Another thing many applicants don't realize is that IOs use small talk at interview to gauge the applicant's behavior. It's easy to spot when someone is trying to hide something just by how they hold a conversation and their body language.
Faisal Shahzad
- Thread starter Huracan
- Start date
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
If the test became harder, people would work harder to pass it. So as a result of the harder standards, many would have better knowledge of English or Civics. Better English proficiency would increase their productive opportunities and reduce the need for the rest of society to make concessions for their language, and better Civics knowledge would mean more well-informed voters. Those aspects would make a difference to society.
Triple Citizen
Registered Users (C)
I think you got a friendly IO who was trying to put you at ease by making small talk. This is further evidenced by the fact that he mentioned how anxious some interviewees are. He wasn't necessarily trying to "test" your English skills.
I doubt any one who study English hard is just motivated by citizenship. For that purpose I would prefer the USCIS to administer English test on green card applicants first. If applicant fail, only conditional GC are issued, to remove that condition, GC holders must retake and pass the English test.
But I don't think this English test has anothing to do with prevention of terrorist. Ironically speaking, It seems nowadays terrorists are mostly from those countries where English education is good. also the gopvernment of those countries
are usually pro-American in general.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
In the current system, learning English well is not a motivating factor for citizenship because the test is too easy. With a more difficult test, aspiring citizens would work harder to learn the language, just like they do in order to obtain citizenship in other countries. That doesn't mean that citizenship would be the only factor driving them to learn English; but it could be the "last straw" that pushes them to learn English when combined with all other reasons for learning English.
Now that would be excessively harsh. Deport them because they can't pass an English test within a few years?
I agree. You don't need a word of English to build or detonate a bomb.
Putting subject of this thread into perspective, firstly Faisal entered US as a student. How ever small the university/college is, he would have been tested in english more competetively (TOEFL) than those who entered on H1-B. Secondly Pakistan is a mystery yet to be revealed in terms of loyalty; if not entirely pro-US. Of course, he comes from a good family background. Going by this information, neither making english test harder nor coming from good family background, and all the usual suspects type background is hogwash.
Feds should have questioned him when he bought huge quantities of fertilizer with ammonia contents (how volatile that fertilizer is not necessary; a non-farm person buying huge quantities of fertilizer itself should be a red flag).
In context of AZ law and Faisal, immigrant community seems to suddenly be ok with profiling. If that's what higher education did to humanity, then it's time to question value of education.
In India, though no knows context and origin of caste system, everyone agrees that caste system needs overhaul. The concept of caste system in simple terms is nothing but profiling based on family one belongs to at the time of birth; how ever ridiculous it sounds.
One soulition will be to create a national id, and have national id provided (embed, may be?) on drivers license. and create list of explosive making materials and send feds information regarding anyone who buys these materials in huge quantities.
Best cure is prevention, as always.
Feds should have questioned him when he bought huge quantities of fertilizer with ammonia contents (how volatile that fertilizer is not necessary; a non-farm person buying huge quantities of fertilizer itself should be a red flag).
In context of AZ law and Faisal, immigrant community seems to suddenly be ok with profiling. If that's what higher education did to humanity, then it's time to question value of education.
In India, though no knows context and origin of caste system, everyone agrees that caste system needs overhaul. The concept of caste system in simple terms is nothing but profiling based on family one belongs to at the time of birth; how ever ridiculous it sounds.
One soulition will be to create a national id, and have national id provided (embed, may be?) on drivers license. and create list of explosive making materials and send feds information regarding anyone who buys these materials in huge quantities.
Best cure is prevention, as always.
brokenarrow
Registered Users (C)
Why is this called a fallout? If proven alliance with a terrorist org, then strip him of US citizenship.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Nobody in this thread has said that harder English standards for citizenship would prevent terrorism. Some of us are just saying the test is too easy for it to represent a worthwhile knowledge of English or Civics.
We don't know if he was a terrorist before he filed N-400, let's assume he was not for sake of argument. I am of the opinion that naturalization should be a pretty unbreakable right, but that's a different story. Yes, the jumping on the band wagon makes me sick. It also makes me sick that apparently the bar for denaturalization is going to be set pretty low. Providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization are enough to warrant denaturalization. Are you going to be denaturalized because the charity money you gave went to the IRA or ETA or Al Qaeda. Were you supposed to know that? Would providing a cell phone or loaning a car to a terrorist without your knowledge be enough to denaturalize you? I don't think denaturalization is the answer to crime. That's just me. I think it is plain wrong. Justice and prison are the answer to crime. What would happen if you denaturalize someone who already lost his or her former citizenship? If stripping the citizenship is a way to avoid applying certain rights to criminals I find that one also offensive. It is akin to the pre-existing condition excuses of insurance company. When someone turns bad then they pore over documents to see if there was some pre-existing condition to kick the person out of the plan, or of citizenship. I think if one was good enough to pay the premiums or the taxes one is still good to stay in the plan or the citizenship.
My two main objections therefore are:
1. It lowers the bar too much and makes naturalized citizenship look more like a bad insurance plan or a drivers license than an inalienable right.
2. It is just an opportunistic political move that will have no effect in preventing any future attacks and will cost litigation money in the future for no good reason (read taxpayer money).
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
That's news to me, and I haven't heard of a treason conviction in decades. It's pretty much impossible to denaturalize someone unless they lied on the N-400 or were statutorily ineligible.
What is next. Where do we stop?
1. If proven a tax cheat, then strip him of US citizenship.
2. If proven he kept his old passport, then stip him of US citizenship
3. If proven a rapist, then strip him of US citizenship
4. If helping an illegal immigrant enter or stay in this country, then strip him of US citizenship
5. If not being a protestant Christian, then strip him of US citizenship
When should we stop using the denaturalization threat? What if I think that not becoming an Evangelical christian shows lack of love to this country and should be grounds to denaturalization. It sounds far fetched, but it has occurred in the past that people have been deported or killed because of refusing to adopt the local religion.
It seems easy to say if he is a terrorist let's strip him of his citizenship, but what is the value of citizenship if it can be taken away so easily. I think this great country has enough resources in the justice system to deal with these cases without having to resort to tantrum reactions like stripping someone of citizenship. Please read my other post about the low bar the proposed bill is supposed to set (material support and resources), this is not just terrorists, but any supporters (knowing or unknowing as far as I can see).
8 USC 1481 outlines the possible acts that would cause denaturalization. Included is treason in 8 USC 1481(a)(7)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
There may not be many treason convictions in the US, but it doesn't mean they don't happen. Case in point, the 2006 treason conviction of Adam Gadahn.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn
Last edited by a moderator:
Treason is hard to prove. The same overt act need two wtineesses etc.
But I wonder if any such terrorist still cares about losing citizenship or not. Depriing them of citizenship is pretty much
about honorary title rather than punishment. On part of terrorists, if they hate USA so much, I doubt they care about
citizenhip. When coming to that point, they will stay in prison for a very very long time if not life anyway.
Deportation/de-naturalization is only a practical punishment for peopel who commite not so serious crime. If the crime
is serious enough to get serious crminal punishment, deportation/de-naturalization may not be that a big deal anymore.
Unless de-natualization can be done before criminal proceeding, I don't think it make much difference
But I wonder if any such terrorist still cares about losing citizenship or not. Depriing them of citizenship is pretty much
about honorary title rather than punishment. On part of terrorists, if they hate USA so much, I doubt they care about
citizenhip. When coming to that point, they will stay in prison for a very very long time if not life anyway.
Deportation/de-naturalization is only a practical punishment for peopel who commite not so serious crime. If the crime
is serious enough to get serious crminal punishment, deportation/de-naturalization may not be that a big deal anymore.
Unless de-natualization can be done before criminal proceeding, I don't think it make much difference
Last edited by a moderator:
You're using extreme far fetched examples to make your point.
Before any such legislation would come into law, it would have to pass many congressional hurdles including cleary defining what circumstances warrant denaturalziation (I highly doubt that unknowingly contributing to a terrorist organization would be one of them).
sanjoseaug20
Registered Users (C)
Well said.
I am all for increasing the bar for naturalization IF that will help them somehow. But once you naturalize, you should be accorded the same "respect" you would accord other citizens.
That's true. But not when the applicant lied in N-400 and later USCIS finds out.
In this case, if the guy had associated himself with terrorist organization before applying for citizenship and lied in N-400, then his citizenship should be stripped out.
brokenarrow
Registered Users (C)
Terrorism does not belong to the same league as the 5 points mentioend below, except maybe #4. As for the "low bar the proposed bill is supposed to set", propose the bill in such a way that if proven guilty then strip him of USC. In this era of information overload and enlightenement, it is very hard to "unknowlingly" support terrorism. In any case the last thing that a person supporting terrorism or worse a terrorist has on his mind is how to retain his USC. If he does it is because he can travel easily to western world to carry on his acts easily, all th emore reason to get tough.
Another possibility is that USCIS can use some trivial inconsisitency between N400 and real situation to de-natualized
citizens. For instance, many do not disclose ordinary traffic tickets and they can be de-naturalized.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Much of that statute has been gutted by the courts, even though it remains on the books. The acceptance of foreign citizenship is exhibit A - that was struck down ages ago.