Oath Delays in St. Paul Newspaper article 12/18/2007

[NickD 202]

It's been two weeks since our interview and wife was told she should hear about her oath in two weeks, nothing yet. But was curious where the oath ceremony was held and ran across this article.

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2007/...definitely.html

Very long article attempting to explain the delays of last December and without reasons, why oath ceremonies were delayed with over a thousand people set aside. Also about name checks and other nationwide delays where those applications are set aside and may take years to process.

We live in Wisconsin, and maybe this doesn't even apply to us, right on the hairy edge between Milwaukee and St. Paul and we were equally scheduled at both.

Doesn't appear to be very many members here in the St. Paul area, wish there was to learn about the oath ceremony in this area.

[jtee 0]

It's been two weeks since our interview and wife was told she should hear about her oath in two weeks, nothing yet. But was curious where the oath ceremony was held and ran across this article.

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2007/...definitely.html

Very long article attempting to explain the delays of last December and without reasons, why oath ceremonies were delayed with over a thousand people set aside. Also about name checks and other nationwide delays where those applications are set aside and may take years to process.

We live in Wisconsin, and maybe this doesn't even apply to us, right on the hairy edge between Milwaukee and St. Paul and we were equally scheduled at both.

Doesn't appear to be very many members here in the St. Paul area, wish there was to learn about the oath ceremony in this area.

Good article - gives a comprehensive account of what's going on with naturalization process.. nothing we can do but wait and hope for the best..

[NickD 202]

This one may bend your brain, but gives some of the history where we are today. The USCIS site is loaded with articles like this.

"Interpretation 319.1 Naturalization based upon citizenship of spouse.

(a) Act of September 22, 1922.

(B) Act of May 24, 1934.

© Nationality Act of 1940.

(d) Immigration and Nationality Act.

(a) Act of September 22, 1922 . Until 1922, married women were ineligible to judicial naturalization during coverture. 1 / Since the Act of September 22, 1922, the statutes have not only permitted such naturalization, but have provided for eligibility after a diminished period of residence in the United States, provided the petition for naturalization was based upon marriage to a United States citizen. The Congressional committee which considered the 1922 legislation deemed it inexpedient and undesirable to require the wife of a United States citizen to wait five years before naturalization, since there was every reason to believe that she would qualify herself for citizenship more rapidly than other aliens because of the existing relationship. 2 /

Residence within the United State for only one year was required under the above 1922 statute, which related only to women who thereafter married citizens or whose husbands were subsequently naturalized. Such wives were also statutorily exempt from the normal declaration of intention requirement, as they continued to be under all subsequent legislation of a similar nature. 3 /

(B) Act of May 24, 1934 . The Act of May 24, 1934, which amended the above 1922 enactment, provided similar benefits for the spouse of a United States citizen, either man or woman, but the period of required residence in the United States was increased to three years.

The courts differed as to the meaning of the words "after the passage of this Act, as here amended" which appeared in the 1934 legislation. Some authority argued that the amendment referred back to the date of the original 1922 enactment, and conferred eligibility under the 1934 statute upon the man who married a citizen or whose wife was naturalized between the 1922 and 1934 acts. 4 / In addition, it was sometimes held that the 1922 statutory exemptions survived the enactment of the 1934 legislation, and that a woman who married a citizen or whose husband was naturalized between such dates need establish only one year's residence in the United States. 5 /

The above interpretations of the amended 1922 statute were both accepted and applied by the Service until the legislation was repealed by the Act of October 14, 1940.

© Nationality Act of 1940 . In framing the 1940 statute, Congress incorporated provisions 6 / substantially similar to those of the 1922 and 1934 enactment which, in effect, constituted an adoption of the interpretative rulings set forth above. In addition, naturalizations accomplished in accordance with such interpretations were specifically validated by the new act, 7 / since Congress considered them to be of doubtful legality. 8 /

Current section 319 is, in part, a reenactment in modified form of another provision of the 1940 statute 9 / which authorized the naturalization of a person who was then or thereafter became the spouse of a citizen, upon proof of two years' United States residence, provided the applicant had resided in marital union with the spouse for the year immediately preceding the date of the petition and the spouse had been a citizen during that entire period. Such provisos were not involved in the other provisions of the 1940 law, 10 / permitting naturalization based upon marriage, and divorce or separation did not affect eligibility thereunder, provided the citizen spouse was naturalized in one of the required periods and during the existence of the marital relationship. 11 /

(d) Immigration and Nationality Act . (1) Termination of marriage or citizenship . Except to the extent otherwise provided in section 319(d), a person who petitions for naturalization as the spouse of a United States citizen under section 319(a) is ineligible if, before or after the filing of the petition, the marriage has terminated by death or divorce 11a / or the citizen spouse has expatriated. Furthermore, eligibility is not restored to a petitioner whose citizen spouse dies before admission to citizenship, 11b / even though petitioner thereafter marries another United States citizen and is still his spouse at the time of hearing. 12 /

The surviving spouse of a United States citizen who dies during a period of honorable service in an active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States, retains eligibility for naturalization under section 319(d), notwithstanding that the surviving spouse has remarried. 12a/

Although section 319(a), as distinguished from sections 319(B) and (d), further requires that the petitioner shall live in marital union with the citizen spouse during the entire period of three years immediately preceding the date of his petition, no similar requirement exists for the period between the date of filing the petition for naturalization and the date of naturalization, during which period only the existence of a legally valid marriage is required. 12b /

(2) Marital union for purposes of section 319(a) . The requirement that the petitioner live in marital union with the citizen spouse during the three-year period should be given a reasonably strict construction in order that it may lead to accomplishment of the objective of having the noncitizen spouse absorb basic concepts of citizenship through close association with the citizen spouse. 13 /

A two-week separation during the requisite period has been held not to affect eligibility when the separation was ordered by a court as a cooling-off period following the husband's arrest for assaulting the wife. 14 / A similar brief cooling-off period not court ordered, but which could not reasonably be regarded as adversely affecting the objective of the requirement as interpreted in Kostas , 13 / also does not affect eligibility.

Another petition, 14a / involving parties who had been reconciled after a few brief separations, was granted even though a subsequent separation of two-and-one-half months immediately prior to the petition-filing prompted the petitioner to file a divorce complaint, which remained pending at the time the petition was finally heard. In granting the petition, the court noted that reconciliations had invariably followed the earlier separations; that the divorce proceeding had remained inactive; that two-and-one-half months out of a five-and-one-half-year marriage was a relatively short period of separation; and that, during such period, the citizen husband continued to support the petitioner, and both claimed not to have intended a permanent separation. The court stated that these facts resembled those in the Omar case, 14b / the implication being that, as in Omar, the separation of the parties had been a temporary cooling-off period, rather than complete and permanent. While the Service has recognized and will continue to apply the rationale of Omar, the decision in Olan 14c / in not to be regarded as a norm for determining what facts will bring a case within the scope of the Omar ruling. Moreover, since the Olan case was decided upon the Omar principle early in the decision, the court's subsequent gratuitous interpretation of the phrase "in marital union," which equated such phrase with the mere existence of the marital status, is regarded as dicta and shall not be followed by the Service.

It is the further position of the Service that, where a petitioner and spouse do not live apart by choice, or because of a legal separation or marital difficulties, but solely as a result of circumstances beyond their control, such as service in the armed forces of the United States or essential business or occupational demands, such separation­even when prolonged­does not preclude naturalization under this section.

It has been held, however, that the residence in marital union, or at least a substantial portion thereof, must be in the United States, with the citizen spouse. Thus, where the citizen spouse has never been in the United States, eligibility under the current statute is not established even though petitioner resided abroad in marital union with the spouse during a part of the three-year period. 15 /

(3) Citizenship of wife under Act of June 25, 1936 . The husband of a women restored to citizenship by the Act of June 25, 1936, as amended, may petition for naturalization under section 319 even though such woman has not taken the oath of allegiance to the United States, since the wife is considered to have been naturalized by operation of the statutes rather than by taking the oath. 16 /

(4) Application of savings clause . The current statutory savings clause 17 / permitted an applicant who, on December 24, 1952, was eligible for naturalization under the marriage provisions of the 1940 Act, to be naturalized under that statute on petition filed on or after the 1952 date, even though the required period of residence which was begun before such date was not completed until thereafter, 18 / provided the petition was filed before September 26, 1961. 19 /

However, eligibility upon the above basis did not exist when the requisite marriage occurred on or after the 1952 date, even though the applicant had maintained a lawful permanent residence in the United States since prior thereto 20 / and, as a result of such residence had a preserved "status," "condition," or "right in process of acquisition" under the savings clause which could eventually render him eligible to proceed with naturalization under the general provisions of the 1940 legislation. 21 /

(5) Application of general naturalization requirements . The general qualifications currently required for naturalization must be established by one who seeks citizenship under this section. 22 / Because of the diminished residence requirement, however, good moral character, attachment and favorable disposition 23 / need only be established for the requisite three-year period of residence.

A construction of previous statutory provisions, similar to that above, to which the Service adhered, was questioned by several courts who considered 5 years to be the minimum requisite period. 24 /

Unlike previous legislation which did not require a specific period of county, state or territorial residence, the current section makes state residence for six months an absolute requirement.

(6) Location of serviceman's residence for purpose of filing petition under section 319 . INTERP 316.1(B)(2)(iv) applies equally to a person who is serving in the armed forces and seeks to file a petition under section 319."

So how long does an alien have to be married to a USC for naturalization, can read six months, 1,2. 3, or 5 years, but the terms married and resident are really not distinguished, not sure if we even had residence status back then. Then the question about taking or not having to take an oath.

What I find mind bending about all this, is that no logical or statistical data is given for making these changes, these are just opinions of the congress at the time. So our lives are determined by opinions! Historically, these were quiet times in the country and apparently the congress didn't have anything better to do, and perhaps the final decisions were simply made by the flipping of a coin.

Gee, I love science and hate politics.