I am through with responding to your nonsense. Links or it didn't happen. That's all.
With regards to your comment to Konig, about learning to tolerate other people's opinion, are you familiar with the term "lead by example"?
Don't be a hypocrite.
I didn't even know who this user Konig was and, behold, there he came charging me with lack of modesty, being an ignorant newbie and so on. That's just pure ad hominem and nothing of substance to prove a point.
You resort to the same sort of ad hominem demagoguery.
I notice that some users here have a habit of just ganging up on one and by all means try to turn this into a personal argument, while dodging the relevant to subject matter points and logical arguments presented.
It doesn't matter who I am and what I am.
What matters is that there is a Good Moral Character requirement in Naturalization proceeding and if USCIS thinks that applicant fails to possess it he/she can be fried as potatoes in McDonald's. Concealing both material and immaterial fact IS such an offense. This , I assume, is clear to all beyond any dispute. Or do we have any arguments about it ?
What is being contested here is whether minor traffic offenses fall into the category of citations that must be disclosed in N-400 application.
What do we have to base our argument on?
We have form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Part 10 D, Question Number 16 asks to answer to a following in AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE ( YES or NO ) :
Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer (including USCIS or former INS and military officers) for any reason?
Tell me what part of the above quoted sentence or highlighted words in it you do not understand I will try to explain.
Where do you see the words "excluding traffic tickets"? Do you?
There was an earlier version of N-400 form that specifically and unambiguously had words "excluding traffic violations" added at the end to clarify the scope of it , but those words (explicit reference to exclusion of traffic violation ) were removed from the wording of the question in 2003 and , in fact, are absent from current version of N-400 form.
It is claimed that many people with DUI and DWI were evading answering the question affirmatively, later claiming innocence by saying "I thought DUI"DWI was just a traffic violation". Whatever it may be, the words "excluding traffic violations" are no longer part of the relevant question.
The instructions (step by step guide) are ominously mute about it as well. In fact, the very part attached instructions that is supposed to explain how to interpret and answer the relevant question doesn't mention word "cited" and only mentions
"check YES to the question "Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?"
And what about cited? Opps, step-by-step guide is mute on it.
It clearly states
"Answer each questions by checking YES ir NO. If ANY part of a question applies to you, you must answer YES. For example , if you were never arrested but were once detained detained by a police officer, check YES to the question "Have you ever been ...", but it mysteriously OMITS the word
"cited" from it, leaving only words
"arrested" and
"detained".
It is difficult to decipher what, if any , specific intention was in making this part of application obscure and void of clarity.
Is it because it is assumed that applicant will know that temporary stop before issuance of citation is defined as detainment? (after all, you are restricted in your freedom of movement until after police officer returns and allows you to move on, with or without citation).
Or is it because the form N-400 was revised so many times that the very persons responsible for putting together instructions didn't pay attention to change of wording in the question in later editions? And if latter be true, does it absolve you of liability to answer the directly asked question and conceal the fact of having a citation?
Or, what if it is deliberately obscured to give the USCIS officer a discretionary authority and opportunity to check (whenever felt necessary) the truthfulness or evasiveness (thus good moral character) of an applicant?
What does Adjudicators Field Manual say in this regard?
Interestingly, there is NO FULL edition of AFM available online to read and see for certain what the USCIS field instructions in regards to all specific questions are.
What we have is just a REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION of AFM (supposedly updated through May 10, 2011).
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-15.html
So, we have no choice but look at what we have available, scroll down to Chapter 74, subsection 2 ( 74.2 Part by part discussion of form N 400 data) .
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-23223/0-0-0-23319.html#0-0-0-747
Once there we click on 74.2(g) and we find the page EMPTY - >>
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-23223/0-0-0-23319/0-0-0-24711.html
So, we click on NEXT DOCUMENT and go to page
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-23223/0-0-0-23319/0-0-0-24712.html
Here, we scroll all the way down to 15B , and what we read?
(15B) Been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, convicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance excluding traffic regulations?
But this is OLD version of the question. So, how do we explain the discrepancy? Is it that the AFM is NOT edited and remains the exact same , despite the N-400 form and it's corresponding question being changed? If so, is it some failure in part of printing office to supply the USCIS officers with properly revised Field Manual instructions?
OR, is it a deliberate omission (hence "REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION") of the relevant and newly edited parts of current field manual?
Do you or any of you, beating your chests and calling me a newbie, do ANY of you know the absolute exact and accurate answer to any of above questions?
If so, how do you explain it all? And if not, then who gives you the authority to speak with certainty how one should follow your suggestion and conceal the fact of traffic citations?
Read that public version of field manual, even in redacted form it is very informative. One part of it deals with determination of false testimony (what is definition of false testimony, how it applies to oral and under oath deposition, what is included and excluded under relevant statute and etc.). At some point it gives USCIS officer instructions how to determine if the answer provided by applicant, if inaccurate , is material or immaterial to the benefit sought;at the same time it goes on to say ,simultaneously, that both material and immaterial omissions are relevant and can be used for denial, adding then that immaterial one is more difficult to use as proof of intention to mislead for purpose of getting a benefit (a total mumbo-jumbo for someone not well practiced in reading and trying to understand the law on regular basis). And, as if this was not enough, it also clearly instructs the USCIS officer to consider if (when either materially or immaterially relevant but indisputably incorrect) answer given by an applicant has the intention to avoid denial,
delays or any complications in the process of getting naturalized.
In other words, if Officer believes that you KNOW that giving a truthful answer MAY delay or complicate your Naturalization (not necessarily result in denial, but merely delay and complicate) , then it is enough grounds to consider you to be a person of bad moral character who tries to mislead or deceive the officer to get an immigration benefit within a statutory period. And in YOUR case, vorpal, that's is exactly what you suggest people to conceal the information for!
Add to all above said the human factor on the part of the USCIS officer. Let's say it is not you, vorpal, but some totally innocent reader who never had intention to conceal a fact from USCIS for the purpose of avoiding the delay and complications, but he/she reads your and similar posts, follows your advise and ends up before an officer to whom he or she appears to be deliberately concealing the fact and misleading with the intention to avoid delay or complications, just imagine what the range of possibilities and consequences could be.
As Houston based Solomon Law Firm PC eloquently puts it:
One important thing to keep in mind is that there are many adjudicators who work for the USCIS. Adjudicators are human beings. Each person is limited not only by his or her unique ability to read and understand instructions, and by errors that they might make in interpreting and applying the rules, but also by their emotions.
Have you ever noticed a difference between decisions made by a policeman who was in a good mood and one who was angry or apparently having a bad day when you were stopped for speeding? The policeman has some discretion in how to apply the law; adjudicators sometimes have the same kind of discretion.
http://www.thesolomonlawfirm.com/CM...-articles/USCIS-adjudicators-field-manual.asp
Anyone here can call the law firm linked above and get a FREE consultation on the phone or in the office: a lot better than listening to any of you who have zero credentials in the matter and dodge discussing all relevant issues, while so prone to brazenly attack the one who suggests readers to err on the side of caution and be safe than be sorry.
You want more links?
There some more links for you, go chose and pick whichever you want:
http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/Good-Moral-Character-is-Needed-for-Naturalization.html
http://www.google.com/#q=traffic+ti...gc.r_pw.&fp=da8c3ab7508c4c6a&biw=1366&bih=553
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...gc.r_pw.&fp=da8c3ab7508c4c6a&biw=1366&bih=553
Huge number of links to browse there, with first one excluding any links to immigration.com (so you can avoid browsing through links to this forum and some other closely related ones), while the second link is all inclusive of all google searches relevant to the subject of traffic tickets and naturalization application.
I could continue this on, but it should suffice for now and the ball is in your court now, so let's see what will you come up with this time, other than more ad hominems and personal attacks on the basis of you not being happy with the poster who doesn't agree with your opinion and has good reasons to doubt that the course of action you suggest is one that recklessly and needlessly puts the potential applicants in the harms way and in danger of being denied or revoked of their citizenship in future.
Regards,
KASPAR
