Possible trick question on N-400 ?

[CaptainPenguin 5]

While re-reading my N-400 that I sent in a while back, one question got me thinking.

Part 10, section B, question 9 asks;

"Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?"

This seems straight forward enough because most of us are peace and democracy loving people, going at our daily businesses and living our lives in and orderly and lawful manner.

However, what I found striking is that technically, this question could be used against pretty much anyone.

Does the question imply that you would have to vocally or financially support an illegal or corrupt organization that wants to do harm, or can you just be a supporter of an international conflict? They could technically ask you if you supported the Iraqi invasion back in 2003, or the overthrow of the Taleban. Would that be grounds for denial? Probably not because that would be unpatriotic would it not? What if you are a US service member, don't you indirectly advocate the overthrow of a government by signing up during times of war? What if they would find an old blog of yours with articles supporting quasi-violent freedom movements in Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan, would that cause problems?

Probably not, because they are most likely looking for ex Nazis and other crazy people. But it is an interesting thought. What do you think?

[David Soloway 0]

While re-reading my N-400 that I sent in a while back, one question got me thinking.

Part 10, section B, question 9 asks;

"Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?"

This seems straight forward enough because most of us are peace and democracy loving people, going at our daily businesses and living our lives in and orderly and lawful manner.

However, what I found striking is that technically, this question could be used against pretty much anyone.

Does the question imply that you would have to vocally or financially support an illegal or corrupt organization that wants to do harm, or can you just be a supporter of an international conflict? They could technically ask you if you supported the Iraqi invasion back in 2003, or the overthrow of the Taleban. Would that be grounds for denial? Probably not because that would be unpatriotic would it not? What if you are a US service member, don't you indirectly advocate the overthrow of a government by signing up during times of war? What if they would find an old blog of yours with articles supporting quasi-violent freedom movements in Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan, would that cause problems?

Probably not, because they are most likely looking for ex Nazis and other crazy people. But it is an interesting thought. What do you think?

[NickD 202]

Our forefathers would have to certainly answer yes to this question:

"Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?"

The result is by force or violence and the action is by advocation that simply implies in favor of and not even direct participation of such an action, and not just the US government, but any government.

Perhaps not a trick question, but certainly a loaded question, USA used force and violence in the revolutionary war, War of 1812, Civil war, Mexican War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Cuban Crisis, Viet Nam war, overthrow of Latin American governments by the CIA under Reagan, the Gulf War, and Iraq, and Afghanistan with sanctions now being imposed on Iran that could well end up in a War. Sanctions imposed again Japan certainly started WW II.

My wife was way too busy trying to raise and support her kids to even be concerned about her government affairs, so she answered no. In contrast to this question is the oath for USC, are you willing to bear arms for this country. Can only be for one purpose, and that is to overthrow a government that we don't like and force and violence is the only way. But is used in the context of providing freedom for the people of that country.

One could only guess why the USCIS is even asking this question. Has to be a reason, I think!

[Bernie C 24]

Our forefathers would have to certainly answer yes to this question:

"Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?"

The result is by force or violence and the action is by advocation that simply implies in favor of and not even direct participation of such an action, and not just the US government, but any government.

Perhaps not a trick question, but certainly a loaded question, USA used force and violence in the revolutionary war, War of 1812, Civil war, Mexican War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Cuban Crisis, Viet Nam war, overthrow of Latin American governments by the CIA under Reagan, the Gulf War, and Iraq, and Afghanistan with sanctions now being imposed on Iran that could well end up in a War. Sanctions imposed again Japan certainly started WW II.

My wife was way too busy trying to raise and support her kids to even be concerned about her government affairs, so she answered no. In contrast to this question is the oath for USC, are you willing to bear arms for this country. Can only be for one purpose, and that is to overthrow a government that we don't like and force and violence is the only way. But is used in the context of providing freedom for the people of that country.

One could only guess why the USCIS is even asking this question. Has to be a reason, I think!

In contrast to this question is the oath for USC, are you willing to bear arms for this country. Can only be for one purpose, and that is to overthrow a government that we don't like and force and violence is the only way. But is used in the context of providing freedom for the people of that country.

So if our borders were aligned with an unfriendly nation and they invaded us, would we not want the right to bear arms against them and fight for our freedom. Would have nothing to do with overthrowing a government or for providing freedom for the people of any country other than our own.

The whole topic could be debated, argued, mulled, etc... until the cows come home and in the end what would you have? The same debate and no clear cut answers. The is so much room for interpretation, opinions and views. It is very interesting. You can search the internet and its already been beaten to death hundreds of times.

[NickD 202]

So if our borders were aligned with an unfriendly nation and they invaded us, would we not want the right to bear arms against them and fight for our freedom. Would have nothing to do with overthrowing a government or for providing freedom for the people of any country other than our own.

The whole topic could be debated, argued, mulled, etc... until the cows come home and in the end what would you have? The same debate and no clear cut answers. The is so much room for interpretation, opinions and views. It is very interesting. You can search the internet and its already been beaten to death hundreds of times.

99.9% of it on the web is based on interpretations and reasons why everyone should have to answer YES to this question. The only reason why I could find why this question was even asked, is because the USCIS wants to be sure an applicant is not against an organized government.

But if that is the case, why don't they just ask, "Are you against an organized government?"

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing link to professional website removed. Acceptable information returned to the thread here:

David Soloway: I don't think it would be fair to call this a "trick question." If an applicant checked the box for "yes," it would trigger a series of questions at the naturalization interview/examination that would be focused upon whether the applicant engaged in criminal conduct, whether the applicant lacked good moral character and whether the applicant is attached to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and is well disposed to the good order and happiness of the U.S. (see 8 U.S.C. § 316.11)

Similarly, checking the box "yes" regarding membership in the Communist Party does not terminate naturalization, but instead would trigger a series of questions at the naturalization interview/examination that would be focused upon whether the membership is/was meaningful, whether it was involuntary and whether it otherwise is/was excusable.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Kathryn41

[NickD 202]

Feel if this photo describes your past, better answer, yes.