I can see that many have concerns and have been denied citizenship on a basis of some traffic violations, especially DUI. Now, if the first American of this country, our president George W. Bush was fined because of DUI why can somebody not challange USCIS decisions regarding lack of good moral character on this basis? Why somebody can become president of the US and somebody can not even become citizen of US?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is the definition of good moral character?
- Thread starter itc
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Following your logic, one can argue that being a slave owner, killing native americans, should also not prevent one from being a citizen - see Thomas Jefferson and his relationship with his female slave....
In any event, the law does not define what is good moral character and leaves it to the discretion of the immigration authorities. That is why everyone here is so paranoid. There is simply no clearly defined definition.
Take care,
Yalag
In any event, the law does not define what is good moral character and leaves it to the discretion of the immigration authorities. That is why everyone here is so paranoid. There is simply no clearly defined definition.
Take care,
Yalag
No, your conclusion on my logic is wrong. We are talking about TODAYS standard of good moral character when offering citizenship. At the times of the slave owners, murders of native indians those actions did not defined lack of good moral character, so accordingly a slave owner and killer of Indians would be awarded citizenship had he met at that times standards for good moral character which I do not know what they were but obviousely they were different from todays.yalag said:Following your logic, one can argue that being a slave owner, killing native americans, should also not prevent one from being a citizen - see Thomas Jefferson and his relationship with his female slave....
In any event, the law does not define what is good moral character and leaves it to the discretion of the immigration authorities. That is why everyone here is so paranoid. There is simply no clearly defined definition.
Take care,
Yalag
But that was than. Todays definition of good moral character from what I am able to read on the board does not include DUI! While AT THE SAME TIME, not at the time of slave owners we have a president that was fined for DUI. I am not sure if you are getting the difference here?
So at the same time there are double standards. It is ok with DUI to become a president of US but not the citizen. We are talking here about application of the same standards at the same time and great injustice done as it is always the case when double standards are applied.
My argument was just that , can law not be used to refute denials on the basis of DUI? Should not be enough to show (as there is as you say lack of definition what good moral character is) examples of DUI and anihilate USCIS decision on denial on the basis of DUI? And let me just say that I was never caught DUI/DWI so I do not have this problem.
All the best to you.
Karlshammar
Registered Users (C)
President George W. Bush is a native-born, and not a naturalized, citizen. If he were a naturalized citizen, he wouldn't have been eligible even to run for President. Plus, becoming President and being naturalized as a citizen are two different processes. There are disqualifying crimes to become a candidate for President as well.
That being said, if anyone would like to try and challenge a good moral character decision of the USCIS on the basis of the criminal record of an elected official, I just wish them good luck. I don't think it'd go very far. Personally, I think a person who drives under the influence, thus putting everyone else on the road at risk of destruction of their property, injury and death, is clearly not of good moral character.
That being said, if anyone would like to try and challenge a good moral character decision of the USCIS on the basis of the criminal record of an elected official, I just wish them good luck. I don't think it'd go very far. Personally, I think a person who drives under the influence, thus putting everyone else on the road at risk of destruction of their property, injury and death, is clearly not of good moral character.
itc said:No, your conclusion on my logic is wrong. We are talking about TODAYS standard of good moral character when offering citizenship. At the times of the slave owners, murders of native indians those actions did not defined lack of good moral character, so accordingly a slave owner and killer of Indians would be awarded citizenship had he met at that times standards for good moral character which I do not know what they were but obviousely they were different from todays.
But that was than. Todays definition of good moral character from what I am able to read on the board does not include DUI! While AT THE SAME TIME, not at the time of slave owners we have a president that was fined for DUI. I am not sure if you are getting the difference here?
So at the same time there are double standards. It is ok with DUI to become a president of US but not the citizen. We are talking here about application of the same standards at the same time and great injustice done as it is always the case when double standards are applied.
My argument was just that , can law not be used to refute denials on the basis of DUI? Should not be enough to show (as there is as you say lack of definition what good moral character is) examples of DUI and anihilate USCIS decision on denial on the basis of DUI? And let me just say that I was never caught DUI/DWI so I do not have this problem.
All the best to you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.