Irvine, CA man may lose U.S. citizenship for lying in his N400

[TheRealCanadian]

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).

They cannot denaturalize you not because of freedom of speech, but the 14th Amendment.

But they'll target me for what I say, and then dream up something else to denaturalize me.

They'll commit you first.

 

[Huracan]

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.

I guess you're right on this one.

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 am not disputing the original post. That person seem genuinely to have committed naturalization fraud knowingly. The problem I have is that these are test cases that can open the door to prosecute less clear cut cases. I don't have proof and I don't have a crystal ball. It is just that I think it would be better to have the protection of the law. It was the courts who put a stop to INS and their administrative denaturalizations en masse. So, someone had to step up and show the injustice. I think it would be better if Congress would change the law to minimize even further the risk of being unfairly denaturalized.

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.

Yes, you're right. I have seen posters trying to convince us that what they should do is lie in the application. That's not correct, and that's not what I have been suggesting.

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.

Agreed, the person mentioned in the OP was correctly denaturalized under the current law as far as I can see. However, please note that Government tends to publicize this clear cut cases and opens the door for less publicized cases and less clear cut cases. It happens all the time not only with immigrants. I am not saying it is a bad government, but it really needs some strong checks and balances, and I think we, who have experienced this first hand, should lobby to improve the immigration law. We should start with a statute of limitations for "mistakes" in immigration applications. At most the consequences should be a fine

My 2 cents.

 

[cafeconleche]

Wow.

 

[Vorpal]

Since this thread has become hugely popular, here's another completely academic question. This actually popped up a few months ago, but I don't remember the outcome of it. Let's say a future natz applicant goes to Las Vegas and visits the Moonlight Bunny Ranch or a similar establishment. Upon filling out his N-400, the applicant checks "YES" to "Have you ever procured the services of a prostitute?" Would this application be denied for lack of good moral character, despite the fact that the applicant's actions were completely legal in the jurisdiction where they occurred?

 

[Jackolantern]

Let's say a future natz applicant goes to Las Vegas and visits the Moonlight Bunny Ranch or a similar establishment. Upon filling out his N-400, the applicant checks "YES" to "Have you ever procured the services of a prostitute?" Would this application be denied for lack of good moral character, despite the fact that the applicant's actions were completely legal in the jurisdiction where they occurred?

I figure they'd get denied, but would win when it is appealed in court. However, many of the dubious denials don't go to court, because the applicant either can't afford it or doesn't think it's worth it.

 

[Vorpal]

I figure they'd get denied, but would win when it is appealed in court. However, many of the dubious denials don't go to court, because the applicant either can't afford it or doesn't think it's worth it.

I guess it's one of those cases where it would be beneficial to have an attorney present during the interview.

 

[tabaliya]

Since this thread has become hugely popular, here's another completely academic question. This actually popped up a few months ago, but I don't remember the outcome of it. Let's say a future natz applicant goes to Las Vegas and visits the Moonlight Bunny Ranch or a similar establishment. Upon filling out his N-400, the applicant checks "YES" to "Have you ever procured the services of a prostitute?" Would this application be denied for lack of good moral character, despite the fact that the applicant's actions were completely legal in the jurisdiction where they occurred?

I think the "procured" word implies you're a pimp or someone putting others into prostitution. It is different from solicitation I think (not sure).

 

[tabaliya]

I think the "procured" word implies you're a pimp or someone putting others into prostitution. It is different from solicitation I think (not sure).

The exact wording of the question is: Been a prostitute, or procured anyone for prostitution?

 

[Jackolantern]

It is an unfair question that should reworded to "Have you ever illegally..."

 

[Bobsmyth]

Since this thread has become hugely popular, here's another completely academic question. This actually popped up a few months ago, but I don't remember the outcome of it. Let's say a future natz applicant goes to Las Vegas and visits the Moonlight Bunny Ranch or a similar establishment. Upon filling out his N-400, the applicant checks "YES" to "Have you ever procured the services of a prostitute?" Would this application be denied for lack of good moral character, despite the fact that the applicant's actions were completely legal in the jurisdiction where they occurred?

Actually the question on the form is :


22. Have you ever:
b)Been a prostitute, or procured anyone for prostitution?

Basically it means have you ever been a prostitute or a pimp. Going to the Bunny Ranch and using their services doesn't make you either so your answer would be "no", or at least that's the way I would interpret it.

Law ref:

8 CFR 316.10(2)(i)
8 USC 1182 (2)(D)
INA 212(a) (2)(D)

 

[thedeepsea]

Procured just means being a customer.

It is an unfair question that should reworded to "Have you ever illegally..."

Actually it means acting as a pimp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procuring_(prostitution)

 

[Vorpal]

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1 a: to get possession of : obtain by particular care and effort b: to get and make available for promiscuous sexual intercourse

That confirms that in a sexual connotation, procure does refer to pimping.

 

[Jackolantern]

You guys are fast. I realized my mistake shortly afterwards, and you grabbed my post and quoted it before I could correct it.

 

[BadKarma]

To cafeconleche: if a person had only US citizenship, then obviously s/he cannot be a naturalized citizen but rather a citizen by birth, in which case, citizenship cannot be revoked.

 

[Bobsmyth]

To cafeconleche: if a person had only US citizenship, then obviously s/he cannot be a naturalized citizen but rather a citizen by birth, in which case, citizenship cannot be revoked.

Some naturalized US citizens loose their original citizenship since their country doesn't allow dual citizenship, thus they only have US citizenship and can't be automatically deported to their original country.

 

[Jackolantern]

Some naturalized US citizens loose their original citizenship since their country doesn't allow dual citizenship, thus they only have US citizenship and can't be automatically deported to their original country.

And some people became stateless as a result of the breakup of their country, or were born stateless as a result of the country they were born in not granting citizenship to babies born in the country unless their parents are also citizens (while the parents' country didn't grant citizenship unless the child was born in the same country).

 

[Huracan]

Talk about the thread that came back from the dead

Another good reason to have a statute of limitations and avoid taxpayer expense to prosecute some menial cases when the end result might be that you can't even deport the person