Criminal Justice

Can You Lose Your Citizenship by Lying About Your Weight?

The federal government says yes, but the Supreme Court seems skeptical.

|

SCOTUS

If you want to become a citizen of the United States, you have to answer a lot of questions, some of which are very broad and many of which seek potentially embarrassing information. In a case the Supreme Court heard yesterday, the U.S. government takes the position that a false answer to any of those questions, no matter how trivial or irrelevant the subject, is enough to strip you of your citizenship years after you were naturalized. That argument encountered a lot of resistance from the Court and prompted a startling confession from Chief Justice John Roberts.

"Some time ago," Roberts told Assistant to the Solicitor General Robert Parker, "outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone….I was not arrested." Had Roberts done that as a green-card holder seeking citizenship, he would have been obligated to check the "yes" box next to Question 22 in Part 12 of his application for naturalization: "Have you EVER committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?" According to the government, checking the "no" box could have life-altering consequences. "You say that if I answer that question no," Roberts said, "20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, 'Guess what, you're not an American citizen after all.'" Parker confirmed that was indeed what he was saying. "Oh, come on," the chief justice replied.

At the center of the case, Maslenjak v. United States, is the meaning of 18 USC 1425, which makes it a felony to "procure" citizenship "contrary to law." In addition to a prison term of up to 25 years, a conviction under that statute triggers automatic loss of citizenship. Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb from Bosnia who became a citizen in 2007, was convicted of violating 18 USC 1425 because she lied about her husband's military service while seeking refugee status in 1998 and did not acknowledge the lie when she applied for citizenship. It is a matter of dispute whether that lie, which violated another law making it a crime for a naturalization applicant to knowingly make a false statement under oath, actually helped Maslenjak become a citizen. But during her trial the prosecution argued that it did not matter. The judge agreed, telling jurors they could convict Maslenjak of illegally procuring citizenship "even if you find that a false statement did not influence the decision to approve the defendant's naturalization."

Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit approved that interpretation of the law, parting company with four other federal appeals courts. Yesterday Parker urged the Supreme Court to uphold the 6th Circuit's decision. "What Congress was concerned here with is not what people lied about," he said. "Rather, it was the fact that they lied." Several justices seemed skeptical. "How can an immaterial statement procure naturalization?" asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Elena Kagan said it "seems quite natural" to require some causal connection between the false statement and obtaining citizenship. Samuel Alito suggested it was rather odd to say that someone "procured X contrary to law, but the thing that she did had no potential to help her get that thing."

Several justices also were dismayed by the sweeping implications of the government's position. Stephen Breyer said it is "rather surprising that the government of the United States thinks that Congress is interpreting this statute and wanted it interpreted in a way that would throw into doubt the citizenship of vast percentages of all naturalized citizens." Noting that the questions posed to would-be citizens "are unbelievably broad," Breyer added his own hypothetical to Roberts' speeding example: "I walked into the immigration hearing with a pocketknife in a government building, a Boy Scout knife I carry on my key chain….No one ever saw it. It was there the whole time, and then I walked out."

That offense likewise would require a "yes" to Question 22, and a "no" would be grounds for denaturalization. So would the failure to submit a complete list of current and past "nicknames," no matter how unflattering, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted. Not to be outdone, Parker offered his own example: "You could, you know, lie about your weight, let's say. You're embarrassed that you weigh 170 pounds, and so you claim that you weigh 150." That lie also could cost you your citizenship, according to the government's reading of the law. Congress "has specifically provided that it is a crime to lie under oath in the naturalization process, even about an immaterial matter," Parker said, "and it has provided that certain of those immaterial lies are categorical bars to naturalization."

In light of that interpretation, ponder the minefield that is Part 12, Question 9: "Have you EVER been a member of, involved in, or in any way associated with, any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group in the United States or in any other location in the world?" The form then asks for the name and purpose of any such groups, along with the applicant's membership dates and "any evidence to support your answers." As the Immigrant Defense Project notes in a brief opposing the government's position, there are innocent reasons why an applicant might fail to answer that question completely and accurately:

The scope of the question is breathtaking; it contains three catch-all clause ("in any way associated with," "or similar group," and "in any other location in the world"), and asks for information spanning the applicant's entire life. No definition of the means of participation (member, involvement, organization) or the associations themselves (organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group) are included, making the potential list near infinite. It is not clear whether the question seeks information about charitable donations, grade school clubs, intramural sports teams, tenant associations, and other seemingly trivial involvement or groups.

If an applicant were to omit associations under the assumption that they were too trivial, irrelevant, fleeting, or minor to rise to the significance of the application, the applicant's liberty and citizenship would be threatened by the immense prosecutorial power the government seeks. Similarly, if an applicant were to leave out information about participation in a group committed to the peaceful advancement of certain populations or viewpoints considered deeply controversial (reproductive freedoms, LGBTQ rights, etc.), the omissions could be reached by the government's claimed prosecutorial power.

During oral argument, Roberts emphasized the threat posed by that power. "It is certainly a problem of prosecutorial abuse," he said. "If you take the position that…not answering about the speeding ticket or the nickname is enough to subject that person to denaturalization, the government will have the opportunity to denaturalize anyone they want, because everybody is going to have a situation where they didn't put in something like that—or at least most people….That to me is troublesome to give that extraordinary power—which, essentially, is unlimited power, at least in most cases—to the government."

NEXT: The Ann Coulter Debacle Has Turned Berkeley into an Unsafe Space

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I didn’t even know denaturalization was a thing. I disagree with it. A citizen is a citizen, no matter how it came to be. It’s a dangerous, slippery slope which we’re sure to stay on, since it ultimately gives government bureaucracy further power to fuck with people.

    Comments by justices do give me an idea, though. Why not have a medical examination as part of the naturalization process? A clear, concise and scientific measurement of fitness to be a US citizen, the BMI could be an invaluable tool to engineering a society that America demands.

    1. That already exists as part of the green card process. You have to be examined by a doctor. People with tuberculosis are excluded, among others. There was a controversy some years ago about keeping out people with HIV.
      It’s probably not used very often right now, but it’s there and it *could be* used to deny someone residency.

      1. People who have HIV should be kept out. The Federal government alone is spending 34 billion this year on it. This does not count what the States, local taxpayers pay out, nor the insurance policy holders since existing conditions cannot be excluded

        http://kff.org/global-health-p…..over-time/

        1. Also, the HIV Travel Ban wasn’t exactly denaturalization (nor was it exactly about HIV).

          1. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

            Read more here,,.,,.,.,.,.>>>> http://www.foxnews20.com

          2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do,.,.,.,.,.. http://www.careerstoday100.com

          3. xdfnfgm

            1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do..,.,.,.,.,.. http://www.careerstoday100.com

          4. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do..,.,.,.,.,.,. http://www.careerstoday100.com

        2. But, you know, let’s not let trifles like the letter of the law get in the way of blind libertine optimism regarding an individual’s right to immigrate.

        3. Well this is always the problem, right? Once you socialize costs of something, that fact becomes a justification for restricting all sorts of people’s rights, and not just immigrants. See soda taxes and smoking and trans fats.

          1. What right? There is no right to move from one property to another. A property owner may give permission but there is no right.

            1. Are you saying that it is not a fundamental right to travel to any piece of property you desire where you have the permission of the owner to do so? That that is a revokable privilege, and that you must stay rooted in place against your will unless you obtain permission from the government?

              1. If you view freedom of movement as a natural right, why does the permission of the property owner matter? Do you need anyone’s permission to exercise any of your natural rights?

                I already know the answer, I’m only asking you because it seems to be something that many Libertarians ignore. It’s like a blind spot that makes some of us go full retard when talking about natural rights and their conflicts.

                1. Obviously it’s not an absolute right. No rights are when they come into conflict with other rights. Obviously, I don’t have the right to just walk into your house or curtilage (sp?). My right to speak doesn’t mean that you can’t kick me out of your house if I start insulting you. Libertarian philosophy is all about balancing conflicting rights.
                  The right or lack thereof to cross open land that is private property is a bit less clear. I think there is a common law presumption that people can go onto unmarked private property without permission as long as they don’t do any damage. I think that’s a good thing, but I could see some reasonable disagreement on the subject. But it seems absurd to say that one must have explicit permission to be on any property that one does not personally own.

              2. Are you arguing for unrestricted immigration based on absolute freedom of movement while recognizing that no such unrestricted right exists? The caveat ‘with the owners permission’ should give you pause when making such an argument, yes?

                1. I’m not arguing for anything, just musing about the nature of certain rights and how they interact.

                  When it comes to immigration, I reject the property rights argument against it because the country is not the collective property of the citizens. My property rights give me the right to have anyone on my property that I want just as much as yours give you the right to keep anyone off that you want. And I think that at the very least, anyone with a job or someone willing to give them a place to be should be allowed into the country, maybe subject to some checks for criminality or disease. I just don’t think there are any principled libertarian arguments against pretty open immigration. There are pragmatic arguments that I can understand libertarians accepting. But not principled ones.

            2. It amuses me how nativists seem oblivious to the implications are referring to the citizenry as a group as the collective owners of the country.

              1. It amuses me how nativists seem oblivious to the implications are referring to the citizenry as a group as the collective owners of the country.

                Bingo.

                In order to get to the idea that other people have the right to restrict who you may hire or invite into your home, you have to posit all sorts of other collectivist ideas which effectively give away the game on all other economic liberties.

                If they can decide who I may hire, they can decide who I can fire.
                If they can decide who I can invite into my home, they can decide who I may not disinvite.

                Anyone who cares about freedom of association rights ought to think carefully about this.

            3. I think that’s too simplistic. And mostly irrelevant as long as public rights of way are a thing.

              If a person is on a piece of property and all of the owners of abutting properties decide that the person is no longer welcome on their property, the other property owners can effectively imprison him according to your reasoning. It’s an unlikely situation, but is something that could conceivably happen.

              I don’t have an easy answer, but it seems like there must be some kind of right to get from one place where you are allowed to be to another.

              1. ( Sorry about the double post saying pretty much the exact same thing, I blame the Reason website >.< )

              2. If a person is on a piece of property and all of the owners of abutting properties decide that the person is no longer welcome on their property, the other property owners can effectively imprison him according to your reasoning. It’s an unlikely situation, but is something that could conceivably happen.

                What you’re effectively describing is the tort(s) of trespass to chattels or conversion.

                1. OK. I’m not up on all this lawyery shit.

                  So, would that mean that you do have a right to cross the property of others to get to somewhere you are legally entitled to be? And could I extend that to my man from Guatemala who I want to come and work on my property? If the use I want to get from my land is to get Juan from Guatemala to live there are the people restricting immigration not committing a tort against me?

            4. This land ownership absolutism is absolutely insane. There is absolutely a NATURAL right of humans to migrate. They did it long before govts came along granting people monopolies over land.

              The natural right to migrate may well conflict with the natural right to claim monopoly ownership. But in nature that is resolved via personal conflict – so one can NEVER effectively claim more than they can personally defend. And all the other rights that go along with a govt grant – coercing others into defending that property, coercing others into acknowledging the monopoly claim, allowing it to transfer to a chosen someone upon death, etc – are NOT natural rights at all.

              The entire point of natural rights/law is to resolve conflicts that arise from those natural rights as fairly/reasonably as possible. Not to run roughshod over one persons natural rights at the expense of everyone else’s and call that ‘libertarian’.

              1. The Gulf states (Persian Gulf, not Gulf of Mexico) have immigration policy right. As a private citizen (or company), you can sponsor anyone from anywhere in the world to come work for you or stay with you, but you are responsible for them. If your cousin Abdullah from Yemen rapes a goat, you are also liable. This kind of privatizes the immigration question (but also places incentives so the people who come in are better).

                1. Vetted, not better. Autocorrect ugh. (Better also works in this context, on a second reading)

        4. So what you’re saying is that the government should spend less money on a treatable illness with a low transmission rate. It’s a shame that the only possible way to do that is by denying entry to emigrants, but oh well I guess.

          1. The government should not spend other peoples money.

            1. This. The government shouldn’t be involved in the business of treating illnesses. Of any sort.

          2. It’s a shame that the only possible way to do that is by denying entry to emigrants, but oh well I guess.

            Everybody already gave up on any chance of spending less on free shit so we should give up on not giving it to more people too!

            Principals over principles… and when I say principals, I mean anyone, anywhere in the world, whether I actually know anything about them or not.

        5. I think a more reasonable reason to keep people with HIV out is because we already have enough of it here in the United States, wouldn’t you agree?

          Socialized costs or not, bringing people in with deadly infectious diseases is probably a really hard sell. We’re not under any particular obligation to let someone in at all, let alone someone who has HIV. We could also let someone in who doesn’t have a deadly infectious disease, there are a lot of people in line and they’re not all getting in. Why choose someone who is going to definitely die from their disease without extremely costly treatments?

          Even Libertarians don’t really believe in absolute free movement unless they also believe I have a right to cross their property lines. Tell me, is that what you believe? Private Property rights violate the right to Freedom of Movement. (And in situations like that, surprise surprise, it’s an area where legislation needs to happen. Duh. That’s the remedy for conflicting natural rights.)

          1. People don’t “definitely die” from HIV if they are adequately treated. I have a client currently who was first diagnosed in 1993, and he is doing great on meds. The virus is undetectable in his blood, and his immune system is functioning at a normal level.

      2. It existed when I got a green card in 1976. The actual exam was essentially pro forma (although it did include taking off all my clothes) and it was conducted by some doctor in downtown Honolulu (where I was living at the time) whom I wouldn’t have trusted to take my temperature, let alone my blood pressure. I never saw him again, fortunately–he creeped me out.

        I assume it was some kind of cushy government gig that paid well and didn’t require any actual medical expertise. Unlike any other job of that sort….

        1. Yeah, I got mine done at a Concentra Urgent Care. It’s totally the kind of bullshit you do at an annual checkup. Here let me hit your knees with a hammer to check your reflexes. Let’s check your spine to make sure you don’t have scoliosis. Are you breathing right? Is your blood pressure normal? OK, you’re good to go.

    2. It violates the eternal salvation doctrine central to most protestant faiths. Sin is washed away once, and one does not need to be continually called to the altar.

      It’s an apt parallel. Salvation is not a process it is an indelible attribute. Citizenship is not a process, it is an indelible attribute. It does not matter how one become a citizen, once a citizen always a citizen. Even denouncing ones citizenship is rather onerous legal process. The idea that citizenship is only temporary is anathema to our system.

      There is only one kind of citizenship. If those that are naturalized can have their citizenship stripped from them, then what protects those of us who are born here?

      1. There is only one kind of citizenship.

        Explain that to the aggrieved groups under whatever iteration of the CRA you choose, wouldja?

      2. I like this example, actually. I think it’s rather fitting, and I entirely agree with it.

    3. I think I agree wit this. Once you are a citizen, you are a citizen. The only exception I could maybe accept would be if someone were fraudulent to the point of misrepresenting their identity. But even then, I’d want to see some evidence that it was malicious or likely to cause real harm. And I imagine that would be hard to get away with.

  2. So would the failure to submit a complete list of current and past “nicknames,” no matter how unflattering, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted.

    That could take a long time.

    1. yes, I answer to “Stinky”…to my everlasting shame…

  3. The past military service might be a problem since he’s a Bosnian Serb, it’s possible he was involved in the Bosnian ethnic cleansing, rape camps and stuff like that. People who have been members of terrorist organizations or paramilitary groups can be denied citizenship. I would think it fairly likely that if her husband was involved in ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that they would be denied citizenship, and lying about it makes it seem likely that he was.

    1. You can read the brief – he was in fact a member of a military unit that was engaged in the slaughter. Nevertheless, the explicit argument that the DoJ is making is that whether or not the lie is material is immaterial. They didn’t move to denaturalize the couple because of what they lied about, simply the fact that they lied is enough.

      Of course, it’s a crime to lie to a federal official so next time you’re being interrogated by the FBI and claim you couldn’t possibly have robbed that bank because you were at the IHOP at the time having blueberry pancakes and sausage links you’d better pray to God they don’t find the receipt that shows you were having blueberry pancakes and sausage patties or your ass is grass.

      1. I posit that if your innocents/guilt rests solely on an IHOP receipt your ass wasn’t far from being grass to begin with.

      2. Yes, that part is stupid. They ought to be able to argue that the lie is material and that he would have been denied citizenship if it had been known that he was involved in ethnic cleansing.

    2. The past military service might be a problem since he’s a Bosnian Serb, it’s possible he was involved in the Bosnian ethnic cleansing, rape camps and stuff like that.

      I was thinking the same thing. Seems like her omission of that fact might have actually had a material effect on the decision to grant her citizenship.

      Although I do agree with the overall point: that lying about immaterial things like your weight shouldn’t cause a naturalized citizen to lose their citizenship.

      1. Oh, and as a follow up to this, in cases like this let their citizenship stand anyway. Y’know, then try them for war crimes against humanity.

    3. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It seems to me that the lie was actually about something pretty material. Admittedly, as Jerry points out, the claim that lying period is enough seems like bullshit. Whether or not the lie was material should absolutely be the consideration.

  4. The question that was not answered by the article was “did Gorsuch attack the plaintiff with a pointed stick?”. Chuck Schumer told me he’d be doing shit like that.

    1. At least it wasn’t a banana.

  5. “Have you EVER committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?”
    No person can ever honestly say “No” to this question.

    1. At least 3 a day.

      1. Does this one count?

        Also, I assume from the past tense that ‘EVER’ means ‘EVER in your life thus far’. That assumption might be a felony, I’m not sure.

      2. And that is just felonies.

      3. At least 3 a day.

        Three felonies a day. Include any offense, and you could rack up hundreds in a long day of driving.

    2. does pederasty count?

    3. Then get rid of the question.

      ‘Ol “it’s a tax” Roberts at it again. Legislating from the bench.

      If the court feels that the statute for this issue is too broad and vague or nobody can answer it without a lie being exposed years later then deem the statute unconstitutional and let Congress fix it.

      I would money that the SCOTUS opinion for this issue will never mention that there are TOO MANY and/or badly written laws on the books.

    4. If you include traffic offenses, every time I accelerate from a stop sign to above the speed limit would be a brand new offense, or going thru a stop sign at 5 MPH. Potentially hundreds of offenses in a single day of city driving.

  6. This sort of stuff would NEVER have happened under Obama! Hurr. Durr.

    1. Please refrain from lighting the PB signal.

  7. if an applicant were to leave out information about participation in a group committed to the peaceful advancement of certain populations or viewpoints considered deeply controversial (reproductive freedoms, LGBTQ rights, etc.), the omissions could be reached by the government’s claimed prosecutorial power.

    Yeah, this is a huge problem.
    Say, for instance you neglect to mention that you joined the Libertarian Party at one point.
    Some future administration could be like “Well those libertarians are Anarchists, terrorists, gun-toting militia types – we don’t want any of them!” And then basically cancel the citizenship of all libertarian immigrants who failed to mention their party membership on the citizenship application. There’s all sorts of reasons why a person might be hesitant to mention their involvement in any kind of political activism.

    1. Not just anarchists. The naturalization oath also declares that one will bear arms when ordered to. So you can’t be a pacifist either.

      1. Well, the immigration process takes so long you’re going to be too old for military service by the time you take the oath anyway. Bwahahaha.

      2. In that light, none of us can be pacifists. We could all, in theory, be drafted tomorrow. Except women, of course.

        1. Natural born citizens wouldn’t be breaking their oath, though, if they refuse to take up arms.

          I wonder, does that part of the oath mean that naturalized citizens can’t claim conscientious objector status?

          1. I think there’s something in the questionnaire (if not the oath) like “If you won’t take up arms, will you do work of national importance under government direction?”

            But my knowledge of such matters is from 1993.

    2. Some future administration could be like “Well those libertarians are Anarchists, terrorists, gun-toting militia types – we don’t want any of them!” And then basically cancel the citizenship of all libertarian immigrants who failed to mention their party membership on the citizenship application.

      Don’t give them ideas.

  8. Several justices also were dismayed by the sweeping implications of the government’s position.

    Last time I checked, the government’s position is whatever SCOTUS says it is. I don’t know why they would be “dismayed” rather than “amused” or “incredulous” or “pissed off”.

  9. Well, as a citizen, I am glad to know I can lie about my weight. I will sleep well tonight.

  10. “How can an immaterial statement procure naturalization?”

    So the entire case boils down to why these questions are asked in the first place. If any question can be answered falsely, and citizenship granted, then why do we ask questions?

    1. And how accurate do you have to be? 150 lbs? 151 lbs? 151.3 lbs? 151.34 lbs? etc.

      What is truth?

      1. Well, the actual case seemed to center around a question about a Serbian refugees military status. Without knowing the purpose of the question, it could be because they were trying to determine if people applying for refugee status had, you know, participated in ethnic cleansing.

        Speaking more broadly, this has been an issue on many fronts. I remember a story where some NGO aid organizations were coming to grips with that. They set up refugee camps, feed people give them help, services etc., but often times, they’d discover the soldiers and people responsible for the crisis standing in the food lines, getting aid, getting help.

        I don’t have any answers here, but I’m not super-convinced the question on her husband’s military service was immaterial.

        1. That question is itself immaterial to the government’s position. Their argument is that any lie, material or not, is sufficient grounds.

          1. I understand that, hence my first question. If we argue that lying on the questions shouldn’t disqualify one from naturalization, why are we asking questions?

            1. Yes. Questions like “Have you ever been a member of any club, group, or organization, anywhere, ever, for any reason?” should not even be on the application.
              There should be ONLY relevant questions. If the government actually did rescind someone’s naturalization based on an immaterial question, I would probably challenge the question being on the application itself.

              You could have instances where someone lies about their religious faith because they are afraid that if they admit being a Muslim (or a Jew, or a wiccan or whatever), they will be denied citizenship. But if we want to say that the government may not establish a religion, then that question should be banned. All sorts of questions should be banned.

              Frankly, the parts about not being a communist should be banned. I hate communists, but it shouldn’t be illegal for communist to immigrate unless they ALSO advocate the violent overthrow of the government, and that question is already on the list.

            2. Um, the artificial ‘we’ asking the questions is not the same as the artificial ‘we’ making the immateriality argument here.

  11. “Have you EVER committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?”

    Pretty much everyone would have to answer yes to that question because “3 felonies a day.” When the list of petty offenses that are considered crimes is a couple of miles long, it’s pretty God-damned guaranteed that everyone has done something.

    During oral argument, Roberts emphasized the threat posed by that power. “It is certainly a problem of prosecutorial abuse,” he said. “If you take the position that…not answering about the speeding ticket or the nickname is enough to subject that person to denaturalization, the government will have the opportunity to denaturalize anyone they want, because everybody is going to have a situation where they didn’t put in something like that?or at least most people….That to me is troublesome to give that extraordinary power?which, essentially, is unlimited power, at least in most cases?to the government.”

    The simple fact that this is coming from the same guy who concluded that the government has the power to compel people to buy things is a pretty good indication of just how bad the government’s interpretation of the law is.

    1. “Have you EVER committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?”

      Does the question state under the laws of what country and at what point in time? What if you refused to bake a wedding cake back in the eighties? Or in Saudi Arabia? Do you have to declare that?

      1. Does the question state under the laws of what country and at what point in time?

        Assuming what’s quoted here is the full wording of the question, it doesn’t seem like it specifies. So yeah, I’d say if you broke a law in your home country that you weren’t arrested for you’d still have to answer yes.

        So, say, an Iranian immigrant who left Iran because he was a closeted homosexual and answered “no” to that question could be de-naturalized. And then possibly deported back to Iran to be stoned to death.

    2. No, he concluded that the gov’t does not have the power to compel people to buy things, but only to tax them for not buying them.

  12. Isn’t this how they nailed that Palestinian woman? I don’t know the whole story, but I heard she was tortured into confessing to be a terrorist by the IDF (or some other arm of the Israeli govt). So she answered No to “have you ever been convicted of terrorism?” That was all it took to revoke her citizenship and ship back to Palestine. Her defense was stupid in that it said she had PTSD and blocked out the memories of being convicted when she should have said she was coerced into confessing, but I wonder if the above case will have any bearing on this one.

    1. Evidently she has a guilty mind.

  13. Can You Lose Your Citizenship by Lying About Your Weight?

    I know a lot of people on dating sites who better hope not.

  14. which makes it a felony to “procure” citizenship “contrary to law.”

    There must be more to it, but this phrase does not indicate citizenship can be taken away once granted. You can’t revoke someone’s citizenship if they commit a felony, can you?

  15. Can You Lose Your Citizenship by Lying About Your Weight?… The federal government says yes

    So much for “But we have NOTHING against legal immigrants! Honest!”

    Trumpistas, hypocrites.

  16. Sometimes I just love libertarians…………..I’m a liberal…….sue me.

    1. One could imagine a parody of Phil Ochs: “Sue me, sue me, sue me, I’m a liberal.”

  17. til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law wiz like they say actually earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently clears the adepts on there mini mansion and blurt a great Aston Martin DBL . go to this website….
    ___________________________ https://www.paybuzz7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.