4 ms·

> remove citizenship from naturalized citizens that they believe lied on their applications If the individual was given citizenship on the basis of those lies,

by jexah 8y ago

> remove citizenship from naturalized citizens that they believe lied on their applications If the individual was given citizenship on the basis of those lies, then it makes total sense to revoke citizenship. That would be like hiring a developer who says he is an amazing programmer who can solve any problem. Turns out after he got the job, not only is he terrible at programming, but he's also a liar. So you fire him. If you lie on an application for something, and you are awarded, generally speaking it makes sense to revoke the award if it is discovered that you lied.

PaulAJ 8y ago
On the other hand, what if you say, for instance, that you got your degree in '93, but actually it was '92? The trouble with the law is that it doesn't distinguish between whoppers, fibs and clerical errors. They are all falsehoods, and all are grounds for deportation if the government decides it wants you out of the country.
- jexah 8y ago
  I assume you meant to say "you claimed you got your degree in 93 when you actually got it in 92". I work in the background check business and each check has its own windows of acceptance. Depending on how long ago the degree was awarded, the window can vary from 0 years to 10+ years. This is also contextual, as if the immigration application was submitted in 93, and you say you got your degree in 92, when you actually got it in 94, and your immigration was approved in 95. This is a clear case of an invalid application. Having said that, I'd like to see an example of deportation on the grounds of a 1 year mistake in the year one had received their degree, when the degree was received 30 years prior to application. I would like to see it not because I'd agree with such a measure, but because it would give you a strong case. As it stands I don't believe that anything close to that has happened.
ninedays 8y ago
If I continue the logic of your reasonning, the employer should have a technical test the candidate needs to perform in order for the employer to ensure that the candidate is not simply lying about his competences. If the employer gives the test, the employer hires him because he succeeded, then it is more the employer fault to hire him in the first place, not the employee fault because he performed the test. The moment a person becomes a citizen of a country, he is entitled to the exact same right that the citizen next to him. There is no distinction of a citizen who was born in the country vs a citizen that was naturalized. In your case, if someone profits from a lie, then we correct the process so that people cannot profit from it anymoreinstead of revoking things you gave by mistake (things _you_ gave by _your_ mistake). If you hire someone without checking that what they say is true, then I am sorry but you're just stupid. If a country give citizenship to people without verifying that what is written in the application is true, then I think the process is incredibly stupid.
- jexah 8y ago
  Okay let's just spend trillions of dollars giving every person who has applied for immigration complete background checks, and if any of the checks can't be completed for any reason what-so-ever, we should deny them citizenship. Sounds like a plan, Stan. That, or we just deny everybody because we can't afford it. Employers can afford to vet their employees. The state cannot afford to vet any regular citizenship application to the same degree. If we could, that'd be great. This is why it makes sense to assume the best in people (like we do), and if it turns out they intentionally lied or mislead on their application, then revoke the awards that were provided based on that misinformation.

by jexah 8y ago

PaulAJ 8y ago

On the other hand, what if you say, for instance, that you got your degree in '93, but actually it was '92? The trouble with the law is that it doesn't distinguish between whoppers, fibs and clerical errors. They are all falsehoods, and all are grounds for deportation if the government decides it wants you out of the country.

jexah 8y ago
I assume you meant to say "you claimed you got your degree in 93 when you actually got it in 92". I work in the background check business and each check has its own windows of acceptance. Depending on how long ago the degree was awarded, the window can vary from 0 years to 10+ years. This is also contextual, as if the immigration application was submitted in 93, and you say you got your degree in 92, when you actually got it in 94, and your immigration was approved in 95. This is a clear case of an invalid application. Having said that, I'd like to see an example of deportation on the grounds of a 1 year mistake in the year one had received their degree, when the degree was received 30 years prior to application. I would like to see it not because I'd agree with such a measure, but because it would give you a strong case. As it stands I don't believe that anything close to that has happened.

ninedays 8y ago

If I continue the logic of your reasonning, the employer should have a technical test the candidate needs to perform in order for the employer to ensure that the candidate is not simply lying about his competences. If the employer gives the test, the employer hires him because he succeeded, then it is more the employer fault to hire him in the first place, not the employee fault because he performed the test. The moment a person becomes a citizen of a country, he is entitled to the exact same right that the citizen next to him. There is no distinction of a citizen who was born in the country vs a citizen that was naturalized. In your case, if someone profits from a lie, then we correct the process so that people cannot profit from it anymoreinstead of revoking things you gave by mistake (things _you_ gave by _your_ mistake). If you hire someone without checking that what they say is true, then I am sorry but you're just stupid. If a country give citizenship to people without verifying that what is written in the application is true, then I think the process is incredibly stupid.

jexah 8y ago
Okay let's just spend trillions of dollars giving every person who has applied for immigration complete background checks, and if any of the checks can't be completed for any reason what-so-ever, we should deny them citizenship. Sounds like a plan, Stan. That, or we just deny everybody because we can't afford it. Employers can afford to vet their employees. The state cannot afford to vet any regular citizenship application to the same degree. If we could, that'd be great. This is why it makes sense to assume the best in people (like we do), and if it turns out they intentionally lied or mislead on their application, then revoke the awards that were provided based on that misinformation.