I recently ordered a copy of my driving abstract from the DMV, and it only shows records for the past 5 years. During those 5 years, I've had 5 tickets for driving without a seatbelt. Seatbelt violations in NYS have no points, and all of them have been paid. I was doing a bit of research on this subject, and came across a message board (found here: http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-31287.html ) where someone stated that an immigration officer told them that an N-400 can be denied if an applicant gets 3 traffic tickets within a certain period of time, because it shows them as being irresponsible, therefore lacking good moral character. Honestly, it sounds like nonsense to me. Does anyone think that this may have any validity?
Interesting info about traffic tickets
- Thread starter Vorpal
- Start date
An IO can pretty much deny you for any reason if they want to. Anything can be deemed moral judgement by them so I can see this has probably happend. Will it happen often? Probably not, every IO is different.
All people can do is base their upcomming interview off others general experience. This case just happend to be one of the negative experiences that has probably occured. I wouldn't say it's by any means the norm however, but anything can happen in an interview and you will be judged by the IO regardless...
All people can do is base their upcomming interview off others general experience. This case just happend to be one of the negative experiences that has probably occured. I wouldn't say it's by any means the norm however, but anything can happen in an interview and you will be judged by the IO regardless...
They should deny your citizenship for lack of common sense 
I'm pulling your leg, but seriously, don't you believe in using the seatbelt in the car? It could pretty much save your life and give you the chance of getting more control of the car in a hard brake situation. I am appalled that you could collect so many seatbelt offenses I don't know how can this affect you at the interview, but it could. At the very least you should have to do an honest explanation if the issue comes up, and start wearing your seatbelt from now on
I'm pulling your leg, but seriously, don't you believe in using the seatbelt in the car? It could pretty much save your life and give you the chance of getting more control of the car in a hard brake situation. I am appalled that you could collect so many seatbelt offenses I don't know how can this affect you at the interview, but it could. At the very least you should have to do an honest explanation if the issue comes up, and start wearing your seatbelt from now on paranoia
My father had 2 at fault accidents, 3 speeding tickets, 3 other traffic violations and 1 not at fault accident, over a 3 year span when we lived in New York City and New Jersey. And he wasn't even asked about them.
On my interview, I didn't include the 1 speeding ticket I had, but the IO asked me specifically if I had any, and I told her yes and we moved on with the interview.
So yep if they don't like your face, or if they are having a bad day and your file isn't really kosher, you are sh#@ outta luck!
If being a bad driver was grounds for dismissal, then half the country should pack up the bags and leave.
But if you where stopped for DUI or DWI thats a whole different ballgame. Thats when the morality question comes into play.
My father had 2 at fault accidents, 3 speeding tickets, 3 other traffic violations and 1 not at fault accident, over a 3 year span when we lived in New York City and New Jersey. And he wasn't even asked about them.
On my interview, I didn't include the 1 speeding ticket I had, but the IO asked me specifically if I had any, and I told her yes and we moved on with the interview.
So yep if they don't like your face, or if they are having a bad day and your file isn't really kosher, you are sh#@ outta luck!
If being a bad driver was grounds for dismissal, then half the country should pack up the bags and leave.
But if you where stopped for DUI or DWI thats a whole different ballgame. Thats when the morality question comes into play.
They should deny your citizenship for lack of common sense
The reason why I don't wear a seatbelt is because someone I know was trapped by a seatbelt after an accident, the car caught fire, and the person burned to death (no joke). It was actually ruled by the coroner that this person would still be alive, had it not been for the seatbelt. Besides, NYPD is notorious for enacting ticket quotas (which they'll deny till they are blue in the face, but I have a friend who's a NYC police officer who confirmed this), and the seatbelt offenses are the easiest ones to catch. I've been a victim of what's known as a "seatbelt checkpoint" a couple of times. When a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label is at stake (a common prize for the officer who writes the most tickets in one month), a seatbelt checkpoint is an easy way to rack up those tickets.
Anyway, this is the wrong forum to express why I am against seatbelt laws! Bottom line is, my driving record is crystal clear (no points for the past 10 years), and the only point violation that I've ever had (no turn) cleared off my record back in 1997. Getting records of that one is going to be a serious challenge, since NYS agencies are only required to keep records for 8 years and 3 months.
Hahaha, paranoia is right! After hearing all these horror stories about people getting declined for trivial reasons, it's hard NOT TO be paranoid. I guess you're right, though, especially since seat belt violations carry no points.
In MN 20% of the people do not wear seat belts. Among traffic deaths more than 50% of those who died have been found NOT to have been found to have been wearing seat belts. Which means that some one not wearing a seat belt is twice likely to die as some one wearing a seat belt in a fatal accident.
If one statistics of one person having burnt is preventing you from wearing seat belts then the equivalent odds for other events would translate to not going out when raining (due to getting killed by lightning), not surfing due to being killed by a shark and so on).
As far as your interview goes, I think the odds of you getting denied are very low. Unfortunately the process is very subjective so you need to be cautious and have a nice smile on your face when you go for the interview
Good luck and do update the forum after your interview.
If one statistics of one person having burnt is preventing you from wearing seat belts then the equivalent odds for other events would translate to not going out when raining (due to getting killed by lightning), not surfing due to being killed by a shark and so on).
As far as your interview goes, I think the odds of you getting denied are very low. Unfortunately the process is very subjective so you need to be cautious and have a nice smile on your face when you go for the interview
Good luck and do update the forum after your interview.
In MN 20% of the people do not wear seat belts. Among traffic deaths more than 50% of those who died have been found NOT to have been found to have been wearing seat belts. Which means that some one not wearing a seat belt is twice likely to die as some one wearing a seat belt in a fatal accident.
If one statistics of one person having burnt is preventing you from wearing seat belts then the equivalent odds for other events would translate to not going out when raining (due to getting killed by lightning), not surfing due to being killed by a shark and so on).
As far as your interview goes, I think the odds of you getting denied are very low. Unfortunately the process is very subjective so you need to be cautious and have a nice smile on your face when you go for the interview
Good luck and do update the forum after your interview.
It's not the statistic that prevents me from wearing a seatbelt, it's personal choice. I never liked wearing them, and I feel very uncomfortable when buckeld up. Besides, if I choose to risk my life by not buckling up, it's my own business, not the government's. Contrary to what they say, the government sees seat belt laws as a source of revenue for their coffers. If the government cared about our well-being, we'd have some kind of a healthcare system in place. Oh well, enough of that!
Unfortunately, I haven't even been receipted yet, so my interview is a very long way off. However, I plan on participating in this forum throughout the entire process, so there will definitely be an update! And you can believe that I'll be wearing my best suit to the interview!
Any Federal court in the country will overturn a denial of naturalization based on conclusion of lack of good moral character due to excessive tickets. This has happend in the past (1960??) where someone was denied for excessive tickets and went to Federal court which reversed the denial and ordered INS to naturalize the person. Be rest assured that If the conclusion that you lack moral character because you have traffic tickets seems ridiculous to you, it also seems that way to federal courts.
Thanks for the info, that's great to know!
Thanks! On the brighter side of things, I read in another thread that once the I-485 applications hit 8/17, the queue will be cleared for N-400s. I can't wait to see what the next week's update will bring.
I can see how a certain amount of Traffic Tickets meaning a larger amount can affect the view on your moral character but it all depends on what kind of Traffic Ticket in my personal view.
It all depends on the IO I would say but I think lawfully it is not a ground for denial but I don't know. It is just my personal opinion so don't count on it.
It all depends on the IO I would say but I think lawfully it is not a ground for denial but I don't know. It is just my personal opinion so don't count on it.
Seat belt law
See...look at it this way. You may choose to risk your life and one day sit on your car seat with your head splattered on the steering wheel. Now at that point, it's the cops/paramedics who have to clear up the mess (your dead body and splattered brain parts). Now who likes to clean up and handle so much blood and your splattered remains? (YUCKK) Obviously you won't be alive to do it yourself. So the government prefers to avoid that mess by enforcing the seat-belt law.
After reading this, I'm sure you won't like my viewpoint because you think you are a rebel and the only way you want to retaliate is by not wearing your seatbelt.
You may say whatever you want, in response to my post and I'd defend your right to say it, even though I may not agree with what you say.
See...look at it this way. You may choose to risk your life and one day sit on your car seat with your head splattered on the steering wheel. Now at that point, it's the cops/paramedics who have to clear up the mess (your dead body and splattered brain parts). Now who likes to clean up and handle so much blood and your splattered remains? (YUCKK) Obviously you won't be alive to do it yourself. So the government prefers to avoid that mess by enforcing the seat-belt law.
After reading this, I'm sure you won't like my viewpoint because you think you are a rebel and the only way you want to retaliate is by not wearing your seatbelt.
You may say whatever you want, in response to my post and I'd defend your right to say it, even though I may not agree with what you say.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting way of looking at things. Perhaps the government should issue a law banning police from carrying guns. After all, someone has to clean up shooting scenes too!
By the way, have you ever exceeded your state speed limit? Ran a stop sign? Made a u-turn over a double yellow line? If you drive, I am sure you have probably done all of the above at some point in your life. Does that not make you a rebel as well, let alone put you at risk of creating a bloody scene that someone will have to clean up? Bottom line is, a seat belt law is a way for the state governments to generate more revenue, and nothing else. If they were concerned with cleaning up blood and guts, don't you think more states would ban talking on cell phones while driving?
About the law banning police from carrying guns, I think that the act of cops shooting criminals is in itself an act of cleaning up society from unwanted criminals. Cleaning up their blood and guts would help avoid cleaning up the blood left by their (criminals') victims. It becomes a question of, how much blood the government wants to clean. 1 criminal's blood? Or 10 victims' blood?
Maybe the motivation for the seat-belt law is three-pronged: Safety, clean-up and revenue
Revenue is definitely a component. There's no denying that fact.
Well I did run stop-signs and jump lights and exceeded speed limits, but not because I wanted to reassure myself that I'm a rebel. As a matter of fact, all the speeding tickets I got are because I wasn't aware that the speeding limit dropped and I wasn't aware of it. You may call it stupidity and ignorance on my part, and I would agree, and am rectifying it and am more attentive to the signs. It was by complete folly that I even once got arrested for drunk driving. I regret that even to this day. If I were a rebel I wouldn't stop drinking and driving. I try my best to stick to the laws of the land, no matter how absurd they may seem. If I have a problem with a law, I'd report it to the local senator or the radio stations, but still abide by it, because I know that the cop is not the person who's going to respond to my viewpoints.
Laws are not set by cops, they merely enforce laws. So making a statement to the cops by NOT abiding by a certain law won't help repeal laws. There are channels for people to go thru if they want a certain law repealed. That's democracy.
About the law of talking on cell-phones while driving, am sure a lot more states will enforce it soon. Some states already try to enforce it.
You may say whatever you want in response to my post and I'd defend your right to say it, even though I may not agree with what you say.
Maybe the motivation for the seat-belt law is three-pronged: Safety, clean-up and revenue
Revenue is definitely a component. There's no denying that fact.
Well I did run stop-signs and jump lights and exceeded speed limits, but not because I wanted to reassure myself that I'm a rebel. As a matter of fact, all the speeding tickets I got are because I wasn't aware that the speeding limit dropped and I wasn't aware of it. You may call it stupidity and ignorance on my part, and I would agree, and am rectifying it and am more attentive to the signs. It was by complete folly that I even once got arrested for drunk driving. I regret that even to this day. If I were a rebel I wouldn't stop drinking and driving. I try my best to stick to the laws of the land, no matter how absurd they may seem. If I have a problem with a law, I'd report it to the local senator or the radio stations, but still abide by it, because I know that the cop is not the person who's going to respond to my viewpoints.
Laws are not set by cops, they merely enforce laws. So making a statement to the cops by NOT abiding by a certain law won't help repeal laws. There are channels for people to go thru if they want a certain law repealed. That's democracy.
About the law of talking on cell-phones while driving, am sure a lot more states will enforce it soon. Some states already try to enforce it.
You may say whatever you want in response to my post and I'd defend your right to say it, even though I may not agree with what you say.
Interesting way of looking at things. Perhaps the government should issue a law banning police from carrying guns. After all, someone has to clean up shooting scenes too!
By the way, have you ever exceeded your state speed limit? Ran a stop sign? Made a u-turn over a double yellow line? If you drive, I am sure you have probably done all of the above at some point in your life. Does that not make you a rebel as well, let alone put you at risk of creating a bloody scene that someone will have to clean up? Bottom line is, a seat belt law is a way for the state governments to generate more revenue, and nothing else. If they were concerned with cleaning up blood and guts, don't you think more states would ban talking on cell phones while driving?
Last edited by a moderator:
Believe it or not, people have tried to get the seat belt laws repealed, albeit unsuccessfully. Besides that, ask any NYC resident about Mayor Bloomberg's "ticket blitz". There was an expose done on it by local newspapers, after a pregnant girl got a ticket for loitering for sitting on the stairs in a train station while she was waiting for her train. We also have the most expensive parking tickets in the nation (some as high as $165), which was also Bloomberg's idea. He even admitted that he runs the city like a business, and the ticket revenue is helping out immensely. New York was also the first state to ban cell phones while driving (which is actually a very useful law). Anyway...as I've mentioned in a prior post, I find seat belts very uncomfortable, which is why I choose not to wear them. I realize full well that I'm risking a ticket each time I get behind the wheel, but that's the chance I'm willing to take. Besides, my car is equipped with front- and side-impact airbags, and those should sufficiently prevent my brain from splattering.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
No ... the airbags are designed with the assumption that the seat belt will hold you down in your seat. If your body jerks up or sideways out of your seat due to lack of wearing the seat belt, the airbags aren't going to help much.
Sure seems like we should wear body armor and helmets to survive a car crash!