5 ms·

When starting the process of getting a green card for my wife, I read on a number of web sites that USCIS agents are allowed to lie to you during the interview-

When starting the process of getting a green card for my wife, I read on a number of web sites that USCIS agents are allowed to lie to you during the interview-- for example, separating the husband and wife, then coming in to one of them and falsely stating, "Your spouse just admitted this is a fraudulent marriage." I don't know if it's true, but that, anyway, is conventional wisdom. Compared to that, "friending" somebody in order to view their social network site seems like small potatoes. My general sense is that the USCIS mission in these proceedings is to take a skeptical stance from the start. That is, merely applying for a green card (or, by extension, citizenship through marriage) puts you under enough of what EFF calls "suspicion" to warrant an investigation.

mcargian 16y ago
Oddly I had exactly the opposite experience. My wife and I were interviewed together, the agent asked very straight forward questions about our past with me present. There was nothing tricky in the slightest. I guess it depends upon the situation, but if you've got nothing to hide then the above article is a non-starter.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "but if you've got nothing to hide" You would think after so many cases of abuse - some large, some small, some invoking Godwin's Law... that people would stop touting the bullshit that is "if you have nothing to hide..."
  - mcargian 16y ago
    lol, ok thanks for ganging up on half my comment and the down votes. My wording choice was poor and I agree that "nothing to hide" does not make it right for the abuse that we are seeing lately. But I still stick to my response to the previous commenter, our interview was very straight forward.
    - eru 16y ago
      Thanks for your reasoned answer. If you hadn't started this one with `lol' you would have even gotten some up-votes, I guess.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  For my wife's interview, we packed a whole briefcase full of documentation. A couple of minutes in, the interviewer asked us for a couple of our lease (with both names on it). We couldn't find it in the stack, and started arguing about who had put what where. After a bit of argument, the interviewer said "OK, you two are obviously married". (Unfortunately, this was by far the most pleasant part of the whole process. Take, for example, the rejection of her application because the NJ State Police aren't certified by the INS for taking fingerprints. Instead, we had to go to a camera shop in Edison, NJ.)
- nodata 16y ago
  > but if you've got nothing to hide then the above article is a non-starter. Wow! You snuck that one in there. Here is an article by Bruce Schneier you might find interesting, it dissects the lazy assertion that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886 http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma...
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Yes, for the benefit of those applying, I would also echo that currently immigration interviews usually are fairly straightforward. But it is still very important to consider the issue for society and individuals when an agency has "wide latitude" when it does decide it's time to investigate.
    - nodata 16y ago
      I'm not sure why what you wrote matters. My comment was that the assertion "but if you've got nothing to hide then the above article is a non-starter." is completely false.
      - joe_the_user 16y ago
        Peace, I was trying to agree with you on that point...
- adolph 16y ago
  I'm glad you had a positive experience. Personally, I would prefer that my government did not infiltrate my social institutions, online or off, because it corrodes the trust people have for one another. In 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Daniel Solove writes: The problems caused by breaches of confidentiality do not merely consist of individual emotional distress; they involve a violation of trust within a relationship. There is a strong social value in ensuring that promises are kept and that trust is maintained in relationships. . . In that quote Solove is referring to a business giving info to government despite its privacy policy. I think it is germane here because one doesn't expect something labeled "friend" to be an information gathering conduit for a 3rd party (such as governmental one or even a commercial one). The essay a good read for understanding some of the dimensions of privacy in contradiction to the "I've got nothing to hide" concept, which can be a convincing argument when you think you don't have anything to hide: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
anigbrowl 16y ago
Don't lose too much sleep over it. The conventional wisdom in this area is not very reliable, for a variety of reasons. IANAL but am studying to that end, and being a Euro I was already interested in immigration law. I would say the USCIS website itself is a good source of general information for the immigrant/family. After long being criticized as overly bureaucratic and unhelpful they've made a lot of 'customer service' type changes - for example, there's a tool to look up the status of petitions online which is quite new. The latest thing is provide more assistance to people being naturalized, eg via http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/citizenship http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/citizenship which got a big makeover just in the last few weeks. Previously the would-be citizen's contact with the agency leading up to naturalization consisted of submitting forms, getting fingerprinted, and having to take the US civics quiz. Anyhow, separating a couple during the interview typically only happens at a second interview when the USCIS officer (not agent) has specific reasons to doubt the veracity of the relationship - the couple hardly seems to know each other, or their filings are contradictory etc. If they have doubts after the first interview they usually issue a Request For Evidence inviting more documentation/clarification. Policy is to adhere to a neutral rather than skeptical stance by default, and proceed using an evidence-based methodology - challenging or accusing people at random is just going to result in complaints and slows everything down. Merely applying doesn't put you under 'suspicion,' it's just a process of verification. The FBI does a fingerprint match and checks against the person's name in national and international law enforcement databases - this takes a while just because there's a lot of applications to work through. Most people are legit of course, so then it's just a process of going through the form evaluating the credibility and general stability of the applicant, verifying the authenticity of their marriage certificate/professional qualifications, medical reports etc. etc. Now when they do suspect fraud, sure they might lie to see if they can catch a person out - as is true of any police interview. But it's not the default position. ICE agents (who go out looking for workplace violations etc.) are a different kettle of fish. There was a fuss at the end of last year about agents Utah in dressing up as Mormon missionaries.
- dmlorenzetti 16y ago
  Thanks for the encouragement. We are not terribly worried, but it's nice to know we won't be put under the bright lights :-)

mcargian 16y ago

Oddly I had exactly the opposite experience. My wife and I were interviewed together, the agent asked very straight forward questions about our past with me present. There was nothing tricky in the slightest. I guess it depends upon the situation, but if you've got nothing to hide then the above article is a non-starter.

potatolicious 16y ago
> "but if you've got nothing to hide" You would think after so many cases of abuse - some large, some small, some invoking Godwin's Law... that people would stop touting the bullshit that is "if you have nothing to hide..."
- mcargian 16y ago
  lol, ok thanks for ganging up on half my comment and the down votes. My wording choice was poor and I agree that "nothing to hide" does not make it right for the abuse that we are seeing lately. But I still stick to my response to the previous commenter, our interview was very straight forward.
  - eru 16y ago
    Thanks for your reasoned answer. If you hadn't started this one with `lol' you would have even gotten some up-votes, I guess.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
For my wife's interview, we packed a whole briefcase full of documentation. A couple of minutes in, the interviewer asked us for a couple of our lease (with both names on it). We couldn't find it in the stack, and started arguing about who had put what where. After a bit of argument, the interviewer said "OK, you two are obviously married". (Unfortunately, this was by far the most pleasant part of the whole process. Take, for example, the rejection of her application because the NJ State Police aren't certified by the INS for taking fingerprints. Instead, we had to go to a camera shop in Edison, NJ.)
nodata 16y ago
> but if you've got nothing to hide then the above article is a non-starter. Wow! You snuck that one in there. Here is an article by Bruce Schneier you might find interesting, it dissects the lazy assertion that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886 http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma...
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Yes, for the benefit of those applying, I would also echo that currently immigration interviews usually are fairly straightforward. But it is still very important to consider the issue for society and individuals when an agency has "wide latitude" when it does decide it's time to investigate.
  - nodata 16y ago
    I'm not sure why what you wrote matters. My comment was that the assertion "but if you've got nothing to hide then the above article is a non-starter." is completely false.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      Peace, I was trying to agree with you on that point...
adolph 16y ago
I'm glad you had a positive experience. Personally, I would prefer that my government did not infiltrate my social institutions, online or off, because it corrodes the trust people have for one another. In 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Daniel Solove writes: The problems caused by breaches of confidentiality do not merely consist of individual emotional distress; they involve a violation of trust within a relationship. There is a strong social value in ensuring that promises are kept and that trust is maintained in relationships. . . In that quote Solove is referring to a business giving info to government despite its privacy policy. I think it is germane here because one doesn't expect something labeled "friend" to be an information gathering conduit for a 3rd party (such as governmental one or even a commercial one). The essay a good read for understanding some of the dimensions of privacy in contradiction to the "I've got nothing to hide" concept, which can be a convincing argument when you think you don't have anything to hide: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

anigbrowl 16y ago

Don't lose too much sleep over it. The conventional wisdom in this area is not very reliable, for a variety of reasons. IANAL but am studying to that end, and being a Euro I was already interested in immigration law. I would say the USCIS website itself is a good source of general information for the immigrant/family. After long being criticized as overly bureaucratic and unhelpful they've made a lot of 'customer service' type changes - for example, there's a tool to look up the status of petitions online which is quite new. The latest thing is provide more assistance to people being naturalized, eg via http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/citizenship http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/citizenship which got a big makeover just in the last few weeks. Previously the would-be citizen's contact with the agency leading up to naturalization consisted of submitting forms, getting fingerprinted, and having to take the US civics quiz. Anyhow, separating a couple during the interview typically only happens at a second interview when the USCIS officer (not agent) has specific reasons to doubt the veracity of the relationship - the couple hardly seems to know each other, or their filings are contradictory etc. If they have doubts after the first interview they usually issue a Request For Evidence inviting more documentation/clarification. Policy is to adhere to a neutral rather than skeptical stance by default, and proceed using an evidence-based methodology - challenging or accusing people at random is just going to result in complaints and slows everything down. Merely applying doesn't put you under 'suspicion,' it's just a process of verification. The FBI does a fingerprint match and checks against the person's name in national and international law enforcement databases - this takes a while just because there's a lot of applications to work through. Most people are legit of course, so then it's just a process of going through the form evaluating the credibility and general stability of the applicant, verifying the authenticity of their marriage certificate/professional qualifications, medical reports etc. etc. Now when they do suspect fraud, sure they might lie to see if they can catch a person out - as is true of any police interview. But it's not the default position. ICE agents (who go out looking for workplace violations etc.) are a different kettle of fish. There was a fuss at the end of last year about agents Utah in dressing up as Mormon missionaries.

dmlorenzetti 16y ago
Thanks for the encouragement. We are not terribly worried, but it's nice to know we won't be put under the bright lights :-)