If you guys don't like the way the law works here, why don't you go back where you came from, or even try to become citizens ???? If you don't like Big Brother, The Government, The Laws, The Lawyers, Immigration etc, etc, why don't you go naturalize somewhere else where you will be treated better. As "first class citizens".
Irvine, CA man may lose U.S. citizenship for lying in his N400
- Thread starter Feliz-LA
- Start date
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
It's a whole lot of work to add or repeal a Constitutional Amendment. Yes, it might happen if a large portion of the American population became strongly anti-immigrant. But without the Constitution or protective legislation, it only takes a small number of power-hungry idiots in government to trample or strip one's rights. I'd rather block them with a 50-foot wall than 6-foot chain-link fence. Neither is impossible to climb, but the taller one will stop or slow more of them.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I'm in the US for economic and professional reasons. Second class citizenship is the price to pay for those benefits. Once I have enough money, I'm returning to where I'll be a first class citizen.
You sound like a prostitute at the Bunny Ranch in Vegas cashing in on a high rolling client
More seriously, do your views stem from racial profiling or discrimination you have experienced while in the US?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why become a citizen then if you will return to your heaven.?
NaturalizedBorg
New Member
I can't remember where I heard this.... the law is for people who have no friends....
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Maybe I won't become a US citizen. When I'm eligible I'll take a good look at the country and my goals and decide. But if I had to give up my original country's citizenship to become a US citizen, I wouldn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would expect this kind of comment outside this forum, but not in this forum. I think all the time I have been advocating for positive changes to the law. It is not that I dislike the law that much that I will go back to my former country, it is that if something can be improved I want to speak out about it. It's not an attack on all. Even many born Americans are against many of the Big Brother changes brought by this administration. I would say that in general I like the way this country and government work, but I think we still have to do more to protect and enhance civil liberties and civil rights. That's all. I understand that many other countries are worse on terms of citizenship and naturalized citizens rights.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Protective legislation can be overcome by 213 Representatives, 51 Senators and one President. I don't understand you - you remain convinced that the government is out to get you, but that somehow a single, easily repealed Act can protect you from said government. The two don't go together.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Especially since doing so means that he retains a tax liability to the IRS. It makes me wonder how much thinking he puts into things.
Well, I would feel better with a good law than with no law Even if the law can be later repealed. That's what I am advocating, to change some of the immigration law to be somewhat more reasonable and lenient towards immigrants and naturalized citizens and to save taxpayers money on expensive and unnecessary prosecution You see, one of the traits of being American is to think always on the pocketbook and the supreme law of the taxpayer money.
Even if the law can be later repealed. That's what I am advocating, to change some of the immigration law to be somewhat more reasonable and lenient towards immigrants and naturalized citizens and to save taxpayers money on expensive and unnecessary prosecution You see, one of the traits of being American is to think always on the pocketbook and the supreme law of the taxpayer money.TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
If you believe the law is unreasonable and onerous to the taxpayer, I am sure this is because you have some idea of how many cases are brought each year versus the number of naturalized citizens. You do have those figures, right? Please share them with us. Maybe I might come to share your point of view if there is a large number of unnecessary prosecutions.
But there is a law, and it is a good law. It says that your citizenship can only be stripped if you committed fraud/lied during the process. There are thousands of naturalized citizens who commit crimes (even felonies) and retain their citizenship. The law works, contrary to what others claim without a shred of evidence.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
You must be a computer, thinking in binary. You apparently don't understand the concept of differences of degree. Based on your thinking we should make murder and rape and police brutality legal, because the laws against it don't prevent it 100% of the time.
Nope, don't have the figures
I think I asked a few days ago if someone had some statistics, but nobody replied and I don't have them. However, one could claim that even one unfair prosecution is too much Don't take my comment too seriously.The point is that someone's honest mistake, or honest omission could be somebody else's lie and fraud. Perhaps what someone considered not a crime it is considered a crime by USCIS. Perhaps one had sex with a girl who said she was 18 and after naturalization she comes out of the shadows and says and proves that she was two days shy of her 18 birthday and there is a trial for statutory rape or something similar and then someone figures the guy is a naturalized citizen and someone goes and talk to ICE and they go ahead and try to denaturalize the poor fellow
Far fetched, yes, all a contrived story, yes, possible, I bet, fair, I don't think that would be fair, and that would be the kind of think a statute of limitations could help with.Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Normally the statute of limitations on the alleged statutory rape would block the charges for that offense itself after X years have passed. However, ICE doesn't need an actual court conviction, because of the much looser standard of "conviction for immigration purposes" where they can make their own determination of guilt even if the case didn't go to court, so it would still be possible to denaturalize him at any time.The point is that someone's honest mistake, or honest omission could be somebody else's lie and fraud. Perhaps what someone considered not a crime it is considered a crime by USCIS. Perhaps one had sex with a girl who said she was 18 and after naturalization she comes out of the shadows and says and proves that she was two days shy of her 18 birthday and there is a trial for statutory rape or something similar and then someone figures the guy is a naturalized citizen and someone goes and talk to ICE and they go ahead and try to denaturalize the poor fellow
But specific incidents like that are much harder for them to bring against you. The problem is with those "Have you EVER" questions. If I have enough information about somebody's life, there's a 90% chance I'll be able to dig up something in their past or contrive something to show that they "lied" on the application, and with 20+ years having passed they can't prove me wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Nope, don't have the figures
In a similar not-too-serious vein, I could suggest that even one fraudulent citizen is too much. More seriously, if I had to make a guess based on what I've seen here and elsewhere I'd bet that there are far more citizenships obtained fraudulently than there are incorrect denaturalizations. Orders of magnitude more.
With respect, but the case that started this thread doesn't fall into that case at all. If you have been charged and convicted in court for anything more than a speeding ticket there is no excuse not to disclose it and claim it was an honest mistake. None. To claim otherwise implies either that one is an idiot, or one's listener is.
I recall a thread here a few weeks back where someone asked whether a particular citation should be disclosed - it was a $650 traffic citation for possession of marijuana. The poster cited the instructions on the N-400, which stated that traffic tickets need not be disclosed unless they were over $500 or involved drugs. The poster fixated on the "traffic ticket" portion and still didn't feel like disclosing the ticket, despite the fact that it was over $500 and involved a controlled substance. I suppose when USCIS tears him a new one he'll claim it was an honest mistake or he didn't consider it a crime.
The problem with this notion is that there are a lot more folks like the person mentioned in the OP in this thread. Let me remind you - he had convictions for "false impersonation, drug sales and battery". There's no way that his concealment of these convictions was based on anything other than deception and fraud, and there should be no statute of limitations to protect criminals like him.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
You still need to learn the difference between criminal and civil procedures. One doesn't need to prove you wrong; you need to prove yourself right, and you've got a good track history of being unable to do that.
I'm still curious about how you plan on getting around your worldwide tax liability once you make enough money to go back to where you are a "first class citizen".
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I won't necessarily be a US citizen when I leave. Either I won't bother to get US citizenship in the first place, or they'll denaturalize me for what I said about the government.I'm still curious about how you plan on getting around your worldwide tax liability once you make enough money to go back to where you are a "first class citizen".
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
They won't denaturalize you for that, because they can't. And every April 15th you will learn about what exactly it takes to be denaturalized.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
They won't denaturalize me for what I say, thanks to the freedom of speech in the Constitution (which you think can be altered on a whim). But they'll target me for what I say, and then dream up something else to denaturalize me.