Three years vs. Five

[jsnearline 2]

Does anyone know why the spouse of a US citizen gets a two year head start vs. anyone else who wants to naturalize? Why not apply the same five (or three) year rule to everyone? That way, once you get to the naturalization stage, you wouldn't have to prove anything regarding a bona fide marriage. It could simplify the process and speed up adjudications as well.

[lucyrich 20]

Why not apply the same five (or three) year rule to everyone? That way, once you get to the naturalization stage, you wouldn't have to prove anything regarding a bona fide marriage.

If you choose, you can check box 2a of the N-400 and apply using the five year rule, without having to prove anything about a bona fide marriage. It's just that you have to wait longer.

To know the real reason for 319(a) you have to get within the minds of the senators/representatives who wrote the law, passed it through committee, and voted on it. However, the USCIS published interpretations section 319.1 gives a potential hint as to why it might be.

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.

In other words, if you're living very closely with a citizen, you're more likely to learn about citizenship than if you're living in a family/household of noncitizens.

[fozzie 41]

I would assume because of greater ties to American society and culture.

[jsnearline 2]

[in other words, if you're living very closely with a citizen, you're more likely to learn about citizenship than if you're living in a family/household of noncitizens.

That assumes that the US Citizen spouse actually knows something about civics and citizenship. If you've ever seen Jaywalking on the Tonight Show, you know that isn't necessarily the case.

I suppose my wife is lucky that I have a political science degree. Even so, she struggles with the naturalization test questions after having been married to me for almost four and a half years.

[antda 13]

Hi Everyone,

Hmmm...Why 3 years versus 5 years for US Citizen Spouses to become US Citizens...

The short and funny answer: Because of the hell that the USCIS has to put us through, just to be with our loved ones....

Surely, we deserve some sort of compensation for going through all that time, money, paperwork, etc.?

Look at all the visas and processes one go through just to be with spousal loved ones:

-K1, K3, CR, IR, Adjustment of Status, Removal of Conditions, Citizenship...

-We go through this all alone, having to pay out-of-pocket and spend our own time, with almost no backup to go through the immigration process (lol...thank goodness for the help here on VJ!). There are more chances of denials/rejections, and having to "prove" more that the marriage/family is genuine and real. The government more likely does not look favourably towards this type of immigration, compared to other means of immigration. However, they probably also see that "the happier the families, the happier they are at work, the more likely they will stay, the more they will contribute to our country financially". And thus there is more of a chance of someone who has family in America that they will stay here, than there is of someone who has no ties to America other than work related and will leave when their work visa runs out. Lol..the government wants the money to stay in the country...And if you and your family stay...the money stays here, through work and through paying for all the immigration processes...simple, really...Family=Stay in America Forever=More money to the US Government....

Compared to visas and procecesses one has to go through just for work:

-Some sort of work permit....(sorry, I don't know those exact name)....1 work-related stage/process.....Citizenship...

-Workers can be compensated and backed up by the companies that sponsor them. They usually have no problems with denials/rejections, because of this. And be it that the government looks favourable towards financial gains, this is seen as more beneficial to them, so they give them a chance to apply for citizenship too, even though they might have intentions of sending money to other countries instead of letting the money stay in America. Plus, they want these workers to stay longer and have more ties to America that way, instead of leave....Thus....Work=Longer Stay in America=Money to the US Government...

In my opinion, more is at stake when it comes to immigrating for love instead of for work. Morally, you can't really say to an immigrant who is here for family reasons to "just leave your only spouse and only family" if your case is denied. But you morally you can say to an immigrant who is here for work reasons to "find another company and job to sponsor you, as there are so many jobs out there", if your case is denied.

In the end, it boils down to money, according to the government....In the end, they can get more money over a long period of time with long-term families, compared to short-term workers.

Now as for the 1 year rule for Citizenship for military workers...What is that all about? Lol..guess that goes to show that the government's priorities are for wars and fighting too? Sigh....Fighting/Winning Wars=Money to the US Government...

Lol...funny how I mentioned about Jay Walking in my other post on another message thread too......Yeah, I see how some US Citizens don't know about their own country....What they are teaching in the US school system these days...who knows....but it certainly isn't American History/Culture! So to ask a non-knowledgable US Citizen to teach a Permanent Resident/Immigrant....Might as well be "the blind leading the blind" here.....

On ther other hand, there are many US Citizens and Others who know a lot about their country of America, and yes, I encourage those people to help Permanent Residents/Immigrants learn more about America, and make them feel welcomed into this country.

The more we learn about the country we live in, regardless of what country it is, the more happier we'll be...right?

Ant

Edited June 25, 2009 by AntandD

[jsnearline 2]

I have a friend from India who came in on an H1B visa. He had to wait over six years before he was even able to apply for AOS because it took the Labor Department so long to approve his labor certification. During that time he did not have the freedom to switch employers, so his employer had no problems low-balling his salary increases.

He just got his green card a year and a half ago and still has to wait three and a half years more to apply for citizenship. He had to pay for a good portion of his immigration expenses without reimbursement from hsi company.

My wife arrived here in the US four years after he did and yet she'll have her citizenship at least three years before he does. It doesn't really seem fair. He works for the government as a contractor and knows a lot more about the US than a lot of citizens do.

So, I don't think immigrants who come here via the I129F and I-130 always have a harder time of it than those coming in on work visas.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Please forgive me for highjacking this thread. I just briefly read the questions and since I'm a smart guy, interested in politics, could answer most of them correctly. Then at night, I asked my wife, who is at least as smart as I am, the same questions, and she did extremely well. Then I asked our teenage daughter, who is studying political science, and she didn't do quite as well.

If we have to pass the test in order to become US citizens, and I have no problems with that, I think that every US citizen who wants to excercise his right to vote, should pass the same test, in order to prove that he or she knows what they are doing. Just the basics. What's your guess, what percentage of USC would be able to answer all of the questions correctly?

[jsnearline 2]

Such a test would only work if it could withstand lawsuits contending that it would unfairly impact the poor and minorities. My guess is that it would require a consitutional amendment to make it happen, since the Constitution as currently amended says that all citizens over the age of 18 can vote.

[DouglasFiel 53]

Does anyone know why the spouse of a US citizen gets a two year head start vs. anyone else who wants to naturalize? Why not apply the same five (or three) year rule to everyone? That way, once you get to the naturalization stage, you wouldn't have to prove anything regarding a bona fide marriage. It could simplify the process and speed up adjudications as well.

I might tend to be a bit factitious. But, I like to think it is because they had to put up with our crapola for 3 years...

It is a joke... ok?

Regards,

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Such a test would only work if it could withstand lawsuits contending that it would unfairly impact the poor and minorities. My guess is that it would require a consitutional amendment to make it happen, since the Constitution as currently amended says that all citizens over the age of 18 can vote.

Umm, I believe such testing has been been abolished by statute (Voting Rights Act 1965 (as amended)) and several Supreme Court decisions (Oregon v Mitchell in particular). I seriously doubt decades of settled (and hard-won) law will be overturned here. Personally, I would rather have one hundred ignorant men and women enfranchised than one person of any intellectual ability be disenfranchised.

Edited to add a missing parenthesis.

Edited June 25, 2009 by elmcitymaven

[lucyrich 20]

[in other words, if you're living very closely with a citizen, you're more likely to learn about citizenship than if you're living in a family/household of noncitizens.

That assumes that the US Citizen spouse actually knows something about civics and citizenship. If you've ever seen Jaywalking on the Tonight Show, you know that isn't necessarily the case.

I suppose my wife is lucky that I have a political science degree. Even so, she struggles with the naturalization test questions after having been married to me for almost four and a half years.

You're absolutely right that not all native-born citizens know much, especially when it comes to the academic stuff about civics.

But the academic stuff about civics is supposedly taken care of by the civics exam. It doesn't take three years (or five years) to learn that stuff anyway. The three or five year residence requirement is to make sure you know some of the practical things about really living here. Things like how we have to file our taxes every April 15th; how we suffer through political advertising every four years (or more often); how much or how little corruption there is among police and other government officials, in comparison to wherever it is that you came from before; the way our health care system works or doesn't; all sorts of day-to-day realities of living here. In short, it lets you figure out whether you really want to say those words in the Citizenship Oath.

[J&D 0]

...I like to think it is because they had to put up with our crapola for 3 years...

Best answer I've seen for a long time!

[senegaulois 0]

The logic of absorbing US civics knowledge by osmosis through one's USC spouse is compelling enough I suppose. It partially breaks down, however, when it is considered that the spouses of USC working overseas for the United Nations qualify for expedited naturalisation under Section 319.B and do not even have to live in the USA to qualify for citizenship. There has to be a plus side to putting up with no water, power outages, steamy weather in forsaken places doing humanitarian work!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/style_em...efault/good.gif

[jsnearline 2]

Such a test would only work if it could withstand lawsuits contending that it would unfairly impact the poor and minorities. My guess is that it would require a consitutional amendment to make it happen, since the Constitution as currently amended says that all citizens over the age of 18 can vote.

Umm, I believe such testing has been been abolished by statute (Voting Rights Act 1965 (as amended)) and several Supreme Court decisions (Oregon v Mitchell in particular). I seriously doubt decades of settled (and hard-won) law will be overturned here. Personally, I would rather have one hundred ignorant men and women enfranchised than one person of any intellectual ability be disenfranchised.

That's why I said you would probably have to amend the constitution to do it. I'd say the odds of that happening are quite slim.

Based on the most recent decision issued this week, the Supreme Court seems to be moving in the direction of striking down the Voting Rights Act with the rationale that the Act was intended to be temporary and as such has served its intended purpose.