws of the land. I am sure all of us will continue to be affected by it.
 
Top