San Francisco Chronicle: U.S. Citizens Wrongly Deported

The SF Chronicle is doing a great job writing hard-hitting pieces. Here is one particularly good article on our convoluted immigration laws and procedures.

I've said before, and I'll say it again: America's immigration laws give too much power and discretion to unelected government workers. With such power, you'd think there would be better checks and balances in place, or at least incentives to expeditiously process applications.

For example, immigration authorities delayed processing my application for a citizenship certificate, even though they cashed my check and there was no dispute as to my citizenship. I was already a citizen, I had a passport, and I just wanted the actual certificate. Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? Yet, it took me several emails to Senator Diane Feinstein's office to get a copy of my citizenship certificate--years after I'd paid the fee and received citizenship. Did anyone at the BCIS get punished for improperly sitting on my application for years? Probably not. There's no way for me to tell who handled my application or whose responsibility it was to process it. Even when I buy underwear, there's a sticker that tells me who inspected it. Isn't it sad that underwear sales have better safeguards in place than immigration laws?

In fact, immigration lawyers have one of the least expensive costs for malpractice insurance policies. Why? Because if the lawyer loses the case, the client--often someone who doesn't speak perfect English--leaves the country, making it difficult, if not impossible, to file a malpractice lawsuit. The entire system is obviously screwed up when it takes multiple contacts to a U.S. Senator to get a certificate confirming a citizen's existing status.

I'd like to thank Senator Feinstein's office for helping me when I had this issue. I don't know which individual in her office helped me, but I'd like to thank her, too. Without their help, I probably would have never gotten my citizenship certificate.

An X-Mas Gift

On X-Mas Eve, I received my new passport. I love the new design. I realize the new passports are a privacy lover's worst nightmare because of the embedded chips. I was still very happy to receive what felt like a timely gift from the feds. I especially like the quotes from famous Americans, including Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., on each page. Here's one I had not seen before:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -- JFK

The passport also has blank sections where you can write in your address and other contact information. Use pencil when writing in the requested information. I made the mistake of writing my address and phone number in pen on the passport. That's my fault, of course--paragraph 5 told me to use pencil. The new passport also has two new pages titled, "Important Information." Most of the information is excellent and useful, but there is one interesting section--"Loss of U.S. Citizenship" (paragraph 13):

LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP. Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing any of the following acts: (1) being naturalized in a foreign state; (2) taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state; (3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state; (4) accepting employment with a foreign government; or (5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer overseas.

I admit I don't know which federal statute the above language comes from. (If someone does, please post a comment or email me the U.S.C. and/or CFRs directly.) Even so, most of the language seems overly vague and may therefore be unconstitutional.

For example, "Taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state?" That could encompass a lawyer writing a declaration in another country's court of law on a routine matter.

How about, "Serving in the armed forces of another state?" What about an Israeli citizen with dual citizenship? (Israel has mandatory military service.)

In short, Americans have allowed their government too much discretion if their new passports contain the direct language of a federal law. I am now having visions of Sir Thomas More appearing before Chancellor Cromwell, i.e., an innocent citizen before a government employee who twists the law to eliminate opposition. My country can do better in protecting all of its citizens from the vagaries of government discretion.