Stanley Hermosillo
Registered Users (C)
No need to disclose anything below 500 dollars traffic violations are considered extremely minor.
Traffic violation
- Thread starter ubnowski
- Start date
There are other traffic infractions that may have also involved detention. For instance in VA where traffic violations alone can land you behind bars, there was someone that got caught doing 93mph in a 60mph highway. He got pulled over and got a summons for "Reckless Driving-Misdemeanor" to appear in court, he got an attorney who beat it down to 79mph "Speeding-Traffic Infraction" with a $300 fine and as part of the deal he had the $1000 bail revoked (even though he could have paid it out of pocket) so he could do a weekend behind bars. I guess in such a situation there is no choice but to disclose it because even though the fine is less than $500, it involved being arrested/detained/jail.
Itis not fair to others if some others do not disclose traffic violations. Everyone get nervous when dealing USCIS and those who disclose traffic violations always worry and wonder "what if the IO cares about these traffic violations?". So it is natural for those of us who went thru such ordeal to vreally hate it when others do not disclose traffic violations and get away from such painful experiences.
We are jealous and we admit it, and we 'll gloat when oned ay anyone get de-natualized because failurer to disclose a traffic violation
Last edited by a moderator:
howdy_howdy
Volunteer Moderator
Sorry but any citation whether its <$500 or not, should be disclosed in N400. The N400 clearly states ".... have you ever been cited ...?"!
Al Southner
Registered Users (C)
The issues of whether others are disclosing their tickets or chose NOT to is a personal choice. USCIS fangs will only enter their butts. You hate people who don't disclose those minor traffic violations, but who cares? I mean, people care about getting their citizenship and embarking on a new adventure in the American Dream or Nightmare-whatever suits you. Remember that laws are interpreted by humans, who have varied frame of references, based on how they feel, workload and many other factors. You need to get off the paranoia of people being de-naturalized, such an action is NOT taken light by the federal government, because of the implications such actions might casue to families. Someone being de-naturalized for a traffic infractions? Unless you have case law to back your concerns about "failure to disclose traffic cititation can lead to de-naturalised person", maybe you should get off that horse, it is already dead. I have never read about anyone on this board gloating about de-naturalized US citizens, any form of schadenfreude will reek insensitity.
Al Southner
Registered Users (C)
You know what else is not fair? A guy who lives down the block for me just got a new Ferrari, and I don't have one!
I highly doubt that there will ever be a day when naturalized citizens begin getting denaturalized for not disclosing traffic violations, especially when an official document exists, explicitly instructing applicants NOT to disclose minor traffic violations. Take a look here (top of page 60):http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/About Us... Guide/Permanent_Residents_Naturalization.pdf
Al Southner
Registered Users (C)
You know what else is not fair? A guy who lives down the block for me just got a new Ferrari, and I don't have one!
V,
I like your analogy....lol!!! I was on house hunting recently in some neighborhood, as I was walking around the property, the guy across the street from the property I was looking pulled into his driveway driving a Bugatti Veyron. I felt like you, darn...his car cost more than the house by about 40% and this isn't FAIR....lol!!! America has never being about fairness, it is about making your money and living your life.
You know what else is not fair? A guy who lives down the block for me just got a new Ferrari, and I don't have one!
V,
I like your analogy....lol!!! I was on house hunting recently in some neighborhood, as I was walking around the property, the guy across the street from the property I was looking pulled into his driveway driving a Bugatti Veyron. I felt like you, darn...his car cost more than the house by about 40% and this isn't FAIR....lol!!! America has never being about fairness, it is about making your money and living your life.
Precisely. This is exactly why, if you're ever on a witness stand, the most popular answer is "I don't recall".
You know what else is not fair? A guy who lives down the block for me just got a new Ferrari, and I don't have one!
I highly doubt that there will ever be a day when naturalized citizens begin getting denaturalized for not disclosing traffic violations, especially when an official document exists, explicitly instructing applicants NOT to disclose minor traffic violations. Take a look here (top of page 60):http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/About Us... Guide/Permanent_Residents_Naturalization.pdf
USCIS often give wrong interpretation about its own forem and rules. It once even instructed green card holders that they do not need to carry the GC. The N400 instruction document is more reliable
than this more derivative document you cited. N400 instruction docuyment only says there is no need to provide documntation for traffic violation udner $ 500 fine need but does not say they do not need to be revealed.
It is also noted the oath letter clearly say "including traffic violation" for offense that occur between interview and oath. I don't think USCIS have different sstandard for traffic violation that occur before or after interview. The intenbt is same and clear: traffic violation should be revealed
See, I interpret the specific instruction to disclose traffic violations on the oath letter as that they don't have to be disclosed on the N-400. Again, the document I provided the link to is a genuine USCIS document - no ifs, ands, or buts. The N-400 instructions are extremely abridged and simplified. The oath is a bit different than the interview, as it's the final step in the naturalization process. The USCIS wants to make sure that an applicant has everything squared away with the government prior to granting citizenship. Still, even the traffic ticket disclosure on the oath letter is subject to the discretion of the IO in charge of the ceremony. Need I remind you what happened at my oath?
Al Southner
Registered Users (C)
V,
Please remind me what happened at your oath. I don't remember reading about it, I was on a sabbatical from the discussion forum. I think WBH is just anal when it comes to other people's situation, but I am certain if the shoe was on the other side, he would be singing a different tune.
Let us think about this a bit
We have illegals who were granted amnesty and given a green card. Quite a few of us have suffered delays beacuse of this....but I digress. The fact is that these people broke every law there was...overstaying...working illegally...and most holy grail of all - not paying taxes.
These people are now citizens. How do you think they will answer that question of disclosure. Think about it. I do not beleive that traffic tickets have to be mentioned in the form. I will take the court disposition to the interview though - just in case I am asked. Let us see.
We have illegals who were granted amnesty and given a green card. Quite a few of us have suffered delays beacuse of this....but I digress. The fact is that these people broke every law there was...overstaying...working illegally...and most holy grail of all - not paying taxes.
These people are now citizens. How do you think they will answer that question of disclosure. Think about it. I do not beleive that traffic tickets have to be mentioned in the form. I will take the court disposition to the interview though - just in case I am asked. Let us see.
When the pre-oath processing began after everyone arrived at the courthouse (Eastern District Federal Court in downtown Brooklyn - beautiful new building, by the way), the IO in charge of the ceremony began explaining how to fill out the back of the oath letter. She stated very loudly that she does NOT care about traffic tickets, only arrests. When applicants were called to the desk to hand in their oath letters, one gentleman, who obviously doesn't like to follow instructions, tried to disclose a traffic ticket. The IO, clearly irritated by this, asked for everyone's attention and repeated that no one is to disclose traffic tickets.
The same happened at my interview, by the way. Since I didn't disclose traffic tickets on my original N-400, I became paranoid after reading this forum and gathered as many court dispositions as I could, proving that I took care of my tickets. However, I decided not to volunteer any information and only provide it if the IO specifically asked me about traffic tickets. When we got to the famous "Have you ever been..." question, the IO asked "Have you ever been arrested?". I truthfully responded "NO" and the IO moved on.
Al Southner
Registered Users (C)
V,
I think that makes sense. I was listening to my favorite morning show on NPR, "Morning Edition" and they reported that on a daily basis, about 650 000 traffic violations tickets are issued to drivers. So, can you imagine USCIS now taking the responsibility to figure out of you paid the $25 speeding ticket issued by the National Parks Police, another $45 issued by the Amtrak Police? Common, USCIS has a hard time figure how to manage a change of address in their system, the other responsibilities are way too big for them in my view.
I think that makes sense. I was listening to my favorite morning show on NPR, "Morning Edition" and they reported that on a daily basis, about 650 000 traffic violations tickets are issued to drivers. So, can you imagine USCIS now taking the responsibility to figure out of you paid the $25 speeding ticket issued by the National Parks Police, another $45 issued by the Amtrak Police? Common, USCIS has a hard time figure how to manage a change of address in their system, the other responsibilities are way too big for them in my view.
It is all up to you. SOme IOs do not care and some do (including one who interviewed me).
This is not apractical matter as its consequences are concerned. Some people do not really want to bears arm for USA but some choose to request a mnodified oath while some others simply still take oath to bears arms when they are actually not willing -- This is not a practial matter because you won't see
a chance to really test anyone's trufulness on such matter. Same things for "Help me God" part, most of us recite that part regardless whether we actually believe in existence of God or not while a very few
choose for omission of that part.
Same thing for traffic violations, some one want to be MORE perfect and dislcose it which is my suggestion in this case.
Al Southner
Registered Users (C)
W,
If some IO care disclosing all tickets and other IOs don't care, that wouldn't be USCIS administrative law. It would be an issue of preference.
Here is my view on perfection my friends, Perfection is the surest way to constipation.
If N400 applicants were to aspire for perfection, none will meet that standard because it is a such a subjective value.
There is no need to contiue this debate. It is up to each individual to decide whether to disclose traffic violatiosn or not and it is also up tp each individual to give others what kind of advices. My advice is: disclose your traffic violations