Targaff

Hi there,

I'm sure - no, I *know* - you're all aware of the tediously lengthy processes of
these kinds of visas, and how irritating they can be at times. I have a question
about something on the I485 (AoS) that bothers me, however: you are asked, and given
the option of a "yes/no" answer, whether you have ever committed an act against the
law that you haven't been arrested for"; could someone please advise as to the best
way to approach this? For one, whilst it's one thing to ask for a criminal record, to
my mind it's quite another to ask you to freely admit to things you may have done
which weren't legal (and of course this technically goes from copying a tape and
urinating publically whilst drunk all the way through to, well, anything you might
have gotten away with); if I say yes on this and then have to admit to something
which I know for a fact is causing people to be banned/deported from the US for life,
what will the likely repurcussions be? I know that it states that you won't be
"specifically excluded", but I hope you'll forgive me for my rather suspicious take
on that particular comment...

In summary, I believe this may be the case; if I have no criminal record as a result,
what possible incentive might there be for my answering yes to this question, beyond
being utterly honest - and thereby risking the situation?

--

Targaff is probably worrying too much ;p

Rete

Personally, if I had shopped lifted something and not been caught, I would be stupid to answer yes to that question. So I would, of course, answer no.

R

Andy Platt

This is like the question on immigration forms that asks you if you are a terrorist.
It is designed to keep stupid people out of the country.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination. "Targaff"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Xns924BCB6D0C206targaffnomailba...195.92.195.157...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I'm sure - no, I *know* - you're all aware of the tediously lengthy processes of
    > these kinds of visas, and how irritating they can be at times. I have a question
    > about something on the I485 (AoS) that bothers me, however: you are asked, and
    > given the option of a "yes/no" answer, whether you have ever committed an act
    > against the law that you haven't been arrested for"; could someone please advise as
    > to the best way to approach this? For one, whilst it's one thing to ask for a
    > criminal record, to my mind it's quite another to ask you to freely admit to things
    > you may have done which weren't legal (and of course this technically goes from
    > copying a tape and urinating publically whilst drunk all the way through to, well,
    > anything you might have gotten away with); if I say yes on this and then have to
    > admit to something which I know for a fact is causing people to be banned/deported
    > from the US for life, what will the likely repurcussions be? I know that it states
    > that you won't be "specifically excluded", but I hope you'll forgive me for my
    > rather suspicious take on that particular comment...
    >
    > In summary, I believe this may be the case; if I have no criminal record as a
    > result, what possible incentive might there be for my answering yes to this
    > question, beyond being utterly honest - and thereby risking the situation?
    >
    > --
    >
    > Targaff is probably worrying too much ;p

L D Jones

Andy Platt wrote:
    >
    > This is like the question on immigration forms that asks you if you are a
    > terrorist. It is designed to keep stupid people out of the country.

This must be the idea behind the first question on the NC driver's exam:
"What is 2+2?"

My guess is that if this question is answered incorrectly the (automated) test ends
immediately and the person is shown the door

Andy Platt

"Targaff" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The same applies - if I say no in answer to that question and it then becomes
    > apparent (by whatever means) that this isn't entirely the case, then I have no
    > argument and they will brook none when it comes to acting accordingly.

Yes of course and it has happened - most famously with the de-naturalization of some
people who were later found to have been ranking members of the Nazis during WWII.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

gaude

I was thinking about the very same issue when I filled out the forms. I thought, God, Someone would be stupid to answer these questions in a detrimental way. As people point out in this board, true, it may serve as a stupidity filter. But... I also think this may be INS's way to cover itself for the future. A perjury charge is a serious one. So, if one does not admit to his crimes in the application and does get approved now, but INS somehow finds out about the crime later, they have you on a perjury charge which may have a more serious repercussion than the crime itself. I am not a lawyer, I am simply trying to put myself in the shoes of the test writers....

just my 2 cents..

-- Gaude

Johnson Pervis

If you weren't caught, only God (if you believe) knows and you. Keep your darn mouth
shut and no one will find out.

--
Johnson "Targaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Xns924CECF518B56targaffnomailba...195.92.193.157...
    > "Andy Platt" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > This is like the question on immigration forms that asks you if you are a
    > > terrorist. It is designed to keep stupid people out of the country.
    >
    > That was generally my take on it when I came across it (actually I haven't come
    > across it personally, it was pointed out by my fiancée who had seen it); however,
    > it also has the same sort of stigma attached to it as those questions, namely that
    > whilst they are ostensibly simply questions to catch the stupid people out, in
    > reality if you answer them falsely and then are found out to be lying then it gives
    > them an immediate leeway to void any right you have to be in the country in the
    > first place. Say, for example that you lie about the above question regarding being
    > a terrorist (not that it seems to actually be a real issue, given the accord a
    > certain IRA representative was given - and they're not terrorists, are they?) and
    > they then find out that you are; clearly they are then in a position to basically
    > treat you as they want.
    >
    > The same applies - if I say no in answer to that question and it then becomes
    > apparent (by whatever means) that this isn't entirely the case, then I have no
    > argument and they will brook none when it comes to acting accordingly.
    >
    > Incidentally, my paranoia levels are currently screaming at me that the best course
    > of action would clearly have been to not post anything of this sort in any sort of
    > public forum whatsoever Hohum.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Targaff