Posted on 06/22/2017 12:43:03 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
“Yes. Misleading headline.”
Very.
“...as long as all your lies don’t supposedly influence the outcome of your process?”
Why would someone lie about their past history if it had no bearing on qualification for citizenship?
The court has simply restated a principle common to just about every law involving inclusion or application: you should stick to questions of fact which are material to the application, and if you don't, the applicant is under no obligation to give you a truthful answer -- or any answer at all.
The court did not rule that this woman's lie was immaterial; they sent the case back to a lower court to make that decision. If it was material, the revocation of her citizenship will stand. The case was sent back because her original jury was given improper instruction, which is really neither a matter of fact or law (in the usual sense) but a matter of process.
I can think of lots of reasons: a person might be asked questions bearing on their character that they’re embarrassed to answer.
“The court rejected the position taken by the Trump administration that even minor lies can lead to loss of citizenship. “
It might be Trumps position but it was the obvious position of the Obama Administration as well since this all happened during his Presidency except for the decision of the Supremes today!
>>The government may have argued their case poorly, but the facts were on the side of deporting this liar.<<
That still might be the case. The Supreme Court ruled that any inconsequential lie was not sufficient to revoke citizenship and referred the case back to the circuit court to decide whether the lie was material in gaining citizenship. At least that’s the way I interpreted the AP story.
They - the government apparently did not make the right legal arguments attaching the earlier refugee status, and errors with it, to the subsequent citizenship application. Is there or is there not a statute of time-limitation in which a refugee visa must be challenged/denied/reversed by the government?
Maybe the government failed, under the law, to properly challenge the refugee status, let it go, provided the green card, and then, after all those hurdles had passed sought to deny the citizenship application on conditions that could not then turn back/reverse the refugee status, due to time-limits in the law.
The really important thing is not how we feel about the case, it is instead what does/did the law require & either permit or deny.
>>“The court rejected the position taken by the Trump administration that even minor lies can lead to loss of citizenship. “<<
That’s the most misleading part of the AP’s story, and it was probably intentionally misleading.
The Trump administration probably wanted the deportation to remain in effect (for good reason), so they picked up the case from the Obama administration, even if they knew the case would have to be re-heard by a lower court due to the incorrect jury instructions. That, however, doesn’t mean that the Trump administration maintains that even minor lies can lead to loss of citizenship. Just more of the liberal AP chewing on Trump at every opportunity.
I wonder what Trump’s approval rating would be if he got just balanced press treatment for a month, not overt praise, just balanced.
oh duh me. I get sidetracked again.
Just wondering if\how the husband answered the same question...
“I can think of lots of reasons: a person might be asked questions bearing on their character that they’re embarrassed to answer.”
Then those questions and answers have a bearing on citizenship requests.
I think the time has come for a complete reboot.
Did you donate regularly to charity while you were in Germany? Did you attend Church in Greece? Were you supportive of the French government? Did you always vote when you lived in the UK? When you got out of your SUV in front of Swedish nightclubs, did you always wear underwear?
None of these questions has any bearing on US citizenship.
Your faith in the idea that our vast, incredibly stupid bureaucracy always asks questions that are pertinent is charming in its naivete.
And wrong.
This is fundamental ignorance.
If the U.S. can’t demand honest answers to their immigration screening, it effectively prevents them from asking any questions whatsoever.
Have you killed people? No.
Five years later we find they have killed hundreds.
Well, the SCOTUS just prevented us from taking any action once we find this out.
Decisions don’t get worse than this, and with this one, it’s a real question if they will overturn the lower courts rulings against Trump re his travel bans.
Immigrants run the nation now. We have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to deny them entry.
Any person on the planet who wants to come, could soon be give a green light.
We can’t deny anyone, in our own best interest.
Do you think it wouldn’t have made any difference if they had admitted to being a terrorist? Clearly it would, so they could still have their citizenship revoked.
I think this decision is proper. Some are arguing on this thread that the simple fact that some bureaucrat decided to ask you a question makes it pertinent, therefore makes your refusal to answer, or your refusal to answer truthfully, a material fact of relevance.
Given the kinds of questions I've been asked by government types, including bureaucrats, policemen, and elected officials, I'm not favorably inclined to the proposition that simply because someone in "authority" asks a question that they're entitled to an answer. In most circumstances in my own life, they haven't been.
A cop "asking have you been drinking tonight?" is justified in asking, but he has no right to an answer to the question "where are you going this evening?" [I'm going somewhere in what I thought was the United States of America is all the answer he's entitled to.]
A jury will figure this out. I have somewhat more faith in a panel of volunteers who take their charge seriously than I do in people who expect to be "obeyed" by virtue of nothing more than a job title.
Not even close.
Read the decision.
The court found that an incorrect jury instruction on the materiality of a fact led to an error in law. That is a) a sound basis for any appeal and b) a due process protection that any US Person (including, but not just limited to US citizens) is entitled to.
The court returned the case to a lower court in order for a jury to reconsider a fact on the basis of its materiality. The fact was not taken off the table. The fact was not ruled to be immaterial. No fact or policy to which courts are supposed to defer to the political branches was at stake here. The court did not rule that a lie cannot be the basis of citizenship revocation.
The fact was remanded to a new trial, where a jury properly instructed in the law can decide.
Not in the least bit scandalous.
And it has no bearing on the issues surrounding the travel ban.
I don’t view your response to be even close.
She lied. Period! That is fraud.
She made a fraudulent application to become a citizen.
Did her entry hinge on that? It hinged on everything she stated, so yes it did hinge on that. You didn’t know that?
I’m so sick of folks kissing the feet of people dismantling this nation.
Not to worry folks, lie your ass off. Our SCOTUS will do everything they can to bend over backwards for you.
This has nothing to do with the temporary entry ban?
Yeah, sure it doesn’t. Just because the SCOTUS bent over backwards to help an immigrant that committed fraud against the United States, why should we think that might telegraph an obvious bias toward immigrants and against our ability to vet immigrants adequately?
Nonsense!
They’ll accept fraud. I won’t be surprised to see them find a loophole for the immigrants vs the POTUS now.
Lost some of us right there.
That was the government's position, and the government was mistaken. I'll take the opinions of Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch over yours on any day of the week.
Apparently you're unaware that the the solicitor general was arguing a position taken by the 0bama administration. Why? Because the Serbs are enemies of Muslims. That's why.
Yes, but fortunately, I didn't lose the thinkers.
And I don't care about the rest of you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.