Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?
- Thread starter VisaNutz
- Start date
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
If you believe that any of these individuals would be deported merely based on being arrested, then you're paranoid. Interestingly enough, the DA in the Duke case will end up being punished far more than the lacrosse players, and a good thing too.
No, but being a wife-beater who lies about it under oath would qualify for said treatment.
In today's political climate, it appears that the USCIS is looking for reasons to deny citizenship to anyone for just about anything, as evidence by the man who got denaturalized because he is a "known" wife beater. As for the Duke case, yes, Mike Nifong is going to end up being punished. However, the 4 players will have to disclose their arrest for a sex crime for the rest of their lives. Regardless of what happens to the DA, 4 completely innocent people are now permanently marked as potential sex criminals. Innocent or not, they will be scrutinized a lot more closely as long as they live.
And where exactly is the proof that he is a wife-beater? It seems that you unconditionally believe what the government says, with or without proof. Back in the 50s, a certain senator named Joseph McCarthy used a similar tactic to get rid of political opponents by proclaiming that they were members of the Communist party. No proof was necessary, as everyone took his words as the absolute truth. Why do you assume that the man who was denaturalized is a criminal, when nowhere in the article did it say that he has been arrested or even CHARGED with beating his wife? If he had a few loud arguments with his wife and some neighbors overheard them, that doesn't make him a wife-beater, or even a criminal, for that matter.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
You obviously don't understand how easy it is for an innocent person to be convicted of a minor crime. Talk to anybody who has been on jury duty. Those cases often get done with very little evidence and minimal jury deliberation, with the jury not deeply caring about it either way because the sentence is so low (e.g. $200 fine and community service). The born citizens pay the fine and move on, but the immigrant could face deportation for something they didn't do. And then there are the deportations based on cases that didn't even involve a jury conviction at all.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
I don't need "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to believe and say that OJ is a murderer. Same deal. If the cops get called to a place every weekend because there's an altercation, there's something going on even if a charge is never laid.
And I've spoken to numerous USC colleagues who've served on a grand jury and a regular jury. They've all taken it very seriously - and everyone I know (USC or not) who's been unjustly charged with a crime has fought like hell even when the fine was "only" $200 because their reputation was worth far more.
If the cops are getting called to the same place every weekend for domestic disturbance, they'll get fed up after a few weekends and arrest everyone at the place for disorderly conduct. I have a couple of friends serving in the NYPD, and this comes directly from them. If there are repeat calls to the same place, this will result in DisCon charges. At my prior place of residence, a couple who liked having obnoxiously loud sex lived across the street. The police was called to their apartment multiple times. Drawing from more personal experience, I play guitar in a rock band. We have a rehearsal space in a garage that belongs to one of the members. One of the neighbors frequently calls the police and tells them that we are sarcificing animals (this is not a joke). The police show up, because they have to, but they made it very clear to us that we are doing nothing illegal. Just because the police is called doesn't necessarily mean that something illegal or criminal is going on.
What about the people who can't afford to fight like hell? If a financially-struggling immigrant is charged with a crime and provided with a public defender, the public defender will not provide adequate representation at a trial. In most cases, a public defender will convince their client to accept a plea bargain from the DA. The plea bargain may be a fine of $200, whereas the possible outcome of a trial may be a year in jail. It's not a secret that in order to successfully present one's case at a trial, a public defender is not the way to go. If an average attorney charges around $5K to file a WOM suit to expedite a name check, imagine how much it would cost to contest a criminal charge.
The point I'm trying to make is that, much like it does in the juducial system, the burden of proof should rest on the accuser (in the case of Mr. Castro, the USCIS) to prove that he indeed abused his wife, instead of waging a strongarming campaign against immigrants. In a court of law, the basis of proof is built upon something more concrete than hearsay. Apparently, hearsay is enough for the USCIS.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Actually, the burden of proof depends on what kind of court you're in. In a criminal court, you're absolutely correct. We require concrete evidence, evidence to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil court, on the other hand, there is a lower standard of proof, the "preponderance of evidence" standard.
All immigration matters are civil matters, as I understand them. That cuts both ways - it makes life simpler for the immigrant in a lot of cases. Would you want to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that your marriage is genuine, or that you will be paid the prevailing wage? I can assure you that the effects would not be pleasant. At the same time, if the shoe is on the other foot and USCIS is trying to make a case, they have a slightly lower bar to leap as well. It goes both ways.
And I don't see there being any strong-arm campaign against immigrants here. USCIS is doing exactly what the law empowers them to do. You do not want them to selectively ignore the law, trust me. Just because there's an outcome that is unfavorable to an immigrant doesn't mean there's an anti-immigrant campaign or pogrom going on, and there are plenty of law-abiding immigrants who don't want to get lumped in the same boat as (or defend) that deported individual.
I think that the situation with the denaturalized man has a lot to do with the fact that he is Mexican, and the incident took place in Texas. This stems from the current debate on illegal immigration and that most illegal immigrants are Mexican. I am against any kind of illegal immigration, but I think that the man in the original article was used as a scapegoat.
I agree with you Vorpal. I think they tried to use this man to scare other Hispanic immigrants from naturalizing. I don't want to generalize but I would guess quite a few have had some minor problems with the law and are going to be quite scared about applying for naturalization. Hey, many years ago they would hang or crucify people outside a city to scare the citizens into submission. Now they just need to denaturalize and deport 
TheRealCanadian might rightfully think that I am exaggerating. However, nowadays I think one needs to exaggerate a bit to get things done or changed. I doubt we'll see a huge rash of denaturalizations, but I am sure this will be enough to deter quite a few people from naturalizing.
TheRealCanadian might rightfully think that I am exaggerating. However, nowadays I think one needs to exaggerate a bit to get things done or changed. I doubt we'll see a huge rash of denaturalizations, but I am sure this will be enough to deter quite a few people from naturalizing.
I agree with you Vorpal. I think they tried to use this man to scare other Hispanic immigrants from naturalizing. I don't want to generalize but I would guess quite a few have had some minor problems with the law and are going to be quite scared about applying for naturalization. Hey, many years ago they would hang or crucify people outside a city to scare the citizens into submission. Now they just need to denaturalize and deport
TheRealCanadian might rightfully think that I am exaggerating. However, nowadays I think one needs to exaggerate a bit to get things done or changed. I doubt we'll see a huge rash of denaturalizations, but I am sure this will be enough to deter quite a few people from naturalizing.
Well put. As I've mentioned previously, I am sure this had a lot to do with the fact that it happened in Texas, a Republican state that's plagued with illegal immigration. I really can't blame them for resorting to denaturalization, since extreme conditions demand extreme responses. However, the denaturalized person was someone who really shouldn't have been denaturalized, based on the information provided in the article. To beat a dead horse even more, I'd fully support deporting this person if there was a criminal conviction that he didn't report, or even a charge of which he was acquitted, but didn't report.
Hi,
I think I owe you the courtesy of answering, but I wouldn't like to take this conversation down this path. It all started because I found this press release that was very relevant to this thread. However, I didn't want to get in a discussion about which particular crimes are heinous enough to warrant denaturalization. If at all the discussion should be about this catch all question in N-400 that can come and give trouble if willfully or unwillfully one didn't include a crime or offense for which this applicant was not arrested.
Victims always have to be treated with the most respect and care. In many cases our society and media seems to make victims appear guilty of having caused their situation. Phrases like if she hadn't gone out at night nothing bad should have happened to her. If she didn't dress so provocative she wouldn't have been victimized. If he didn't park the car on that street it wouldn't have been stolen. I don't condone this. However, my point has always been about the punishment fitting the crime.
I disagree with many jurists that don't see much damage on denaturalization and deportation. I see it. I see families being torn apart. Having to move out of the country. I would just like to see that the crime is big enough to justify the penalty. Any kind of lie, even under oath, should not be enough to denaturalize. That's my opinion. Now, to the point, of course if my sister was the victim of domestic violence I wouldn't be happy about it and would like something to be done about it. However, it would have to be something proportional. A few shouts and a slap on the face is not the same as punching and breaking the jaw. So, the first case needs a solution and the second case a different solution.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I don't have a big problem with lying under oath leading to denaturalization ... as long as the lie is proven in court and they also revoke the citizenship of born citizens who lie under oath.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
There's nothing tearing families apart - the family can choose to follow the alien to whatever country they go to, and the US government cannot stop them. If they choose not to, that's their business.
I would respectfully disagree, since it's pretty basic law that anything entered to on the basis of false information can be annulled after the fact. If you enter into a contract based on deception, it can be unwound - same thing with naturalization. If you made a false statement in the naturalization process, it can be undone.
In this case the perpetrator received no criminal penalty.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
It was. The judge made a finding of fact.
I agree. If natural born citizens lie during their naturalization process, then their citizenship should be revoked.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Not really - I'm merely pointing out that Jackolantern's desire is impossible, since natural-born citizens cannot naturalize. For lies under oath in any other area, the penalties for perjury are the same for naturalized and natural-born citizens.
I don't think Jackolantern was referring to deportations for lying on the N-400, but to the fact that an immigrant can be deported for an offense that is not deportable in the eyes of justice. I've heard stories (I'm not sure how much of them are true) of permanent residents being deported for DUI/DWI offenses.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
What is this "eyes of justice"? Either the law says you can be deported for it, or it doesn't. Now there are issues where things become deportable offenses after the fact which I have some concerns about, but I consider that added incentive not to run the risk.
JOL I think was asking for natural-born citizens to lose their citizenship based on perjury in general, but he can clarify rather than have me speculate further.
That wouldn't surprise me at all.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
The bottom line is that the question was put there as a back-door around laws and Supreme Court rulings that made it more difficult to denaturalize people. Now if they want you gone and can't find anything substantial against you, it's not hard for them to trump up something about what you did or didn't do before obtaining citizenship, and you can't disprove it even though you're innocent, or you're technically guilty of some obscure law that hasn't been enforced in 100 years (e.g. something like "all male landowners must own a horse").
not true.....dui/dwi is not a deportable offense...per the late chief justice william rehnquist...check leocal vs ashcroft