Poppy girl

I just posted this link in reply to another thread and decided that it might interest and educate a few of you that might of ever have wondered about this topic

I picked it up in my local newspaper this week.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/147473.html

meauxna

Isn't that sad.. I have a friend here who had a similar problem. She gets to simply wait 5 years and reapply instead of losing her job too.

Poppy girl

Yes it is sad personally I think they should be consentrating on the illegals.

fatbrit

Perhaps we should be concentrating on the silly lies!

From:http://www.modbee.com/local/story/147473.html
At the national level, a major new project at the U.S. Department of Justice, the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative (BAVII) has resulted in only a handful of convictions. According to the Attorney General, since the inception of the program in 2002, “we’ve made enforcement of election fraud and corruption offenses a top priority.” The result? Government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.
Source: http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/Pro...raud_Final.pdf


So after throwing a lot of resources at it ("a top priority"), the feds manage to find 14 people who've actually committed the offense! Pathetic! Could it be that this actually isn't a serious problem?

HunterGreen

From the article:

Beth Keathley was so close to becoming a permanent U.S. resident that she already could feel its benefits showering over her: a Social Security number, a cheery new house, an official state identification card.

Well hot dang. I'm sueing the USCIS. I didn't get a cheery new house as a PR benefit, while I guess I should have!

By the way, I think this is ridiculous. Sure it's not allowed. But duh. Big criminal she is.

Thydney

But did her air bags deploy?

Poppy girl

Why do I get the feeling I am being followed lmao

Thydney

With a bucket and shovel

Folinskyinla

Hi:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1F5E1DEA0281793E88256FB80059E7FE/$file/0371986.pdf?openelement

BTW, there is an argument around this. In one recent unpublished case from New York, the BIA disagreed with McDonald -- but the language of the decision indicates they don't understand the case.

crg

She made a documented false claim to US citizenship for a benefit. She's screwed.

I highly doubt it was accidental. Lately, they've clamped down on who gets a driver's license. She may not have qualified for the driver's license with the identification she had unless she claimed to be a US citizen.

Also, why is she still on a "marriage visa" for 4 years and not have a green card.

There must be a lot more to this story.

"I am a US citizen" Check YES or NO is not confusing, especially when the person is paying money and completing forms to get a green card. We're getting half a story.

fatbrit

You've covered the actus reus but you've missed the mens rea. Read Folicle's linked moment of glory.

fatbrit

Lot of people believe that if you marry a USC you automatically become one, too.

Poppy girl

And there a lot of folk that think when they marry an American its all done and dusted they can come and go as they please no AOS nada..
So many Americans that I have spoken to over the years cannot believe the paper work etc that has to be done to be legal they just assumed as you quoted fatbrit that marry and its all over done deal.

I wonder how many people actually leave the US on vacation etc with no idea and when they try and get back in are refused!!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

On the "marriage visa" thing -- newspaper reporters get the terminology wrong all the time. I read it as more likely that she has been on a green card since 2003 and went for naturalization.

This is very similar to the McDonald case of which I posted the link. Inasmuch as I am the attorney who litigated Ms. McDonald's case at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I happen to be quite interested in the issue. [BTW, I want to give credit to Bow Mun Chin, the attorney in Honolulu who litigated the case before the immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals. He gave me a perfect record upon which I could base my appeal. IMHO, he is the true warrior who laid the groundwork for the victory].

The newspaper article describes facts quite similar to Ms. McDonald's. Ms. McDonald was also registered in the "motor voter" application when she applied for a driver's license. Also, I have had clients with advanced degrees contact me inquiring abut the voter material they have received.

You would be surprised how often aliens get registered to vote. In all of these cases that I have seen, the client HAS shown the passport or green card in order to get a driver's license. I guess the DMV clerks don't check that part of the form!

BTW, the former INS charged Ms. McDonald with a violation of a particular Hawaii statute which was, by its very definition, a "specific intent" provision. The Court of Appeals went down the path of least resistance and issued a very narrow ruling. They did not address the broad issues which were briefed.

"Motor Voter" and the 1996 "IIRAIRA" legislation were passed within three years of each other. So there are two statutes -- one ENCOURAGES people to register to vote and makes it easy, the later punishes that conduct. This brings up a lot of tricky issues.

Also, the Immigration Judge in McDonald made an unopposed grant of voluntary departure -- which includes a Good Moral Character requirement. This was a situation where the SAME FACTS would lead to either naturalization or voluntary removal -- depending upon what forum you were in. Should an ICE enforcement person be allowed to essentially make the decision on a naturalization/removal case?

If ICE and the BIA go towards the argument that no specific mens rea is required, there will be years of of litigation.

Stay tuned.

crg

Regardless of the voting, this is a false claim to US Citizenship case first and foremost. No conviction is required for this ground.

The Hawaii case indicated that the person voted in the primary in 1996. The specific immigration law dealing with false claim to United States citizenship didn't have as many teeth to it, and had more avenues for getting relief before September 30, 1996.

The presidential primary in Hawaii was in February that year meaning that the false claim provision wasn't in force yet.

I still suspect that this person was not a green card holder. The article mentioned that she had lost her job due to this situation. Green card holders typically maintain permanent resident status and work authorization throughout the removal proceedings and appeals.

Since she lost her job, she may have claimed to be a US citizen or national on her Form I-9 Employment Verification document that she completed for the employer. That could case problems by itself.