Eligibility Requires Good Moral Character 

Applicants for naturalization must establish that they are persons of good moral character. Good moral character (GMC) evaluations are made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the standards of the average citizen in the community of residence. The N-400 naturalization application, however, does not require a disclosure of debts or even civil lawsuits related to such debts or other matters. The N-400 does not ask for information about bankruptcy or foreclosure. These are simply not part of the good moral character analysis. Accordingly, for many who have faced job loss or other financial problems, these need not be revealed, discussed, or explained in the naturalization context.

There are some aspects of the naturalization process in which financial problems are relevant, as discussed below. Complete eligibility requirements for naturalization can be complex and are beyond the scope of this article. For more information regarding these requirements, please see our article, Basic Eligibility Requirements for Naturalization(15.Feb.2002; updated 19.Nov.2010).

Establish Support of Dependents to Demonstrate GMC

With respect to good moral character, one common matter that has a financial component is willful failure to support dependents. If an applicant for naturalization has a minor child or children who do not live with the applicant, it is necessary to prove that the applicant is providing adequate financial support.

If there is a court order of support, it is important to have evidence of compliance with that order. If there is no such order, it is vital to show appropriate support of one’s children. The amount of support considered appropriate varies from case to case. Documented financial hardships potentially can reduce the expected level of support, as failures can be forgiven due to extenuating circumstances.

Proof of support may be in the form of cancelled checks or money orders or other verifiable funds transmission. Other evidence can include provision of necessary items such as food, clothing, and housing as well payments for school and other expenses related to the child. If appropriate, provision of health insurance can be important.

It is vital to demonstrate that the citizenship applicant has not abandoned her/his dependents. This includes the spouse as well as any children. When matters have been addressed only informally, and payments are made in cash, proving that dependents have been provided support can be difficult. Since failure to provide financial support to dependents can result in a finding that one lacks the good moral character needed for naturalization, it is crucial to maintain appropriate financial support of dependents, even during times of financial difficulty.

Failure to Report Income or Pay Taxes

Another financial issue that may preclude a finding of good moral character and/or attachment to the U.S. Constitution is failure to report income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or to state and local taxing authorities. The application for naturalization (N-400) asks whether the individual has ever failed to file a required federal, state, or local tax return. The form also asks whether the applicant owes any overdue federal, state, or local taxes. Responding yes necessitates explaining the situation to the USCIS.

Although gainful employment is not a requirement for naturalization, if an individual has been employed or otherwise generates income, s/he needs to comply with U.S. tax laws as part of the good moral character requirement. Failure to do so may be grounds to deny U.S. citizenship, in addition to the other fines and penalties unrelated to matters of immigration and citizenship. Even if an individual is experiencing financial difficulties, therefore, it is important to keep up with tax obligations or at least make appropriate payment arrangements.

The USCIS instructs applicants with overdue taxes to provide proof of their tax filings and documentation relating to any payment agreements. They also need to prove that they are complying with the payment agreements. The USCIS will review each situation on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusion

Individuals who have faced financial difficulties should not be afraid to pursue naturalization. In most situations, an ordinary debt or even a bankruptcy or foreclosure does not prevent naturalization. Fear or embarrassment about such problems should not prevent one from applying for citizenship, if s/he is otherwise eligible to obtain U.S. citizenship. Due to the wide-reaching impact of the recent economic recession, such problems, unfortunately, do exist.

As discussed, failure to comply with one’s legal obligations to taxing authorities and failure to meet legal and moral obligations to dependents can create ineligibility for naturalization. Those with questions regarding naturalization eligibility should arrange to discuss their situation in a consultation with an experienced immigration attorney. Murthy Law Firm attorneys stand ready to assist.

source from: murthy

Msimbi “SimSim” Kikuyu, 20, suffered a sudden stroke two weeks ago, underwent emergency brain surgery and was still recovering at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix on the day of her naturalization test. The test is the final step before taking the oath of citizenship.

Kikuyu’s parents called U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in Phoenix to say their daughter wouldn’t be able to make her appointment because she’d just gone through surgery. But rather than reschedule Kikuyu, immigration officials took the rare step of sending an officer to the hospital.

“We do it when there is a humanitarian reason. We have done it in the past, but it has to be a pretty compelling reason,” said Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Marie Sebrechts.

Sebrechts said officials also recognized that Kikuyu’s parents and younger sister were becoming U.S. citizens and would want to attend the oath ceremony as a family.

Kikuyu and her family, who live in Phoenix, are natives of Kenya who have been living in the U.S. since 1998.

The stroke was a complication of Kikuyu’s severe sickle cell disease. Her younger sister also suffers from the disorder, which causes the red blood cells to become hard and sticky and look like a sickle, a C-shaped farm tool.

The sickle cells die early, which causes a constant shortage of red blood cells.

The Kikuyu sisters’ sickle cell anemia requires them to have regular blood transfusions to maintain their red blood cells. They also take daily medication to reduce iron, which is often at high levels due to the transfusions.

Though she’s had other minor health problems from the sickle cell disease, Kikuyu had never before suffered a stroke, which happens when sickle cells get stuck in a blood vessel and clog blood flow to the brain. Surgeons removed the blood that had leaked into her brain during the stroke to give her a better flow of oxygen.

When she awoke, Kikuyu thought she was still in Tucson and worried about missing a test at the UA, where she is studying for a career in the medical field. She dreams of becoming a physical or occupational therapist.

But her family quickly filled her in, and she was thrilled to learn the U.S. government would be paying her a visit.

Kikuyu had been studying for her citizenship test for three months and easily answered the U.S. history and government questions the officer asked. She is grateful that despite the stroke, she can still walk and talk.

Today Kikuyu will take her oath of citizenship at the Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse in Phoenix, standing alongside her parents and 15-year-old sister, Nissa.

“Becoming a citizen of the U.S opens up many great opportunities for us. We can vote, defend the country and have a say in what our leaders do in office,” Kikuyu said Thursday. “Hopefully, it will open up new venues in which we can serve others as well. … I’m sure we will all just feel overjoyed.”

source from: azstarnet

In the midst of the Presidential election, a new national survey from Xavier University’s Center for the Study of the American Dream reveals one in three native-born citizens failed the civics portion of the naturalization test, in stark contrast to the 97.5% pass rate among immigrants applying for citizenship.

Passing means answering 6 out of 10 questions correctly. If the pass rate were 7 out of 10, one half of native-born Americans would fail.

The Center’s nationwide survey tested adult Americans on 10 random questions taken directly from the naturalization test. In a concurrent survey, the Center found that 77% of native-born citizens agreed that all Americans should be able to pass the test. Furthermore, 60% agreed that high school students should have to pass the naturalization test as a requirement for graduation.The Center’s research persistently shows a strong distrust of our public institutions, particularly government and our political leaders, yet 59% of survey respondents could not name one power of the federal government, 77% could not name one power of the states, and 62% could not name the Governor of their state.

“Civic illiteracy threatens the American Dream because it threatens the freedoms we treasure. Civic illiteracy makes us more susceptible to manipulation and abuses of power,” said Michael Ford, the Center’s Founding Director.

The survey found that native-born citizens do best with elementary school level questions such as: “What is the name of the President of the United States?”, “What is the capital of the United States?”, “Where is the Statue of Liberty?”, “Who was the first President?”, “When do we celebrate Independence Day?”, and “What are the two major political parties in the United States?”. However, the highest incorrect scores consistently concern the US Constitution, and the governmental, legal and political structure of the American republic and basic facts related to current political life and identification of key political decision-makers.

For example, when asked questions about our government and political leaders, the survey results found:

85% did not know the meaning of the “the rule of law.”

82% could not name “two rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

75% were not able to correctly answer “What does the judiciary branch do?”

71% were unable to identify the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.”

68% did not know how many justices are on the Supreme Court.

63% could not name one of their two US Senators.

62% could not identify “What happened at the Constitutional Convention?”

62% could not answer “the name of the Speaker of the US House.”

“We certainly don’t expect everyone to know all the answers. For example, does it matter if we don’t know how many amendments there are? No. But almost 60% don’t even know what an amendment is,” explained Ford.

The survey results did reveal a deep division among education levels. Only 44% of respondents with a high school education or less passed in contrast with an 82% pass rate among college graduates—a 38% gap. Compared to the immigrant passage rate of 97.5%, college graduates underperform by 15%, while high school graduates underperform by 53%. The numbers were consistent among red states and blue states.

“The issue is not about sensationalizing who passed and who failed. It’s about what vote-eligible Americans specifically know and do not know in the midst of an important presidential election, after 12-18 years of school and 24/7 exposure to unfiltered multi-media,” explained Ford.

About the survey: From February 29-March 11, 2012, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates (FM3) conducted telephone interviews with 1,023 native born U.S. citizens age 18 and older using a Random-Digit Dial sample of landlines and cell phones. The margin of error for the sample is +/-3.1%. The methodology was designed to replicate the US Citizen and Immigrations Services civics examination.

For more information about the survey, or to view the Executive Summary, log onto Xavier University’s Center for the Study of the American Dream site. Follow the Center on Twitter for up-to-date information and new survey data each month: @XUAmericanDream and “Like” the Center’s Facebook page.

Xavier University ( www.xavier.edu ) is a private university located in Cincinnati, Ohio, providing a liberal arts education in the Jesuit Catholic tradition. Founded in 1831, the university is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation. U.S. News & World Report ranks it No. 4 among master’s-level universities in the Midwest, and The Princeton Review names it as one of the “Best 376 Colleges in America.”

source from:  marketwatch

In a new report, Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at UCLA, argues that prosecutorial discretion, as discussed in recent DHS policy memos, is only one kind of discretion. In fact, discretion plays a role in immigration law from legislation, to implementation, to arrest, to adjudication, to outcomes. He notes that the current emphasis on whether and how to charge an individual with an immigration violation overlooks the far more significant role that discretion plays earlier in the system—at the point where an arrest takes place. Motomura argues that programs such as Secure Communities, which enhance the role of state and local law enforcement in the immigration process, is the critical decision point; this is the moment where an immigrant comes into contact with not only the criminal justice system, but with the immigration system, through interlinked databases and expectations that local law enforcement will detain undocumented immigrants for ICE.

In another report, Yale Law professor Michael Wishnie examines equities at play in immigration law. He notes that the increasingly punitive nature of immigration law post 1996 has shifted the legal equation. When a lawful permanent resident faces removal for a crime committed twenty years ago, and that removal results in a separation from family members for five or ten years, or even forever, the penalty far exceeds the violation. Wishnie argues that the changing nature of immigration law, one that increasingly relies on penalties more akin to criminal law, necessitates changing tactics and arguments in fighting removal cases.

Both articles, however, are relevant not only for immigration practitioners, but for the broader policy argument about immigration reform. Motomura’s article serves as an important reminder of the art and necessity of crafting good laws. When we recognize that there are multiple decision points in the creation, implementation and execution of a law, it can change the way people write and think about legislation. Wishnie’s article opens the door to a richer analysis of the trade offs and consequences of a law. As we approach the fifteenth anniversary of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), Wishnie’s argument that immigration punishments should be reasonable and should take individual circumstances into account is a common sense response to a legal system that no longer works as it should.

While these academic analyses may seem unrelated or out of place in the current debate, their application of proportionality and discretion has never been more relevant. In fact, looking at the Morton memos which outline the basis for granting prosecutorial discretion, the list of factors to consider are actually a list of arguments for using a proportionality analysis in deciding each individual’s fate.

Understanding the role discretion and proportionality play, or need to play, across our immigration system is paramount in establishing immigration laws that reflect the fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

source from:  immigrationimpact

For example:

• Under HB 56, school districts were required to ascertain the immigration status of all newly enrolling students and submit an annual report listing how many believed to be in the country unlawfully. Under the proposed bill, school districts would no longer be required to collect this information. Instead, the state superintendent would independently attempt to determine the fiscal impact of providing education to the children of undocumented parents.
• Under HB 56, local police officers were required to investigate the immigration status of any person stopped or detained in public if “reasonable suspicion” existed that the person was in the country unlawfully. Federal courts have blocked similar provisions from taking effect in other states, and an Alabamajudge predicted that it would lead to constitutional violations stemming from excessively lengthy detentions. Under the proposed bill, authorities would no longer be required to conduct such investigations in the field unless a traffic citation was actually issued.
• Under HB 56, states and localities were forbidden from entering into any “business transaction” with immigrants who are in the country unlawfully. A federal appeals court blocked the provision, which had caused Alabama residents to lose water service in their homes. Under the proposed bill, the term “business transaction” would only refer to the issuance of license plates, driver’s licenses, identification cards, or business licenses.
• Under HB 56, public colleges and universities were only permitted to enroll U.S.citizens, lawful permanent residents (i.e. “green card” holders), and immigrants with temporary visas. A federal court enjoined this provision because it would prevent many immigrants who are in theUnited States lawfully—such as refugees—from attending Alabama universities. Under the proposed bill, only immigrants who are “not lawfully present” are prohibited from enrolling.
• Under HB 56, it was a crime to encourage foreign nationals to reside in Alabama if they lacked permission to be in theUnited States, and to rent to any immigrant whom the person knows (or should know) is unlawfully present. A federal court enjoined these provisions because they conflicted with federal immigration law. Under the proposed bill, these provisions would be deleted.
• Under HB 56, it was a crime to transport any immigrant “in furtherance” of their unlawful presence. A federal court enjoined this provision because unlike federal law, it contained no exception for religious denominations. Under the proposed bill, religious denominations would enjoy such an exception.

At present, the odds the bill will become law remain unclear. And with nearly two months left in Alabama’s legislative session, much time remains for lawmakers to make further changes. But if nothing else, the very introduction of yesterday’s bill validates what critics of state immigration laws have said all along.

Contrary to the original assertions of its authors, HB 56 does not “mirror” federal law, imposes enormous burdens on state and local officers, creates unintended consequences for citizens and immigrants alike, and hinders the objectives of federal immigration authorities. While only a full repeal of HB 56 can repair the damage Alabama has caused, the proposed bill demonstrates a recognition among state lawmakers that it is time to start fixing problems of their own creation.

source from:  immigrationimpact

On Wednesday, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA’s definition of marriage.  The hearing marked the first time a federal appellate court heard arguments on this issue, and it will likely be the first appellate court to rule on DOMA’s constitutionality, probably within the next few months.  The district court below had concluded that DOMA’s definition of marriage is unconstitutional because there is no rational basis for discriminating against married same sex couples.  As a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) – a leading legal rights organization that represents the plaintiffs in one of the cases – explained:

“The promise of equal protection is that likes are to be treated alike – but DOMA treats married same-sex couples differently from all other married persons, making gay people and our marriages unequal to all others.”

Notably, two of the lawyers urging the First Circuit to strike down DOMA argued on behalf of the government – one on behalf of the Obama Administration and the other on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Because the Obama Administration has declared it will not defend the law, the U.S. House of Representatives has stepped in to do so.  The House, in turn, hired former Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement.  (Incidentally, Mr. Clement appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court the week before to challenge the health care law.)  Although these cases arise outside the immigration context, the court’s resolution of them will likely affect immigration cases as well.

In addition to this historic argument, last week, five bi-national married couples filed a lawsuit in New York challenging DOMA in the immigration context.  The couples are lawfully married but, because of DOMA, the U.S. citizen spouse is precluded from successfully petitioning for an immigrant visa for the noncitizen spouse.  “As a nation,” the court complaint says, “we want to keep families together, not rip them apart.”  Yet, as the plaintiffs’ stories demonstrate, DOMA does the opposite.  For example, one of the plaintiffs was unable to accompany his spouse to the United States for medical treatment for a serious condition.  Another plaintiff was unable to return to his home country for his father’s funeral because he feared that, if he did so, he would not be permitted to reenter the United States lawfully and would be permanently separated from his spouse.  A third couple has postponed starting a family out of concern that they will not be able to raise their children together in the United States.

The couples, represented by Immigration Equality, simply want the immigration agency to treat them as they treat heterosexual married couples. For these couples, a judicial resolution of DOMA cannot come too soon.

source from:  immigrationimpact

This is the portrait that emerges from an analysis by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks all manner of hate groups in the United States. Heidi Beirich, director of SPLC’s Intelligence Project, writesin the Spring 2012 issue of the Intelligence Report that the number of nativist extremist groups fell from a high of 319 in 2010 to 184 in 2011—a decline of 42 percent. According to Beirich, the past year witnessed “much of the vigilante anti-immigration movement collapsing under the weight of bad press, organizational disarray, and the co-optation of the movement’s concerns by state legislatures passing draconian legislation targeting foreigners.”

Beirich notes that “most of the surviving groups are part of a single large coalition, the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition (FIRE),” and that “the most important Minuteman groups—the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the Minuteman Project (MMP)—have all but collapsed.” The implosion of the Minuteman groups in particular began “in 2009, when former Minuteman Shawna Forde and two accomplices murdered a Latino man and his 9-year-old daughter in Arivaca, Ariz.” The publicity surrounding the murders cast an unflattering light on the Minuteman movement which was not exactly helpful for recruiting and fundraising purposes.

The dimming fortunes of nativist extremist groups notwithstanding, it is too early to break out the champagne. As Beirich explains, “one important reason for the falloff in the nativist extremist groups is that their concerns have largely been adopted by more mainstream allies in the Tea Parties and the Republican Party.” This is evidenced by the proliferation of anti-immigrant legislation making its way through state legislatures in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and elsewhere. Much of this legislation has been crafted by a single group: the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which is the legal arm of the nativistFederation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

In short, as Beirich puts it, “most of the energy that once animated the anti-immigrant movement seems today to have moved into the political mainstream.” However, Beirich says that this does not necessarily mean the nativist extremist movement is winning. After all, the past year saw “the unprecedented recall of the most anti-immigrant politician of them all, Arizona’s former Senate leader, Russell Pearce.” And the devastating economic impact of Alabama’s anti-immigrant law has led some prominent Republicans in the state to call for its revision.

Which is to say that things may look grim, but there is still hope.

source from: immigrationimpact

In its ruling this week, the appeals court found the Farmers Branch law to be discriminatory since it “excludes” undocumented immigrants, “particularly Latinos, under the guides of policing housing.” The court opined:

“Because the sole purpose and effect of this ordinance is to target the presence of illegal aliens within the City of Farmers Branch and to cause their removal, it contravenes the federal government’s exclusive authority over the regulation of immigration and the conditions of residence in this country.”

The mayor of Farmers Branch, Bill Glancy, who supports the law, said he will confer with City Council members before deciding whether the city should take the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court or a full appeals court.

The appeals court ruling also maintains the lower court’s decision that the city must pay the plantiffs $2 million in attorneys fees. Last month, a federal judge in Nebraska also struck down a restrictive immigration housing measure, finding the law to be “discriminatory in violation of federal law.”

source from: immigrationimpact

In front of 450 people from 75 countries gathered in theTampa Convention Center, immigration services officerMelissa Wingerd presented Dr. Gabriel Gonzales-Portillo his naturalization certificate. The new citizens clapped, cheered and waved U.S. flags.

Last year, Wingerd suffered a near-fatal brain hemorrhage the day after her daughter’s fifth birthday party. She was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Tampa — and the neurosurgeon on call was Gonzales-Portillo.

The doctor told Wingerd that a vein in her brain that was malformed at birth had burst, and that she needed surgery immediately or she would die. Gonzales-Portillo performed the surgery, and within two weeks Wingerd’s life was nearly back to normal. However, she still deals with some effects, such as a loss of smell and losing hearing in one ear.

On Wednesday, Wingerd told her story to the hundreds of new citizens.

“I wanted these people to see a different side of immigration officers. I wanted them to know that we see every day the value that they bring, not like the general public. We see it every day,” she said after the ceremony. “Immigrants bring a lot to this country on so many different levels. They bring a lot of value. They are this country.”

Wingerd, 32, has worked for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services since 2008, processing permanent resident and citizenship applications.

Wingerd did not process Gonzales-Portillo’s citizenship application.

Gonzales-Portillo, 48, has been in the U.S. for about 20 years. He previously worked as an assistant professor at the University of Arizona’s department of neurosurgery in Tucson. He’s lived in Tampa for almost seven years with his wife and three children. His children all were born in the U.S.

“I’m very happy, very excited. It was a long road to become a citizen,” Gonzales-Portillo said. “I’m happy to know that I’m going to be able to exercise my right to vote.”

After singing the national anthem, taking the citizenship oath and then hugging Wingerd, Gonzales-Portillo had to leave. He had brain surgeries to perform.

source from: yahoo

Most immigrants are naturalized citizens or legally residing noncitizens.  However, if we want to know overallvoter registration, we would include all immigrants in the base, including the undocumented, when calculating registration.  The result would tell us more realistically how many immigrants have the potential someday to vote and, importantly, would tell us if the percent is rising or falling.

Using this calculation, we see a clear increase in immigrant registration over the past few election cycles, from 24 percent in 1996 to 27 percent in 2008.  In other words, a larger and growing percentage of the entire immigrant population is registered to vote.

Eight states have large or rapidly growing immigrant populations and will host a Republican caucus or primary between now and Super Tuesday, March 6.  Using a more inclusive estimate of voter registration that compares immigrant registration in the last Presidential election to the average over the previous three elections, we see an upward trend.  In every state but Ohio, a larger percentage of the entire immigrant population is registered to vote and the trend is on the upswing.

Demographically speaking, it is no small feat to increase your registration rate in an era of significant immigration. It means that naturalization is outpacing immigration of noncitizens who don’t or can’t register.  In order to experience this level of growth on your voter rolls, you would have to experience a significant rise in naturalization and voter registration rates to offset the overall increase in the size of the immigrant population. Indeed, that is the trend.

These trends are remarkable because they are taking place in an era of immigrant bashing, in which political candidates routinely degrade the contributions of immigrants.  One could expect immigrants in such a climate to refrain from civic participation in a system that says they are not wanted.  Yet in spite of a hostile reception, immigrants are choosing to become more, not less, engaged in American society.

source from: immigrationimpact