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

[Jackolantern]

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.

I know that's how the existing immigration law works. Which in my opinion (which is shared by many others) is unjust; if the authorities directly involved in the case have deemed that the slate should be wiped clean, Immigration shouldn't be able to jump in and become another judge and jury as well as impose the enormous penalty of deportation.

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.

Nothing much will ever change for the better regarding these laws, because noncitizens can't vote whereas the anti-immigrant wing of the population can.

 

[gis9924]

I know thousands of ...

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.

Do you know a way to look up thousands of cases in such detail? This is interesting. (I wanna try ... .)

 

[Jackolantern]

Do you know a way to look up thousands of cases in such detail? This is interesting. (I wanna try ... .)

JohnnyCash has worked as a lawyer. The "thousands of cases" is probably referring to his experience, not cases that can be looked up by you or me.

 

[gis9924]

This is great, legal experience on this forum, no wonder this forum is the best. I also wonder, if calling an IO over the telephone can get you into a situation that the IO interviews you. (I had that feeling some time ago when I called once.)

 

[Bobsmyth]

This is great, legal experience on this forum, no wonder this forum is the best. I also wonder, if calling an IO over the telephone can get you into a situation that the IO interviews you. (I had that feeling some time ago when I called once.)

Interviews or interrogates? The IO over the phone may ask you some questions but they have nothing to do with your interview nor will your responses come up later at the interview.

 

[gis9924]

This IO asking questions over the phone was actually 5 years ago during my green card application. Now as a green card holder applying for citizenship, I think the questioning was unfair. Do you think they keep some records of my answers? (I can't even remember most of them.)

 

[JohnnyCash]

I know that's how the existing immigration law works. Which in my opinion (which is shared by many others) is unjust; if the authorities directly involved in the case have deemed that the slate should be wiped clean, Immigration shouldn't be able to jump in and become another judge and jury as well as impose the enormous penalty of deportation.
Nothing much will ever change for the better regarding these laws, because noncitizens can't vote whereas the anti-immigrant wing of the population can.

I completely agree that USCIS shouldn't jump in and become another judge and jury to impose the enormous penalty of deportation, however, it's important to know that USCIS just follows the laws. It's the Congress who made such such laws. Being a part of the executive branch of US govt, USCIS can only be the enforcer than making laws which is the job of the legislative branch (Congress) of US govt.

The changes in immigration laws in 1997 were the toughest in the history of immigration of this country. That was the time when Congress made a zero-tolerence policy on many crime and domestic violence was one of them. They also stopped green card holders to receive most public helps unlike before when green card holders could be eligible for most public aids. So, it's the Congress who has made such laws than USCIS itself.


As for nothing will change then I disagree. I think if people raise their voice, it will be heard even if this voice is from an immigrant...citizen or not. The current changes in modus operandi of USCIS towards clearing up the July surge is a perfect example of it. But it must be a commulative voice. One person alone cannot expect to make a change. People contacted their congresspersons around the country and went to media to raise their voice which has made USCIS to make drastic changes to clear up N-400 backlog...I mean, hiring of additional USCIS workers/adjudicators, them having working on weekends and off hours, using asylym offices and officers, working with FBI to clear up the backlog on name checks and etc are the examples of all these commulative voice. I think it does work when people get together in their mission/agenda.

 

[Amicus]

Law and penal code are black and white while the realities of life are all shades of gray. One would have hoped that the US Congress would have taken this into account while enacting such laws, but perhaps not surprisingly, they erred on the conservative side in 1997. One side-effect of this is that more immigrants would prefer to naturalize.

 

[rick92]

RE: Iraq Dilemma vs Doctor in PA

It is funny how some of the people here claim for justice when they come from countries where they haven't seen any. Hey, that's perfectly understandable. And it is the american way. But, does that mean that we should teach what we preach and preach as we teach. One of the biggest dilemmas of the history of this country was whether to follow the injustices of the English Crown or the excesses of the French Revolution. Neither one of them served the purpose of the US Independence and the thoughts of the Great Founders of this country. And I mean also that your body and spirit must roam free to be able to preach and teach accordingly. We are all human beings, we are not robots. We are trying to aim for a better society, not for a perfect society. But so far this one is the best with all its differences and colors.

When we went to Iraq, some of us were for that and some of us were against it, but one funny thing happened there and it was that after we were looking for each one member of the Huseein Cabinet, we let the Iraq Information Minister go free of charges; why? Was it because he helped us? Was it because he did nothing wrong? There lies some of the dilemmas that each one if given the power to govern, would have to discern.

Many virtues go along with human beings. It is a sentence with plural words. Now the question is which one word is plural?

 

[MGM]

What would have happened to these guys if they had just renewed their green cards beyond the 10 years expiration date? Don't they do the usual screening at the time of Green Card renewal? If they do, then their problems would have been detected at the time of the renewal anyways. So applying for citizenship alone may not be the factor here. Or is it the case that Green Card renewal involves the less rigorous check and as a result these people could have saved themselves all these problems if they had decided to continue to live as permanent residents. Just wondering.

 

[rick92]

RE : Doctor in PA vs IRAQ

It is funny how some of the people here claim for justice when they come from countries where they haven't seen any. Hey, that's perfectly understandable. And it is the american way. But, does that mean that we should teach what we preach and preach as we teach. One of the biggest dilemmas of the history of this country was whether to follow the injustices of the English Crown or the excesses of the French Revolution. Neither one of them served the purpose of the US Independence and the thoughts of the Great Founders of this country. And I mean also that your body and spirit must roam free to be able to preach and teach accordingly. We are all human beings, we are not robots. We are trying to aim for a better society, not for a perfect society. But so far this one is the best with all its differences and colors.

When we went to Iraq, some of us were for that and some of us were against it, but one funny thing happened there and it was that after we were looking for each one member of the Huseein Cabinet, we let the Iraq Information Minister go free of charges; why? Was it because he helped us? Was it because he did nothing wrong? There lies some of the dilemmas that each one if given the power to govern, would have to discern.

Many virtues go along with human beings. It is a sentence with plural words. Now the question is which one word is plural?

 

[JohnnyCash]

What would have happened to these guys if they had just renewed their green cards beyond the 10 years expiration date? Don't they do the usual screening at the time of Green Card renewal? If they do, then their problems would have been detected at the time of the renewal anyways. So applying for citizenship alone may not be the factor here. Or is it the case that Green Card renewal involves the less rigorous check and as a result these people could have saved themselves all these problems if they had decided to continue to live as permanent residents. Just wondering.

If the people involved in the case in hand had been just renewing their green card every 10 yrs than having filed for naturalization then nobody had known about the truth of their marriage in back home prior to obtaining the green card. Then they could have lived forever as they have living so far for the last 25 yrs.

Renewing of green card requires going thru criminal background check than anything else. So, if someone doesn't have any criminal matter, s/he wouldn't have any problem in renewing the green card. Apparently, these people didn't have any problem in renewing their green card for the last 25 yrs.

As a matter of fact, if investigative officer had not looked their case closely during the time of naturalization, they would have become US citizen by now without a hitch. 97% of immigration officers don't check/verify material information that closely especially when about an information which was put on rest at the time of green card, but there are some officers who take their job very seriously and wanna do the right thing according to the laws.

So the truth is-these people would have been okay if they had not filed for naturalization.

As for some people saying that each case is unique and different then it's true that each case is unique and different, but laws are not unique and different for each person. Laws are same for everyone. This doc obtained his green card under the category wherein he MUST be unmarried at the time of adjudicating of his green card application, but infact he was married which he concealed from the US govt. and did not disclose this information to the officer. Interviewing officer had no knowledge about him being married at that time, so officer granted his application for the green card as per the law. If officer had the knowledge of him being married at that time, officer would have denied his application without a doubt because laws say so as to this doc was fully aware of. That is why he did not bother to be truthful to the officer at that time. Now when he got caught, he is using of him being a parent of US born children and of him being a doc. But laws don't make an exception for him, which should be the case.

Just say for an example that I produe a fake document to USCIS about me being married to a US citizen so that I could get a green card, but I am really not legally married. USCIS don't check/verify with authorities such things in most cases. So obviously, officer would grant my application if I would show with the woman (whom I pretend to be my US citizen wife). Then, do you think I obtained my legal residency legally?? Don't you think USCIS would have the right to revoke my green card and deport me after knowing the fact that I obtained my residency fraudulently and that I was not eligible to it legally at first place? It's pretty much the same case with doc. He wasn't eligible for the green card at first place based upon his married status because his green card application was on the basis of unmarried son.

Just because he has money to hire high profile lawyers and to publish his story in NYT, then that doesn't mean he is eligible to obtain any kind of benefit. Millions of immigrants are living here for 25-30 yrs who also have children and grandchildren born here, but they still don't have green card. So, why US govt. should allow him to stay here?? Just because he is rich?? Just because he has US born teenager children? Or just because he is a doc?? In my opinion, he should be thrown out right away and barred for lifetime, which laws state anyway. I mean, why would US want those who intentionally made fool out of US govt to get whatever they want and when they didn't care about being truthful at first place?? This case should not have gotten any attention by NYT...but I guess money talks....

 

[albertr]

Just because he has money to hire high profile lawyers and to publish his story in NYT, then that doesn't mean he is eligible to obtain any kind of benefit. Millions of immigrants are living here for 25-30 yrs who also have children and grandchildren born here, but they still don't have green card. So, why US govt. should allow him to stay here?? Just because he is rich?? Just because he has US born teenager children? Or just because he is a doc?? In my opinion, he should be thrown out right away and barred for lifetime, which laws state anyway. I mean, why would US want those who intentionally made fool out of US govt to get whatever they want and when they didn't care about being truthful at first place?? This case should not have gotten any attention by NYT...but I guess money talks....

I agree 100%. In fact, the rich sneaky doctors like this and senators who cover them up with smoke-and-mirror "humanitarion" clouds are destroing the trust in law and justice.

 

[Amicus]

Johnycash, any idea why is there any restriction on married children? I'm not saying this doc did the right thing, but just curious about the basis for this particular restriction. What is it about married children that alters their immigration benefits? Would divorced children be eligible?

 

[Aibolit]

the rich sneaky doctors like this QUOTE]

You must know a lot of them. Or are you jealous of the "rich" part? Or, perhaps, you think that years of schooling, followed by years of postgraduate training, and then years of another residency training in the US on near-poverty stipend should not be financially rewarded?

are destroing the trust in law and justice.

In this case the law performed as it was designed, the offenders are on the way out.

 

[albertr]

Aibolit,

I guess you are a doctor? Don't be offended, I was not trying to generalize or, God forbid, bash somebody, especially on the merit of his financial wealth. Maybe I shouldn't have said that, but previous poster made a point and I completely agree with it. It's not easy to get such a support from mass-media and a US senator, especially for such weak legal case. I wouldn't be surprised if money did
change some hands here...

And no, the law was not upheld in this case, since the senator pushed the button and deportation was suspended. Please read the article again.

 

[Jackolantern]

Johnycash, any idea why is there any restriction on married children? I'm not saying this doc did the right thing, but just curious about the basis for this particular restriction. What is it about married children that alters their immigration benefits?

Married children of US citizens go into a lower preference category (i.e. have to wait years longer), and married children of green card holders aren't eligible at all for sponsorship by their parents. I figure the difference in is because the married adult children presumably would be bringing their spouse and possibly their own children, using up more processing resources and visa numbers, so they give priority to the unmarried ones.

But still, I wonder why they bother to give adult children any green cards at all, married or not.

 

[Amicus]

Married children of US citizens go into a lower preference category (i.e. have to wait years longer), and married children of green card holders aren't eligible at all for sponsorship by their parents. I figure the difference in is because the married adult children presumably would be bringing their spouse and possibly their own children, using up more processing resources and visa numbers, so they give priority to the unmarried ones.

But still, I wonder why they bother to give adult children any green cards at all, married or not.

Thanks for the clarification, Jackolantern. But then it looks like all that the married children of GC holders have to do is wait for their parents to naturalize and then apply. I don't think that would be considered fraudulent, or would it?

Married children, whether belonging to citizens or permanent residents, would most likely incur the same resources for processing. So, in that regard, I agree with you that they should be treated the same; either give the benefit to both or deny it to both.

But, more importantly what about divorced children. Any idea what the immigration law says about divorced children of permanent residents?

 

[JohnnyCash]

Johnycash, any idea why is there any restriction on married children? I'm not saying this doc did the right thing, but just curious about the basis for this particular restriction. What is it about married children that alters their immigration benefits? Would divorced children be eligible?

I honestly don't know the answer to it. I can speculate to many "consiparacy theories" on it, but it would be just a guess. Whenever Congress passes a law or make any changes to it, there is normally enough hearing/debate on it which gives the opportunity to everyone to know the rational/real-intention behind passing such a law. But since the law on this has been around too long...a way before I studied and practiced immigration laws then I cannot know of Congress intention behind this law.

However, I do understand that some laws are totally unfair and unjust, and they just don't make any sense at all. For example, an immigrant becomes eligible for a visa number right away for green card (LPR) without a second wait if s/he marries to a US citizen, but then the same immigrant would need to wait for many years for a visa to be available for him/her if s/he is married to a legal resident (green card holder) which certainly makes no sense to me especially when US emphasizes on family value and family unification.

I mean, is the marital relationship of an immigrant with a US citizen more viable, upper-handed and important than with a green card holder?? Or, does the marital relationship of an immigrant with the green card holder is less meaningful or less-important than with a US citizen?? How did Congress decide to unite family of US citizen, but not the family of green cardholder?? One side Congress allowed to give the green card to an immigrant, but then wanted them to wait for so long to get united with their family. I understand Congress wanted to give preference to US citizen, yet still it's unfair when it comes a family relationship and family unification.

That being said, there is nothing right and wrong...everything is grey...

 

[Amicus]

Thanks for your response Johnnycash. I was also thinking along the same lines. Some congressman would have proposed this restriction on married children, someone else would have opposed it. During this debate, they would have ended up on defining the basis for this restriction. It is also possible, though improbable, that there was no debate; but personally I'd doubt if no no debate took place.

Your example of marriage to US citizen versus immigrant is yet another example of how laws contradict the spirit. Equally intriguing is the practice of charging non-working spouses and children of employment based immigrants to the quota of employment based green cards.

Given your background in immigration law, do you know what is the take on divorced children of immigrants? Does the immigration law group divorced children with married or unmarried children? Does the immigration law look at marriage as a (one-time) event, like a threshold crossed over or does it look at marriage as a state of being? If marriage is a threshold then divorced children are in the same boat as married children. If marriage is a state, then divorced children are same as un-married children.