Please sign this petition

B

BigJoe5

Registered Users (C)
Dear friends,

I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People, a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your name to mine? If this petition gets 25,000 signatures by November 03, 2011, the White House will review it and respond!

We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the Obama Administration to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets
enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

You can view and sign the petition here:

http://wh.gov/2Ct

Here's some more information about this petition:

Strengthen Naturalization (N-400) Prerequisites by supporting Congressional Amendments to the INA

Beef up INA 318 [8 U.S.C. 1429] PREREQUISITES TO NATURALIZATION; BURDEN OF PROOF and INA 334 [8 U.S.C. 1445] Application for naturalization; declaration of intention.

Specific language has been submitted to Congress and is available for review at http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/snap-act-summary or for even more details see http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/s...naturalizationapplicationprerequisitesactdocx

Substantive Naturalization Application Prerequisites (SNAP) Act of 20xx.

Reinforce patriotism and block the unworthy from weakening the United States. Citizenship is not to be handed out lightly. It is a pledge and commitment. It involves obligations and responsibilities as well as rights and privileges.

Mean it or don't do it.

Thank you and please tell a friend.
 
Joe, can you provide direct links to your pdf documents? In order to download them from slideshare, I need an account, so it is very inconvenient.
 
Some thoughts

Joe, here are some of my remarks:

1) INA 318 (a) (iii): jus sanguinis could be replaced by citizenship by descent for clarity, unless the term jus sanguinis is officially described somewhere in the Act

2) You have to modify the language of INA 318 (b), particularly "let it be clearly known that no alien has the slightest right to naturalization". It is too informal, IMHO.

3) INA 318 (c): a person could legally enter the country, but the documents may not be preserved up to the naturalisation time. Besides, all these questions are asked in I-485 which in itself is a prerequisite for N-400. Also, what entry do you refer to - before or after permanent residency status was granted? If an illegal immigrant is pardoned and receives his GC, would he be indefinitely precluded from naturalisation because of this statute?

I will continue with INA 334 a bit later.
 
König said:
Joe, here are some of my remarks:

1) INA 318 (a) (iii): jus sanguinis could be replaced by citizenship by descent for clarity, unless the term jus sanguinis is officially described somewhere in the Act

2) You have to modify the language of INA 318 (b), particularly "let it be clearly known that no alien has the slightest right to naturalization". It is too informal, IMHO.

3) INA 318 (c): a person could legally enter the country, but the documents may not be preserved up to the naturalisation time. Besides, all these questions are asked in I-485 which in itself is a prerequisite for N-400. Also, what entry do you refer to - before or after permanent residency status was granted? If an illegal immigrant is pardoned and receives his GC, would he be indefinitely precluded from naturalisation because of this statute?

I will continue with INA 334 a bit later.
Click to expand...

1. it is a recognized legal term

2. I fully expect that if Congress ever looks at it, they will chop it apart word by word anyway. (I have written regulations and policy memos and when they finally got to a final form, I was happy that they kept my "and" and "the"!)

3. This language already exists in INA 318. I have expanded it to be a back-up to release even more in a FOIA request. The lawful entry is defined in statute and precedent to refer to that lawful entry as an LPR whether through an actual visa or adjustment by INS/USCIS or an IJ.

While the jury is still out on the usefulness of the WH petition site, changes can be made and influenced by speaking up.

I got USCIS to change the N-565 form instructions with the added warning "NOTE" about you can't change a DOB via an N-565; see: http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-565instr.pdf

I got USCIS to add a class of individual that should NOT file the form N-600 (the folks who already filed one--new #5 on the revised form instructions) at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2006-0023-0028

I caused USCIS to withdraw the N-600K revisions and re-work them further; see: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2007-0019-0017

Also see this comment on the inconsistency between N-336 form instructions and regulations. This comment itself is open for comments until Oct 28th: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2009-0022-0011

Thanks for being interested.
 
Thank you for clarification. I have one question pertaining to the highlighted part of INA 334 (a):
All applicants for naturalization, as a crucial, affirmative and substantive part of their application for naturalization, shall make both a written declaration, under penalty of perjury and contained within the application for naturalization; and an oral declaration, under oath, as a standard part of the naturalization examination required under INA 335(b) [8 U.S.C. 1446(b)] , a declaration of their present personal intention to primarily reside within the United States as defined in INA 101(a)(38) [8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38)] of this Act, except as otherwise provided under this Act, upon the filing of an application for naturalization, at time of admission to citizenship pursuant thereto and as proscribed under section INA 337 [8 U.S.C. 1448] of this title, and for the immediately foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, there used to be such a requirement for naturalised citizens which was reduced over time and finally either struck down by the court or phased out through the legislative process (in 1994?). The reasoning was that since US citizens by birth had the right to reside anywhere for as long as they wanted, it would be a discrimination to require naturalised citizens to follow tighter rules. I think the last such requirement prescribed to reside continuously in the USA for at least one year after naturalisation or face de-naturalisation. However, I am positive it is not in the INA now. Am I correct that you would like to bring it back? Also, immediately foreseeable future is a vague term which will be hard to interpret in the court.

I am sympathetic to this requirement because very often I see folks (on this forum) making plans to move back to their country as soon as they are naturalised. Many of them start planning this even before finishing the whole naturalisation process. However, I feel uneasy over the vagueness of the residency length definition. After how long it would be ok to move to another country? A year, two, five? If somebody finds a job overseas and moves out soon after naturalisation, would it be acceptable given the harsh economic environment we live in?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
König said:
Thank you for clarification. I have one question pertaining to the highlighted part of INA 334 (a):

If I remember correctly, there used to be such a requirement for naturalised citizens which was reduced over time and finally either struck down by the court or phased out through the legislative process (in 1994?). The reasoning was that since US citizens by birth had the right to reside anywhere for as long as they wanted, it would be a discrimination to require naturalised citizens to follow tighter rules. I think the last such requirement prescribed to reside continuously in the USA for at least one year after naturalisation or face de-naturalisation. However, I am positive it is not in the INA now. Am I correct that you would like to bring it back? Also, immediately foreseeable future is a vague term which will be hard to interpret in the court.
Click to expand...

Sort of.

I suggest that if someone already plans to relocate abroad and is just grabbing citizenship on the way out that they should not be eligible for naturalization. The suggested new language tames what was struck.

On October 25, 1994, the “IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1994”. Sec. 104 (a) was
overkill. The proposed amendments of the SNAP Act take into account the Constitutionality issue.

SEC. 104. INTENT TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER NATURALIZATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Section 338 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1449) is amended by striking "intends to reside permanently in the United States, except in cases falling within the provisions of section 324(a) of this title,".

(b) CONFORMING REPEAL.--Section 340(d) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(d)) is repealed.

That amendment struck language from the actual Certificate.

The proposed additional language is purposely loose and flexible and only asks for one to state what their current intent is and in order to qualify it needs to be an intent to reside in the U.S. for the foreseeable future except as other wise provided (like the spouse of a USC who already has to state a future intent).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe, I edited my post to explain my position, but you were faster to answer :) I still believe it would be hard to prove intent in the court.
 
König said:
Joe, I edited my post to explain my position, but you were faster to answer :) I still believe it would be hard to prove intent in the court.
Click to expand...

When you set a minimum then many folks will strive to live down to it.

Set a very low bar and people will step over it.

Current intent for the foreseeable future is purposely vague. It is a work of art to be argued on a case by case basis. The term crime of moral turpitude is not clearly defined and the Congress and courts have refused to specifically define it even after centuries of its use.
 
König said:
By the way, you have a point. Why Joe's petition needs 25000 signatures while some others only need 5000? Indeed, he needs 25000. Is it because of different types of petitions?
Click to expand...

The minimum is set by the WH and is subject to change. Any that got started before the change are subject to the old threshold.
 
Petition

I agree with the spirit behind the petition. However I see couple of issues with it.
1. It creates two kind of citizens. Ones that have freedom of movement and ones that don't.
2. Intent is very esoteric and subjective. I am not sure I would want USCIS employees determining what intent is.
3. This would create more inefficiencies in the system and give government more excuses to grab more money by prosecuting people based on subjective criterion.
4. Given this logic of intent to reside in US I think there are no better candidates than illegal immigrants for US citizenship!!! They are persistent and tenacious to be in this country.
My take is have all citizens as equal or just don't let anybody naturalize.
 
Indcanusa said:
I agree with the spirit behind the petition. However I see couple of issues with it.
1. It creates two kind of citizens. Ones that have freedom of movement and ones that don't.
2. Intent is very esoteric and subjective. I am not sure I would want USCIS employees determining what intent is.
3. This would create more inefficiencies in the system and give government more excuses to grab more money by prosecuting people based on subjective criterion.
4. Given this logic of intent to reside in US I think there are no better candidates than illegal immigrants for US citizenship!!! They are persistent and tenacious to be in this country.
My take is have all citizens as equal or just don't let anybody naturalize.
Click to expand...

It is not now and would not become the purpose or function of USCIS to determine intent. It is and would still be the naturalization applicant who forms intent. This is merely asking them to honestly state their intent. If the applicant cannot honestly say that they currently intend to reside in the U.S. for the foreseeable future then why do they want citizenship in the first place, so they can file taxes with the IRS in addition to foreign taxes and vote by absentee ballot in elections which will have little if any meaning to their everyday lives?

The concept originally came about in the 1800s when naturalized citizens returned to their homelands and demanded protection and services from the U.S. Government (mainly the State Department but also the military) while residing abroad. Congress took it too far (made it too restrictive and oppressive) and had that ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Then Congress went too far in the other direction via the 1994 amendments and it has resulted in new abuses. This petition seeks a middle ground.
 
Since a similar rule was repealed in 1994, wouldn't such a provision put enforceability into question or is it merely meant as a symbolic gesture?
 
Bobsmyth said:
Since a similar rule was repealed in 1994, wouldn't such a provision put enforceability into question or is it merely meant as a symbolic gesture?
Click to expand...

No, it was not a similar rule, that is the point. Congress only dealt with the issue in extremes in the past. First they were too harsh, then gave up completely. They never sought a reasonable middle ground.
 
In addition, provide a short, sensible and balanced statement as an overview to your proposal. "Reinforce patriotism and block the unworthy from weakening the United States" doesn't sound very professional. No offense BigJoe5, but keep your emotions to yourself if you expect to gain traction on an issue.
 
BigJoe5 said:
No, it was not a similar rule, that is the point. Congress only dealt with the issue in extremes in the past. First they were too harsh, then gave up completely. They never sought a reasonable middle ground.
Click to expand...
As I understand, the previous law first had a 5 year requirement, which was reduced to 1 year and then finally repealed. What is a reasonable middle ground? "Foreseeable future"?
 
Bobsmyth said:
As I understand, the previous law first had a 5 year requirement, which was reduced to 1 year and then finally repealed. What is a reasonable middle ground? "Foreseeable future"?
Click to expand...

An honest answer is all that is required.

If one KNOWS that they have their house sold in the U.S. and have tendered their resignation and have secured a home in another country at the time of seeking naturalization then they would not meet the naturalization requirement at that time. In order to get past this requirement, they would have to commit perjury and give false testimony.

On the other hand, if something lucrative pops up in even less than a year (or less than a month), then that is a new circumstance that arises after naturalization. The same would be true if a parent's health went down hill and one needed to relocate to provide care. In either of these simple examples, the naturalized citizen could just as easily decide to move back to the U.S. later when things changed again.

An LPR is free to depart the U.S. without naturalizing. An LPR can get a re-entry permit for 2 years and renewable for another two years and potentially a third REP for an additional year. As an alternative and depending in a few additional factors, an N-470 may be an option to preserve naturalization eligibility.

Why would someone not be able to give an honest answer to a simple question about their current intent? It seems that far too many people are far too willing to lie about it and that is just not right. Right now, it is far to easy to lie and get away with it because there are no real consequences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Intent

I believe the law was repealed because it created two classes of citizens.
Reading into BigJoe5 proposal it seems that he has a problem with intent and people lying about it.
However hard as you may wish you cannot mind read people. You would almost need to create a moral police to enforce this with arbitrary actions determining intent.
What is intent? It's a thought. You cannot possibly create a system to monitor thoughts. If it's the actions that determine thought then you cannot have two set of rules for citizens of a country without creating two classes.
If a born citizen can decide to move overseas why not a naturalized one. If rules were created for minimal stay after naturalization people would wait those out as well as they do 5 years with a green card.
I think it's a good thing to have more citizens as you got them on hook for paying taxes for life!!
 
BigJoe5 said:
Why would someone not be able to give an honest answer to a simple question about their current intent?
Click to expand...
That assumes that citizenship is firmly tied to country and residence. Does the intend of moving abroad immediately after naturalization make anyone less of a USC than someone who chooses to spend the rest of their life in the US. Likewise, does waiting 1 - 2 years to move after naturalization make anyone more of a USC? Everyone has different definitions of what it means to be a naturalized USC. For some, it's a matter of convenience. For others, it's being part of a country that provides freedoms not found in their home country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top