Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
That some of us in the US seem arrogant to the other nations of the continent by claiming to be the only "Americans"?
I never cease to be amazed!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
These are the requirements to be a US citizen. Note the language requirements.
Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
Residency
An applicant must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means having been legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Individuals who have been lawfully admitted as permanent residents will be asked to produce an I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as proof of their status.
Residence and Physical Presence
An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:
has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with absences from the United States totaling no more than one year;
has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year break the continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period);
has resided within a state or district for at least three months.
Good Moral Character
Generally, an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period (typically five years or three years if married to a U.S. citizen or one year for Armed Forces expedite) prior to filing for naturalization. The Service is not limited to the statutory period in determining whether an applicant has established good moral character. An applicant is permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has ever been convicted of murder. An applicant is also permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act on or after November 29, 1990. A person also cannot be found to be a person of good moral character if during the last five years he or she:
has committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude
has committed and been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the total sentence imposed was 5 years or more
has committed and been convicted of any controlled substance law, except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana
has been confined to a penal institution during the statutory period, as a result of a conviction, for an aggregate period of 180 days or more
has committed and been convicted of two or more gambling offenses
is or has earned his or her principle income from illegal gambling
is or has been involved in prostitution or commercialized vice
is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States
is or has been a habitual drunkard
is practicing or has practiced polygamy
has willfully failed or refused to support dependents
has given false testimony, under oath, in order to receive a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
An applicant must disclose all relevant facts to the Service, including his or her entire criminal history, regardless of whether the criminal history disqualifies the applicant under the enumerated provisions.
Attachment to the Constitution
An applicant must show that he or she is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States.
Language
Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age;
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or
have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English.
United States Government and History Knowledge
An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who, on the date of filing, have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn U.S. History and Government.
Applicants who have been residing in the U.S. subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over the age of 65 will be afforded special consideration in satisfying this requirement.
Oath of Allegiance
To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;
renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title; and
bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required.
In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, USCIS will permit these applicants to take a modified oath.
Spouses of U.S. Citizens
Generally, certain lawful permanent residents married to a U.S. citizen may file for naturalization after residing continuously in the United States for three years if immediately preceding the filing of the application:
the applicant has been married to and living in a valid marital union with the same U.S. citizen spouse for all three years;
the U.S. spouse has been a citizen for all three years and meets all physical presence and residence requirements; and
the applicant meets all other naturalization requirements.
There are also exceptions for lawful permanent residents married to U.S. citizens stationed or employed abroad. Some lawful permanent residents may not have to comply with the residence or physical presence requirements when the U.S. citizen spouse is employed by one of the following:
the U.S. Government (including the U.S. Armed Forces);
American research institutes recognized by the Attorney General;
recognized U.S. religious organizations;
U.S. research institutions;
an American firm engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States; or
certain public international organizations involving the United States.
Veterans of U.S. Armed Forces
Certain applicants who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces are eligible to file for naturalization based on current or prior U.S. military service. Such applicants should file the N-400 Military Naturalization Packet.
Lawful Permanent Residents with Three Years U.S. Military Service
An applicant who has served for three years in the U.S. military and who is a lawful permanent resident is excused from any specific period of required residence, period of residence in any specific place, or physical presence within the United States if an application for naturalization is filed while the applicant is still serving or within six months of an honorable discharge.
To be eligible for these exemptions, an applicant must:
have served honorably or separated under honorable conditions;
completed three years or more of military service;
be a legal permanent resident at the time of his or her examination on the application; or
establish good moral character if service was discontinuous or not honorable.
Applicants who file for naturalization more than six months after termination of three years of service in the U.S. military may count any periods of honorable service as residence and physical presence in the United States.
An applicant who has served honorably during any of the following periods of conflict is entitled to certain considerations:
World War I - 4/16/17 to 11/11/18;
World War II - 9/1/39 to 12/31/46;
Korean Conflict - 6/25/50 to 7/1/55;
Vietnam Conflict - 2/28/61 to 10/15/78;
Operation Desert Shield/ Desert Storm - 8/29/90 to 4/11/91; or
any other period which the President, by Executive Order, has designated as a period in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or were engaged in military operations involving armed conflict with hostile foreign forces.
Applicants who have served during any of the aforementioned conflicts may apply for naturalization based on military service after qualifying service and the requirements for specific periods of physical presence in the United States and residence in the United States are waived.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Sure. And once 51% of the people of Texas are citizens and can vote, they can decide that the principal language of Texas will be Spanish. You still have to learn English to be a US citizen, but under our current structure taht could happen.
But that is sorta beside the point, because I don't think it will. Al, would you be comfortable with a voting majority in your state being citizens of Hispanic origin?
But that is sorta beside the point, because I don't think it will. Al, would you be comfortable with a voting majority in your state being citizens of Hispanic origin?
Not if they were US citizens and had gone through the same process as everyone else to become a US citizen.
Jim, I posted the requirements to become a citizen of The United States of America. Where are you going with this? Why is the USA required to have it's immigration standards changed from those of other countries in the world by some? Open borders, not anywhere else!
You were born to US citizens in a foreign country, that's fine with me.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Jim,
I really don't understand what you are getting at unless your efforts are to expose Al as a racist. It appears to me that you and Jeff have an agenda that is contrary to established US law. Note that I did not use American. That is what the Taliban refer to us as, those of us who reside and are citizens of the USA. Get on with your life and change the laws of the US if you are so inclined. As for me and AL and a lot of others here, we want the laws enforced as they are written. If a majority of the citizens of our fine country want to change the laws and they can get it passed and ratified, then I will abide by the new rules. That should be fair to the both of you.
The semantics of who is an American is so stupid that it does not deserve mention. Technically, we are USA'ers, but the common use of the language worldwide is that Americans are from the USA, the United States of America. I am sure that is where the acronym came from.
Jim, on a personal note, be glad that your parents were from the USA and that afforded you the right and freedoms enjoyed by them and yourself. I assume that since you own a GT40 you have done pretty well for yourself and my bet that is because you recieved a good education and the freedom to pursue your dreams. That freedom was won by sacrifice of, yes-here it comes- former immigrants that became US citizens or fought for the US in the military and earned the right and privilege to call the USA home. In other words, they earned the right. I am all for that method of obtaining citizenship as well. You should be glad of that too. You are an 'American' by birth right unless you want to declare yourself as a non-American and give up your citizenship, which is your right. The immigration laws may appear unfair to you guys, but they are the law. I don't care for the IRS, but that is the law, and as such we are obligated by duty and concience and law to honor these statutes. that is what we are asking for with regards the immigration issue.
Garry
I really don't understand what you are getting at unless your efforts are to expose Al as a racist. It appears to me that you and Jeff have an agenda that is contrary to established US law. Note that I did not use American. That is what the Taliban refer to us as, those of us who reside and are citizens of the USA. Get on with your life and change the laws of the US if you are so inclined. As for me and AL and a lot of others here, we want the laws enforced as they are written. If a majority of the citizens of our fine country want to change the laws and they can get it passed and ratified, then I will abide by the new rules. That should be fair to the both of you.
The semantics of who is an American is so stupid that it does not deserve mention. Technically, we are USA'ers, but the common use of the language worldwide is that Americans are from the USA, the United States of America. I am sure that is where the acronym came from.
Jim, on a personal note, be glad that your parents were from the USA and that afforded you the right and freedoms enjoyed by them and yourself. I assume that since you own a GT40 you have done pretty well for yourself and my bet that is because you recieved a good education and the freedom to pursue your dreams. That freedom was won by sacrifice of, yes-here it comes- former immigrants that became US citizens or fought for the US in the military and earned the right and privilege to call the USA home. In other words, they earned the right. I am all for that method of obtaining citizenship as well. You should be glad of that too. You are an 'American' by birth right unless you want to declare yourself as a non-American and give up your citizenship, which is your right. The immigration laws may appear unfair to you guys, but they are the law. I don't care for the IRS, but that is the law, and as such we are obligated by duty and concience and law to honor these statutes. that is what we are asking for with regards the immigration issue.
Garry
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Well, that is what we are debating here right? What the law is, and what it should be?
It seems foolish to me to spend the money we do on "border security" that will never work, when we could create incentives for legal work visa immigration and tax that money.
I admit I AM trying to get you guys to look long and hard at your motives for wanting laws prohibiting entry in the first place. In this arena anyway, simply saying "enforce the law" is a cop out.
Tell me why in the first place that law is a good idea?
I remain convinced that the basic reason for a lot of anti-immigration policy is that the "old guys" don't like the "new." We've seen it time and time again in the US with prejudice against Italian and Irish and Chinese and Polish and now Hispanic immigrants.
That is all.
It seems foolish to me to spend the money we do on "border security" that will never work, when we could create incentives for legal work visa immigration and tax that money.
I admit I AM trying to get you guys to look long and hard at your motives for wanting laws prohibiting entry in the first place. In this arena anyway, simply saying "enforce the law" is a cop out.
Tell me why in the first place that law is a good idea?
I remain convinced that the basic reason for a lot of anti-immigration policy is that the "old guys" don't like the "new." We've seen it time and time again in the US with prejudice against Italian and Irish and Chinese and Polish and now Hispanic immigrants.
That is all.
Right, Garry.....by those who became citizens legally. Many of us here have no problems with legal immigration, it is the illegal immigrants who seem to be so unwelcome to us--those same illegal immigrants who feel exempt from civic minded activities such as military service. Jim owes absolutely NO loyalty to those illegal immigrants who avoid sacrifice, other than to have left the depressing conditions in their home country and surreptitiously crawled into the country of whose beneficial and benevelont social programs they are currently taking advantage. Those illegal immigrants have no right to call the U.S.A. home, have not earned the right by becoming citizens....so, what are they--tourists?--wayfarers?--or are they criminals? I certainly refrain from calling them citizens!!
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
But that's the thing isn't it? Why MAKE them illegal? By all accounts, almost all of them would take advantage of the ability to legally enter the US to work if allowed.
So why not fix the problem that way?
So why not fix the problem that way?
Howard Jones
Supporter
Jeff what if I thought that you had bad breath and I decided to put my foot in it to stem the pollution? Would that be illegal? Or not?
This is kinda like that. It 's illegal because that's what the law says. I can't decide what comes out of your mouth and Mexicans or anybody else just can't just walk across the border and demand to be an American. What is it you can't understand about that, or are you just pulling everybody's finger. You don't seam all that dumb.
This is kinda like that. It 's illegal because that's what the law says. I can't decide what comes out of your mouth and Mexicans or anybody else just can't just walk across the border and demand to be an American. What is it you can't understand about that, or are you just pulling everybody's finger. You don't seam all that dumb.
Jeff, with all due respect, I must point out that the huge majority of those who are here illegally HAVE access to the legal process, they simply chose to circumvent it, probably out of impatience. In doing so, they have made themselves the illegals, we did not make them that way other than by having laws on the books that they violated. I would much prefer that every immigrant in the U.S.A. be here by legal methods. Not long ago CA offered "amnesty" to illegal immigrants and provided them a procedure to become citizens...I don't have any statistics at hand, but I would bet that a majority of them did take advantage of the opportunity. What a shame CA had to use that method rather than the immigrants having enough respect for the laws of the U.S.A. to enter legally the first time.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Actually, you are quite wrong. Legal immigration into the US is severely restricted. Most studies of illegal laborers in the US show they would sign up for work visas in a heartbeat if allowed. They don't like being here illegally pretty much as much as us -- it's a difficult existence. They do it solely because of the ability to make money, mostly to send home, untaxed.
And remember, the real reason we have the problem is because citizens continue to hire illegals. They don't come here for welfare (they can't get it). Sure, some do come here to birth anchor babies, but the numbers are small vis a vis the overall problem.
What's wrong with this picture?
There is so much disinformation and misinformation out there it is scary. The basics:
1. US immigration (legally) is severly restricted.
2. The labor market in the US is far better than in Mexico, putting intense MARKET pressure on cheap labor in Mexico to come to the US illegallly.
3. US employers hire illegals at low wage rates. This is what creates the problem.
4. Illegals come here, work, and send untaxed money home.
And yet our answer is to build more walls and hire more border guards? To protect a border that is not protectable?
That makes no sense. It's anti-free market, and it is anti-common sense.
And remember, the real reason we have the problem is because citizens continue to hire illegals. They don't come here for welfare (they can't get it). Sure, some do come here to birth anchor babies, but the numbers are small vis a vis the overall problem.
What's wrong with this picture?
There is so much disinformation and misinformation out there it is scary. The basics:
1. US immigration (legally) is severly restricted.
2. The labor market in the US is far better than in Mexico, putting intense MARKET pressure on cheap labor in Mexico to come to the US illegallly.
3. US employers hire illegals at low wage rates. This is what creates the problem.
4. Illegals come here, work, and send untaxed money home.
And yet our answer is to build more walls and hire more border guards? To protect a border that is not protectable?
That makes no sense. It's anti-free market, and it is anti-common sense.
Jeff, I could see what you are saying if every other country in the world just let people come and go as they pleased. When Mexico's President Calderon was asked what Mexico did when they caught people in Mexico illegally, he said "we ship them back where they came from". In actuality, they can jail them for 2 years for the 1st offense. Why should we allow people to break our laws? Try slipping into Russia, I bet they are nice and friendly. I am not a racist, I have plenty of Mexican friends here in Tucson. The majority of them support the immigration laws, they work hard and love this country. They are ashamed when someone displays the Mexican flag over the US flag. They are proud of their heritage, but are US citizens first. They served in our armed forces and anyone would be in a world of shit if the spoke badly of the US to them. That's what immigrants should be like.
We agree, Jeff...the reason most of the illegal immigrants ARE illegal is b/c of the severely restrictive nature of our immigration procedures....they made the choice to immigrate illegally rather than follow our country's legal procedures....as I said, impatience.
A huge part of the problem IS the willingness of U.S. employers to employ the illegal immigrants....who are willing to work for low wages. We probably need to regulate the small business owners to a greater degree in this regard....now, that will be a popular opinion in these here parts, won't it?
Sending the "untaxed" money back to Mexico is good for the U.S. in what manner? There is no reason we can't tax the income of the illegal immigrants, we just have to have the cooperation of those business owners who are looking for the cheap labor. Let the illegal immigrants contribute to the operation of this country that they have "chosen", just like the rest of us do.
When I mentioned "...benevelont social programs" I was not specifically referring to welfare. I worked in public education for 32 years in a position that required me to hold annual meetings with the parents of children with all sorts of educational handicaps. My experience was that the more severe the nature of the handicap, the more prevalent the presence of those who were here illegally. The U.S. education system offers a first-class opportunity for children with handicaps and we can't discriminate against a child based on the legal/illegal status of the parents, whereas the education system in Mexico has few opportunities for children with significant handicaps, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. Educating those children with severe handicaps is extremely expensive, believe me. Parents are "flooding" across the border to take advantage of our educational system, many of whom are not helping finance those services by working jobs that pay cash under the table and sending it to Mexico rather than spending it here in the U.S.
What's the answer......it seems to me that opening the border is not the answer, but how to "capture" the support of those who cross illegally is a quandry. Despite my personal opinions, my allegiances were always with those children who needed the services my committees could provide and I always worked on their behalf. It would have just be nice to see the parents who were here illegally feel some compulsion to help pay for those services as do all of our legal immigrants and natural citizens.
A huge part of the problem IS the willingness of U.S. employers to employ the illegal immigrants....who are willing to work for low wages. We probably need to regulate the small business owners to a greater degree in this regard....now, that will be a popular opinion in these here parts, won't it?
Sending the "untaxed" money back to Mexico is good for the U.S. in what manner? There is no reason we can't tax the income of the illegal immigrants, we just have to have the cooperation of those business owners who are looking for the cheap labor. Let the illegal immigrants contribute to the operation of this country that they have "chosen", just like the rest of us do.
When I mentioned "...benevelont social programs" I was not specifically referring to welfare. I worked in public education for 32 years in a position that required me to hold annual meetings with the parents of children with all sorts of educational handicaps. My experience was that the more severe the nature of the handicap, the more prevalent the presence of those who were here illegally. The U.S. education system offers a first-class opportunity for children with handicaps and we can't discriminate against a child based on the legal/illegal status of the parents, whereas the education system in Mexico has few opportunities for children with significant handicaps, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. Educating those children with severe handicaps is extremely expensive, believe me. Parents are "flooding" across the border to take advantage of our educational system, many of whom are not helping finance those services by working jobs that pay cash under the table and sending it to Mexico rather than spending it here in the U.S.
What's the answer......it seems to me that opening the border is not the answer, but how to "capture" the support of those who cross illegally is a quandry. Despite my personal opinions, my allegiances were always with those children who needed the services my committees could provide and I always worked on their behalf. It would have just be nice to see the parents who were here illegally feel some compulsion to help pay for those services as do all of our legal immigrants and natural citizens.
Last edited:
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
Typical liberal.
You are assuming that we are incapable of reaching a decision without your help? Who are you? Arrogant comes to mind.
The fact that some here simply do not want people flooding the borders, for whatever reason, is not good enough?
Let's take it to the extreme - what if the neighboring country was China with their massive population and they decided to simply "move in" - would that be OK with you?
(of course not wanting to be over-run by Chinese would be considered "racist", right?)
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
You miss my point (and assume things about personal politics you shouldn't).
Given the state of the border between the US and Mexico, we will never -- ever -- be able to stop most illegal immigration. Impossible.
So the question is what is our goal and how do we achieve it? If your goal is to keep all illegals out...well, unachievable so not a valid goal. We spend a ton of money and spin our wheels.
If we regulate and tax (and Doug, maybe I was not clear, but I see one of the biggest benefits of regulated entry for all IS that we can tax their income), that's a huge win. We stop wasting money on "border security" that doesn't work or generate any revenue, and instead focus on regulation that does.
On your China example, people don't just decide to "move in." That's a pretty naive and unsophisticated example.
They move, in this cirucmstance, primarily due to economic factors. If we had 1 billion Chinese across the border, yep, enough would move until the labor market couldn't bear it, and then it would stop.
That said of it ain't that complicated. If you REALLY want to stop illegal immigration you need to shut down the job market for it here. And that is something you will never be able to do.
Given the state of the border between the US and Mexico, we will never -- ever -- be able to stop most illegal immigration. Impossible.
So the question is what is our goal and how do we achieve it? If your goal is to keep all illegals out...well, unachievable so not a valid goal. We spend a ton of money and spin our wheels.
If we regulate and tax (and Doug, maybe I was not clear, but I see one of the biggest benefits of regulated entry for all IS that we can tax their income), that's a huge win. We stop wasting money on "border security" that doesn't work or generate any revenue, and instead focus on regulation that does.
On your China example, people don't just decide to "move in." That's a pretty naive and unsophisticated example.
They move, in this cirucmstance, primarily due to economic factors. If we had 1 billion Chinese across the border, yep, enough would move until the labor market couldn't bear it, and then it would stop.
That said of it ain't that complicated. If you REALLY want to stop illegal immigration you need to shut down the job market for it here. And that is something you will never be able to do.
