DO WOULD-BE CITIZENS HAVE TO SHOW THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE?
By Peter J. Spiro, 2020; The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship, 2018; Diego Acosta, 2018; Nils A. Butenschon et al.,2000; Samuel P. Huntington’s 2005; Patrick Weil, 1789
Since the first naturalisation Act was enacted in 1790, candidates for naturalisation in the United States have been expected to demonstrate "true moral behaviour" throughout the requisite residency period. At one time, the criterion was interpreted as prohibiting naturalisation for any infraction of the Act, even if the infraction was not penalised.
Judges rejected naturalisation in the early twentieth century for a single act of adultery, ingestion of intoxicating substances (under Prohibition), reluctance to adopt a baby born out of wedlock, and even traffic offences.
"Judges have the discretion to apply the character criteria in any way they see fit, including in combination with the concurrent requirement (also employed in the first naturalisation statute and subsequently) that applicants demonstrate" commitment to the rules of the Constitution."
Later, in 1952, the phrase "real moral character" was enlarged to cover persons accused of "crimes of moral turpitude" and drug offences, as well as so-called serious felonies.
These are essentially irrelevant for naturalisation reasons since they often result in deportation (in other words, the applicant would not be able to remain in the country, let alone gain citizenship).
The character criteria is often interpreted as allowing naturalisation in the absence of criminality—that is, as long as the person has not been convicted of a criminal offence. However, some religious exclusions remain in the legislative notion. Until 1981, any applicant who committed adultery during the required residence period was ineligible for a judgement of good moral character.
Even if they have not been convicted, someone whose "money is principally acquired from criminal gambling enterprises" is nevertheless barred from naturalisation. In 2017, a federal appeals court upheld the denial of naturalisation for an immigrant who acknowledged to being a "chronic alcoholic," a constitutional prohibition on proving good behaviour.
Most other nations often require strict behaviour and/or prohibit naturalisation based on a criminal history. Candidates in Angola may not be prosecuted with a felony punishable by more than three years in jail.
According to the official interpretation of the law, Sweden requires applicants to have lived and be trusted to lead a "respectable living," while Saudi Arabia forbids naturalisation of candidates who are "crazy or insane." In recent years, all governments have implemented financial self-sufficiency norms.
Individuals in Denmark, for example, must demonstrate self-sufficiency for four and a half of the five years before the application for citizenship.
Finally, naturalisation is a difficult process. Most nations require applicants to pay a tax, which may be rather substantial in certain cases. Candidates in the United States must pay $725, with no exemption for dependents.
The cost for a family of four is about $3000, which is a significant financial burden for a typical middle-class immigrant family. The cost has more than doubled in the previous decade. Waivers are allowed in cases of financial need, but usually come with additional paperwork and delay.
Naturalization costs more than £1,300 in the United Kingdom, with a modest exception for anybody under the age of eighteen. These expenses are excessive; in Belgium, France, Germany, and other countries, the cost is less than $100 per claimant.
Large payments are justified in the United States and the United Kingdom as paying operational expenditures. However, the exorbitant cost may dissuade some qualified candidates. Because it is too costly, all immigrants are unable to get citizenship and the perks that come with it.
References:
1. Sam Moqadam on Unsplash
Comments
Post a Comment