Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

False Claim to US Citizenship

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • False Claim to US Citizenship

    Does anyone know if there would be a change in the law that would allow a waiver of this ground of inadmissibility?

  • #2
    I doubt it.

    None proposed

    Comment


    • #3
      I think American Families United had this on their agenda - to authorize waivers for certain family members.

      This non-waiveable ground of inadmissibility has been in existence only since 1996.. and has only been amended once in 2000.

      Comment


      • #4
        Assuming that great number of illegal aliens obtain a job (a benefit) through false claim of Citizenship (on top of using false SS card), it's reasonable to expect that any major immigration reform in future may include waiver of this ground of inadmissibility (though it's not guaranteed as Sen. Cornyn, along with coalition of likeminded Senators, is strongly opposed to granting such waivers and it's difficult, if not impossible, to argue on merits against such position).

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for the response. There is a difference between being a US National and a US Citizen.

          Claim to US Nationality is waiveable as a Fraud/Misrepresentation, right?

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't know.
            To find out the accurate answer you would either need to 'google' it (and spend some time reading case-law on top of actual INA statutes if laws/regulations are too vague as applied to one's individual case), or simply consult an immigration attorney.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yes, there's at least one bill that has been introduced that provides such a waiver.

              Case law on this is very limited, mostly dealing with the distinction between national and citizen but there's been some arguments related to the need for a waiver. In the 9th circuit for instance, some have agreed that a waiver would be "proper" and would reconcile INA provisions dealing with frauds and misrepresentations. The need for the waiver is recognized and noted by many courts, it's not a difficult argument specially is you have a reliable verification system.

              IE is right when he notes that Sen. Cornyn will continue to oppose such waivers, and any other mechanism for relief for that matter. That's true, but I don't see it as an impossibility.

              Comment


              • #8
                9th Circuit (in certain circles) is generally viewed as rebellious Court, one that rules in defiance of Federally accepted and established tendencies and it's rulings are also among the most overturned by Supreme Court.

                Thus arguments in favor of certain waivers supported by the Judges of 9th circuit will hardly (if ever) persuade the lawmakers (who are strongly opposed to it) to change their point of view.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The same argument was recognized by the 8th circuit, the 10th circuit and the 1st circuit. While they all recognized that a waiver would be "proper", they also upheld the validity of the statute on constitutional "equal protection" grounds.

                  The 9th circuit however has been the "loudest" on these matters.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree with you on the position of Sen. Cornyn, but I cannot agree with you when you say that the merits argument for a waiver is "difficult", it is not. Many courts have agreed that a waiver would be "proper" but they cannot alter the law, instead, they've decided that "the absence of a waiver is not a violation of the Constitution", nothing more and nothing less.

                    By the way, you never described how you felt about the "Grand Bargain", perhaps you should start a thread on that subject.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Assuming that great number of illegal aliens obtain a job (a benefit) through false claim of Citizenship (on top of using false SS card), it's reasonable to expect that any major immigration reform in future may include waiver of this ground of inadmissibility (though it's not guaranteed as Sen. Cornyn, along with coalition of likeminded Senators, is strongly opposed to granting such waivers and it's difficult, if not impossible, to argue on merits against such position).

                      Breaking Down:

                      1. ..it's reasonable to expect that any major immigration reform in future may include waiver of this ground of inadmissibility

                      2. [however] it's not guaranteed [to pass]


                      3. Reason underlying statement #2: Sen. Cornyn, along with coalition of likeminded Senators, is strongly opposed to granting such waivers

                      4. ..it's difficult, if not impossible, to argue on merits against such position [Referring to position held by lawmakers opposed to such waivers. It would ultimately have to be argued in Congress, and it's difficult ,if not impossible, to win this argument against Sen. Cornyn and his supporters, since for every argument you may have in favor they can produce at least three against, and their arguments will not be less justified than yours].

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        By the way, you never described how you felt about the "Grand Bargain", perhaps you should start a thread on that subject.
                        There are two threads where I did express my opinion on S1639.

                        One is under 65-34 For Amnesty !!!, another comment I left under Amnesty bill is dead.

                        Not really interested in further discussion of currently moot legislation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thanks for the links IE...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You are welcome Houston..

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am a new member and I can tell some of you guys are smart. Here is the question- came in as a k-1, married, he filed for annullment, without me knowing, i did not fight it as he was a ****, ABUSING. we were married for 5 months. The judge granted the annullment as he did not want a divorce, so he got what he wanted. I am stuck- no papers as we did not go to the interview... however we did file for change of status and all that, just did not go to the interview, so it got denied- I got a letter. First question- can my bother who is legal apply for i-130 for me or will that make INS interested. Second question- will INS be interested anyways as the app was denied - that was two years ago. I know that there is a ban, etc, etc but I cannnot go back as I really was coming here to be married little did I know that he was going to tell me when to eat and sleep - it was horrible so we fought all the time. Now- I am in hiding and I wonder if one day I will get a letter telling me to appear. What does a woman do when she comes here to be married and he says- I will place you on my accounts, bills, etc- when you will earn it and then when I did not I guess, he decided that he did not want to be married as I was not obedient enough- so he filed for annullment so his family would never know- he did not tell his family about me. They still do not know that we were married. Sorry for the long story, so for the people who talk about bad brides, there are some terrible husbands who use the foreigners too. I am kind of glad that I am not with him anymore.please let me know your thoughts... Thanks a lot.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X