1. Why am I a troll for suggesting people to follow the instructions and truthfully disclosing the facts inquired about in question...
Because the topic has already been covered before ad nauseum in the past and a sticky already exists on the subject.
Starting a new ticket thread with the title Warning !!! is duplicating what is already out there, including all the info you reposted.
No one here is suggesting to lie or engage in concealment of material fact. The sticky at the top (in plain sight) was created to consolidate all threads related to traffic tickets into one area in order to avoid newbies from posting the same thing over and over again. If you have something to say, say it there.So, as long as one encourages readers to lie, to defeat the purpose of N-400, to engage in concealment of material fact and risk denial, 5 year bar and possible future revocation of Citizenship and deportation, it is considered OK.
It is undisputed that N-400 requires to reveal any citations ever issued to beneficiary by a law enforcement officer.
Your deliberate inducement and persistent insistence that applicants should lie to USCIS and conceal the fact asked about in N-400 is amazing, to say the least.
Why are you insisting that applicants for Citizenship lie to USCIS and risk denial of petition on lack of moral grounds? Why do you want to put potential applicants in the harms way? What is your intention in doing this?
'Merely' is not creating a flashy title (without substance, BTW) and posting in caps, enlarged font and in red colour. That is mauvais ton in any forum.But here comes another poster, who merely alerted all visitors of the fact that N-400 indeed requires disclosure of all and any citations for any reason
The bottom line is that this issue was discussed so many times that newbies, after reading all relevant discussions, should be able to make up their minds regarding minor traffic tickets. Also, please stop reposting long posts by Johny Cash - it is very annoying. He does not have (neither do we) the last word in this manner. Look up the statistics in this very same thread and realise that your 'warning' is nothing but a drop in the ocean of useful information.and warned of the consequences of concealing a material fact , and guess what? A number of posters are ready to gang up on him and accuse him of trolling, posting a thread similar to sticky and , in short, making everybody upset with urging people not to do stupid mistakes and risk denial of N-400.
Please do tell us. Or rather notWhat does it tell about those who act so inconsistently and in defiance of logic?
In Washington state, the USCIS had a habit of rejecting N-400 applications because of infractions. They were sued and lost a class action suit, so they had to re-consider a large number of rejected N-400s. After that, I heard their behaviour toward traffic tickets and other infractions changed dramatically.Only if the IO decides to make an issue out of it.
Once again, please stop misinforming people. An official document, reposted multiple times, clearly instructs applicants not to disclose minor traffic tickets that did not result in an arrest. Unless an individual reading said document has extremely poor command of the English language, there is no other way to interpret it.
By the way, we are still waiting for all the links you've promised to provide. Cutting and pasting basic information from websites of law firms doesn't count. I once came across one of those websites where the lawyer's instruction in regards to traffic tickets was to answer "YES" to the "Have you ever committed a crime for which you were not arrested" question, as all traffic offenses are crimes.
You sure do not seem to suffer from extreme modesty. 89 pages of ambiguity and one special newbie who is planning to set everythinjg (and everyone) straight. Has it ever occurred to you that 89 "pages of ambiguity" represent the actual ambiguity that exists in the current SOP of USCIS IOs? People have reported very different experience with respect to traffic tickets (sometimes completely opposite experience) which can only mean that uniformity does not exist in this matter. You, on the other hand, want to disregard the statistics that is based on numerous actual accounts of N-400 applicants and prove your point by referring to a highly unusual isolated case?Hopefully, I will be able to sum it all up with fairly conclusive supporting evidence of the necessity to disclose traffic violations and put an end to 89 pages of ambiguity that is putting people in harms way and induces them to unnecessarily risk their future.