Potential Issue with DA
I don't know if this issue has been brought up before but I'm a little worried.
We all know that one of the basic requirements of the Dream Act has always been good moral character. I was doing some searching on good moral character and stumbled on this in the Immigration and Nationality Act:
What worries me is 6. Apparently employment is a benefit under the INA.
This wouldn't have been a problem in earlier versions of the Dream Act since good moral character was required since the date of the enactment of the DA. I went back to look at the 2010 version and that part was changed to require good moral character since the day we initially entered and the current versions have the same thing.
Any future DA bills will probably have the same. So, will those who are employed face problems if the requirement stays the same?
We all know that one of the basic requirements of the Dream Act has always been good moral character. I was doing some searching on good moral character and stumbled on this in the Immigration and Nationality Act:
Quote:
|
f) For the purposes of this Act-No person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be established, is or was-- (1) a habitual drunkard; (2) stricken by Sec. 2(c)(1) of Pub. L. 97-116. (3) a member of one or more of the classes of persons, whether inadmissible or not, described in paragraphs (2)(D), (6)(E), and 18c/ (10)(A) of section 212(a) of this Act; or subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 212(a)(2) and subparagraph (C) thereof of such section (except as such paragraph relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marihuana); if the offense described therein, for which such person was convicted or of which he admits the commission, was committed during such period; (4) one whose income is derived principally from illegal gambling activities; (5) one who has been convicted of two or more gambling offenses committed during such period; (6) one who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under this Act; (7) one who during such period has been confined, as a result of conviction, to a penal institution for an aggregate period of one hundred and eighty days or more, regardless of whether the offense, or offenses, for which he has been confined were committed within or without such period; (  one who at any time has been convicted of an aggravated felony (as defined in subsection (a)(43)); or 18b/
|
This wouldn't have been a problem in earlier versions of the Dream Act since good moral character was required since the date of the enactment of the DA. I went back to look at the 2010 version and that part was changed to require good moral character since the day we initially entered and the current versions have the same thing.
Any future DA bills will probably have the same. So, will those who are employed face problems if the requirement stays the same?
Post your reply or quote more messages.
I think you misunderstood the wording.
From what I understand, this means that you shall not lie in your application and/or evidence just because you want deferred action and a work permit. Everything in your application must be the truth.
I assume false testimony would be like lying about coming here before the age of 16, when you really didn't. Benefits would refer to deferred action/work permit.
Please correct me I'm wrong
From what I understand, this means that you shall not lie in your application and/or evidence just because you want deferred action and a work permit. Everything in your application must be the truth.
I assume false testimony would be like lying about coming here before the age of 16, when you really didn't. Benefits would refer to deferred action/work permit.
Please correct me I'm wrong
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Last edited by dreamy14; 06-30-2012 at 04:01 AM..
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biblio
Sorry if I wasn't clear but I wasn't specifically asking about deferred action but the actual Dream Act bill that will let us legalize our status.
This is what I initially thought too but I was reading somewhere that employment is also an immigrant benefit because of the whole section on employment in the INA. I'll link later since im on mobile but can anyone clear this up. It seems to me that it can potentially affect a lot of people. |
Post your reply or quote more messages.
^ You're right, BUT I just did some more searching and found some stuff here http://imminfo.com/Library/citizensh...ation_gmc.html
Here's the part clarifying the section I posted earlier(kind of long so I took off most of it)
It seems that for false testimony bar to apply it has to be oral so employment stuff (like the I-9) shouldn't apply.
Sorry for any panic caused DAP. I was just a little worried.
Here's the part clarifying the section I posted earlier(kind of long so I took off most of it)
Quote:
|
There are three elements to false testimony that must exist for a naturalization application to be denied on false testimony grounds. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780-81 (198 [Appendix 74-6], the elements of false testimony are: Oral statements.“Testimony” for the purposes of section 101(f)(6) of the Act must be oral. False statements in an application, whether or not under oath, do not constitute “testimony”. Falsified documents do not constitute “testimony”. Further, the oral statement must be an affirmative misrepresentation. The Kungys decision makes it clear that there has been no false testimony if facts are merely concealed. Thus, incomplete but otherwise truthful answers will not rise to the level of false testimony. Concealment of the existence of a conviction is not false testimony. For example, an individual has two convictions in the statutory period: one DUI conviction and one conviction for Assault and Battery. In response to the “arrest” question, the applicant testifies, “Yes, I was arrested for DUI and given one year probation.” That testimony is not false. It does conceal the existence of the other conviction, but is not an affirmative misrepresentation and is not, therefore, false testimony. To solve this problem, ALWAYS ask a follow-up question after a known concealment, such as, “Are there any other arrests?” Assuming the applicant answers “no”, he has now provided false testimony. Under Oath. The oral statement must be made under oath in order to constitute false testimony. Oral statements to officers that are not under oath do not constitute false testimony. With Subjective Intent to obtain an immigration benefit. An individual must be providing the false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit. False testimony provided for any other reason does not preclude an individual from establishing good moral character. Subjective intent is often the most difficult aspect of sustaining a false testimony denial. As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States: “It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.” |
Sorry for any panic caused DAP. I was just a little worried.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biblio
^ You're right, BUT I just did some more searching and found some stuff here http://imminfo.com/Library/citizensh...ation_gmc.html
Here's the part clarifying the section I posted earlier(kind of long so I took off most of it) It seems that for false testimony bar to apply it has to be oral so employment stuff (like the I-9) shouldn't apply. Sorry for any panic caused DAP. I was just a little worried. |
Post your reply or quote more messages.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»