New Immigration Decree, Long Life To King Macri!

[Bajo_cero2]

Kindly point out what exactly I said that you refer to as 'wrong'.

Blablabla.

 

[ben]

Well well, seems we have a chip on the shoulder here.

Firstly, I made no claim to knowing the facts of the case. To the contrary, my first post on the subject used the word 'if' multiple times. Some question marks too. As such, to call it 'wrong', is, well, wrong.

I have no idea of the case beyond the media reports. No idea if the citizenship was revoked by the government or the Court; whether this can or is being appealed; the specifics of the revocations - whether they revoked any and all cases where this clerk was involved, or only in cases where they could indeed prove bad faith. No idea this 'gestor' had a reputation for wheeling and dealing such that anyone who dealt with him can be assumed have known that there was subterfuge involved. Whatever.

Simple hypothetical: What if ElCordobes' citizenship case, who I assume didn't pay any thousands of pesos to any gestor, had had this clerk's signature? Would their case be revoked too?

What I said/asked was simply that if the applicants' citizenship was cancelled without clear proof of acting in bad faith, that does not inspire confidence in the system. If. Conditional. It could not be otherwise, seeing as I knew as much about the case as anyone else here who'd read a media article.

But you seem to be a little peeved at your last smackdown, so you got excited at a chance to show me 'wrong'. That's ok. No harm done.

 

[Ceviche]

What if ElCordobes' citizenship case, who I assume didn't pay any thousands of pesos to any gestor, had had this clerk's signature? Would their case be revoked too?

Excellent Question.

 

[ElCordobés]

Thankfully my wife and I processed our cases at juzgado 3 and juzgado 2 respectively. Hopefully it doesn't expand beyond juzgado 1. The clerk, fiscal nor judge in question appear not to have signed anything on our cases.

We were permanent residents prior to applying and I did not use a gestor for any aspect of the process.

That said, it's quite unsettling that there could be any question as to the legitimacy of our citizenship.

 

[ben]

And certainly if we are discussing US precedents, the situation is not at all simple. It is not easy to revoke US citizenship, once granted.

The main grounds for revoking US naturalization are either that:

• the naturalization was procured illegally, defined as that the petitioner failed to meet an eligibility requirement,
• or that the person lied in the application.
  Moreover, it emerges from 2 SCOTUS cases (Chaunt vs. U.S., Kungyn vs. U.S.) that a misrepresentation can qualify for revocation in one of 2 cases:
  • that the misrepresentation be material, i.e. that knowledge of the true fact would tend to result in citizenship not being granted;
  • that the misrepresentation demonstrate lack of good character, for which the lie need not be material, but merely must be "for the purpose of obtaining" immigration or naturalization benefits.
  • Misstating an address? Hmmm.

If in fact US precedent guides Argentine courts, it emerges that if the Chinese were in fact entitled to Argentine citizenship - which bajo would be the first to argue that they are - there becomes a big question of how and why it would be revoked.

 

[Ceviche]

How can another country's law be quoted in a different country.

Sounds weird.

However :-

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartL-Chapter2.html

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Beeeeeen, remember?
http://www.eldestapeweb.com/el-dnu-macri-la-transparencia-ya-habia-sido-decretado-hace-tres-decadas-n26998

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Excellent Question.

Yes, it can be revoked. It has nothing to do with hiring or not a paralegal. It is all about fraud.

 

[ben]

Beeeeeen, remember?
http://www.eldestape...-decadas-n26998

Huh?
If you mean to refer to something I wrote, be so kind as to refresh my memory. I have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[ben]

Yes, it can be revoked. It has nothing to do with hiring or not a paralegal. It is all about fraud.

Looks like you didn't understand the question.

The point is that (we are assuming for purposes of this discussion that) ElCordobes committed no fraud. He engaged in the process exactly as prescribed.

Had this secretary's signature been in his file, (you seem to be saying that) his citizenship would be revoked over malfeasance of an officer (or employee) of the Court. Not on the part of the applicant.
If that is so, then that is a travesty of justice, certainly nothing similar to the US citizenship law that you say SC precedents here refer to.

As I pointed out before, in the US people have made fairly substantial misrepresentations in both their visa and citizenship application and the SCOTUS ruled for their citizenship to not be revoked.