5 ms·

A lot of those are because there are specific laws barring people who have done those things from entry. Ideally, having those questions on the form (and the ob

by rdl 7y ago

A lot of those are because there are specific laws barring people who have done those things from entry. Ideally, having those questions on the form (and the obvious implication that a "yes" entry means a denial of visa) educates the applicant not to continue applying, or if the offense is something which could be resolved, to prepare documentation for that.

godelski 7y ago
I'm sorry, but what terrorist is going to say "Damn, they check for terrorists? I guess I won't apply." I don't think you even need the context of America's presence in the Middle East to figure out that terrorism is illegal. It isn't like it is only illegal in America. Same for things like human trafficking. I can see that with the "have you ever done drugs" question, but terrorism or human trafficking? That's quite a stretch. You don't have to ask the question for someone to know that those activities would bar entry. I'd have to see pretty strong evidence to believe that a question like that is going to even give pause to people like that.
- refurb 7y ago
  Those just cover the gov’ts ass. Of course no one will answer yes, but if the govt finds out later you did commit a terrorist act, they have the power to boot you out.
  - godelski 7y ago
    But that circles back to my original question. How does the gov not have the power to boot you out (or jail) just from committing the terrorist act in itself? OR even just from finding out that said person has terrorist ties? I don't buy the answer of needing the question to boot someone out. You can already boot them out for committing crimes. And I'm sure there's a question along the lines "Do you intend to commit a crime while in the US?" (I'm sure this is already on there) The above questions definitely fall under this. So I don't understand how these questions don't just become noise. I'd imagine noise in these forms leads to more mistakes too.
    - refurb 7y ago
      As per the previous comment, most of it comes from the way the laws were written. If immigration law says “members of a terrorist group can’t get citizenship”, then USCIS has to have a process for following it. In addition to background checks, they ask the question. In terms of booting them out, the question makes it much easier. If they are a member of a terrorist group and they said “no”, well it’s an open and shut case of lying on an immigration application. If they didn’t ask the question, sure they could still boot them out, but it may be a prolonged process.
      - codedokode 7y ago
        But doesn't proving that the person has lied also require additional efforts, and if that person will contest the desicion in court, can become a long process?
        refurb 7y ago
        I would argue that proving somebody lied on an application would be easier than proving something like “this person is a danger to the US”. The 2nd is much subjective.
        godelski 7y ago
        I'm actually okay with that. Read it the other way around. You can only kick someone out for being dangerous if you can prove they are dangerous.
        notmyaccount 7y ago
        To prove that he lied on the application form, they would have to legally prove him as a terrorist. The legal process of proving someone is a terrorist would be same. So isn't it pointless?
        chungleong 7y ago
        I don't think judicial courts accept challenges to rulings by administrative judges as a matter of course.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Of course no one will answer yes, but if the govt finds out later you did commit a terrorist act, they have the power to boot you out. Wouldn't the terrorist act do the trick? And don't we mostly imprison people forever when they do those?
- rdtsc 7y ago
  > I guess I won't apply." Of course not. They would lie. And then the US government can then kick them for fraudulently obtaining their citizenship. That's a lot easier and simpler than having to convict them on terrorism charges. So the US government, is doing this assuming they will lie.

by rdl 7y ago

godelski 7y ago

I'm sorry, but what terrorist is going to say "Damn, they check for terrorists? I guess I won't apply." I don't think you even need the context of America's presence in the Middle East to figure out that terrorism is illegal. It isn't like it is only illegal in America. Same for things like human trafficking. I can see that with the "have you ever done drugs" question, but terrorism or human trafficking? That's quite a stretch. You don't have to ask the question for someone to know that those activities would bar entry. I'd have to see pretty strong evidence to believe that a question like that is going to even give pause to people like that.

refurb 7y ago
Those just cover the gov’ts ass. Of course no one will answer yes, but if the govt finds out later you did commit a terrorist act, they have the power to boot you out.
- godelski 7y ago
  But that circles back to my original question. How does the gov not have the power to boot you out (or jail) just from committing the terrorist act in itself? OR even just from finding out that said person has terrorist ties? I don't buy the answer of needing the question to boot someone out. You can already boot them out for committing crimes. And I'm sure there's a question along the lines "Do you intend to commit a crime while in the US?" (I'm sure this is already on there) The above questions definitely fall under this. So I don't understand how these questions don't just become noise. I'd imagine noise in these forms leads to more mistakes too.
  - refurb 7y ago
    As per the previous comment, most of it comes from the way the laws were written. If immigration law says “members of a terrorist group can’t get citizenship”, then USCIS has to have a process for following it. In addition to background checks, they ask the question. In terms of booting them out, the question makes it much easier. If they are a member of a terrorist group and they said “no”, well it’s an open and shut case of lying on an immigration application. If they didn’t ask the question, sure they could still boot them out, but it may be a prolonged process.
    - codedokode 7y ago
      But doesn't proving that the person has lied also require additional efforts, and if that person will contest the desicion in court, can become a long process?
      - refurb 7y ago
        I would argue that proving somebody lied on an application would be easier than proving something like “this person is a danger to the US”. The 2nd is much subjective.
        godelski 7y ago
        I'm actually okay with that. Read it the other way around. You can only kick someone out for being dangerous if you can prove they are dangerous.
        notmyaccount 7y ago
        To prove that he lied on the application form, they would have to legally prove him as a terrorist. The legal process of proving someone is a terrorist would be same. So isn't it pointless?
      - chungleong 7y ago
        I don't think judicial courts accept challenges to rulings by administrative judges as a matter of course.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Of course no one will answer yes, but if the govt finds out later you did commit a terrorist act, they have the power to boot you out. Wouldn't the terrorist act do the trick? And don't we mostly imprison people forever when they do those?
rdtsc 7y ago
> I guess I won't apply." Of course not. They would lie. And then the US government can then kick them for fraudulently obtaining their citizenship. That's a lot easier and simpler than having to convict them on terrorism charges. So the US government, is doing this assuming they will lie.