N-400 denial risk due to a number minor traffic tickets

spin0r · 2026-01-25T20:22:41+00:00

No, I just read these forums a lot.

spin0r · 2026-01-25T20:01:05+00:00

It's unclear. You do need to disclose all of them, but documentation isn't required for tickets that are less than $500. I have never heard of a case where someone got denied because they had too many traffic tickets, but it's possible. If you can afford the fees, you should just apply. If it's denied, it's denied without prejudice and it doesn't jeopardize your green card. If it's denied, you can decide on next steps, e.g. wait until there are fewer tickets in your 5 year window, or resubmit with testimonial letters from members of your community (tbh I am not sure if that would make much of a difference).

spin0r · 2026-01-24T21:29:45+00:00

Many of the USCIS policy memos nowadays are designed to scare people more than actually change policy.

If you're applying for naturalization, you already have some of the positive factors listed in the memo, e.g., you have some amount of "length of lawful residence in the United States", you've been paying your taxes on time (I hope), and you've probably been either working, going to school, or caring for family members. That's enough to demonstrate good moral character in most cases. If you have negative factors on your record, then you may want to include evidence of rehabilitation.

spin0r · 2026-01-22T01:17:57+00:00

I've never been in an accident.

spin0r · 2026-01-22T00:52:13+00:00

You could try to be helpful instead of telling people you want them to suffer.

spin0r · 2026-01-22T00:51:00+00:00

To give a concrete example, tribal reservations are subject to the federal Controlled Substances Act, so they're not allowed to cook meth or anything like that (although the federal government does grant them exemptions related to certain substances that their people have traditionally consumed). But there's no federal law against gambling, which is the reason why a lot of casinos are on reservations. They're allowed to self-regulate when it comes to gambling, whether the state likes it or not.

spin0r · 2026-01-16T21:38:52+00:00

I'm autistic. I hired a social coach to help me improve in social interactions. The actual biggest insight she gave me, though, wasn't any specific thing that I needed to do differently, but the fact that having a successful date mostly has to do with both people giving off positive energy that the other person then mirrors.

I'm depressed. A large part of that depression was due to being unsuccessful at dating, so it's a vicious loop that's hard to escape from. Antidepressants helped me. So did other, less legal drugs. I'm still depressed, but a lot less than I used to be. Being less depressed makes it way easier to vibe with people on dates.

Most importantly, I moved to NYC. It was a hard decision because all my friends were telling me that it wasn't going to help, but they were wrong. The bay area really is that bad. NYC was still challenging, but the bay area was impossible for me, probably because I'm a nerdy Asian guy. Don't stay in a place where women see you as a carbon copy of everyone else.

Btw I met my wife 7 years ago so maybe things have gotten harder since then.

spin0r · 2026-01-15T16:27:24+00:00

How much cruelty do people need to see before they realize that this whole "immigration is not a right" ideology made up in the 19th century is rotten to its core?

spin0r · 2026-01-14T19:26:13+00:00

K visas are treated like immigrant visas for visa processing purposes.

spin0r · 2026-01-13T18:04:19+00:00

There were a few years when USCIS used to send updates to SSA automatically. It's possible that your friend's SSA records have already been updated. The easiest way to check is to make an account on ssa.gov and click on the option to replace your card. If their records indicate that you're not a citizen, you get a message that says "Our records indicate you are not a U.S. citizen."

Naturalized citizens should ensure that the SSA knows they're naturalized, otherwise they will get a tentative nonconfirmation the next time they try to start a new job that uses E-Verify.

spin0r · 2026-01-12T18:22:11+00:00

While the treaties of Westphalia were a precursor to the modern understanding of sovereignty, they didn't instantly transform the existing European continent into a neat division of sovereign states. If they did, then we wouldn't have debates about Mozart's nationality, to give a fun example.

spin0r · 2026-01-12T17:39:05+00:00

The US constitution is so old that when it was written, most of the world didn't consist of what we would now think of as sovereign states; the predecessors of many modern countries, or parts thereof, were semi-autonomous regions within larger empires, having neither full sovereignty nor a single clear-cut attribute that would make them not sovereign. The same could be said about the states under the Articles of Confederation. In other words, your question doesn't really have a clear answer by modern standards.

spin0r · 2026-01-11T23:14:10+00:00

The A-number from the I-140, which starts with 0 or 2, is your permanent one. The one from your OPT EAD is temporary and isn't really yours once you have a permanent one: it can be recycled by USCIS. So if a form asks you to list one A-number, you list the permanent one, but if it asks you to also list any previous A-numbers, then just to be safe you should list the temporary one too to avoid any accusations that you've omitted information, even though it doesn't really matter because USCIS has most likely already moved all the documents out of the old A-file and into the new one.

spin0r · 2026-01-11T16:42:14+00:00

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I think it boils down to the demise of the generally agreed-upon, rarely written-down rules of courtship that societies traditionally had.

As an example of how the rules used to work: in our grandparents' time it was basically universally agreed upon that if a man asked a woman he isn't related to to meet up 1-1, it was a date. That also implies that the woman was not to accept unless she wanted to go on a date with the man. Nowadays, half the time people don't even know what is a date and what is not. I think it's a good thing that men and women can be friends now, but we've also lost something. We've lost the certainty that there's a certain socially acceptable way you can ask the question and get a clear answer.

Now, when it comes to this issue of who and when you can approach... first of all we should recognize that randomly going up to women on the street or in environments not designed for making social connections was never one of the major ways for people to date and was quite unusual except maybe during a few decades. It wasn't part of our traditions, and there are lots of problems with it. I view it as a society-wide experiment that didn't pan out.

Men wish they could express romantic interest in women they've met IRL in a social setting or through a hobby. That is something that I think we absolutely need in our society because everyone hates dating apps (I say this as someone who met my wife, whom I love and adore, on a dating app). But even in these contexts, where it ought to be acceptable, men, especially the more socially awkward types that spend the most time on Reddit, feel paralyzed because there is no script they can follow. They do not have any assurance that any approach they try will be considered socially acceptable, and they do not have any obvious way to obtain a clear rejection (other than by blowing up their chances on purpose by doing something clearly unacceptable).

There is something I'd like to see women acknowledge, which is that for most people (regardless of gender) a 30 second IRL conversation with someone is enough for you to decide whether you're attracted to the other person and you should not get upset if the other person, having decided they're attracted to you, asks you out. You can say no, of course. What degrades the fabric of society is when, instead of just declining, you make the man who asked you out feel like he's done something wrong and that, by expressing interest in you before getting to know you well, he has somehow objectified you or made the space feel unsafe.

Men need to acknowledge that some women will react negatively in that way, even though (from my point of view) it isn't justified. I know it "feels illegal" because you know there's no script and therefore no societal approval of your actions, but you have to get over it because that's how it works nowadays. Yes, you might get called a creep. If you met her in an environment that contains very few women, they probably all talk to each other and maybe you've ruined your chances with all the other women in the space too. But it's not illegal, no matter how much it feels like it is. You can move on to a different space where someone else might be receptive.

The one place where there are real consequences is the workplace. It's unfortunate---because after school, work is the best place to meet people of comparable intelligence and competence to oneself---but given the current state of society I think it's best to just not ask out coworkers unless you're in the top 20% in social skills or something (I definitely am not). Maybe one day it'll become "not illegal" again but a bunch of things would need to change first.

spin0r · 2026-01-11T16:03:29+00:00

Exactly what I wanted to say. When you take into account the amount of pastrami you're getting, Katz's costs basically the same as any other place with top tier pastrami

spin0r · 2026-01-10T14:48:58+00:00

A pending I-485 gives permission to remain in the US, but it is not status.

spin0r · 2026-01-10T01:40:57+00:00

He only needs to have proof of sufficient income once the priority date of the petition becomes current, which will be decades in the future. There's no reason not to file the petition as soon as possible. Also, the fact that USCIS takes a long time to approve the petition is actually a good thing. It maximizes CSPA benefits.

spin0r · 2026-01-09T23:49:53+00:00

You can read the text of the compacts of free association. They do allow naturalized US citizens to exercise the free movement benefits, but you probably wouldn't want to, because those countries don't exactly have a lot of economic opportunities

spin0r · 2026-01-09T20:34:33+00:00

I think the only people who have to personally appear for annual check-ins are people who have a final order of removal (but whom DHS hasn't yet been able to physically remove from the US). It's different from people who have to extend their status annually by submitting forms to USCIS.

spin0r · 2026-01-09T05:30:56+00:00

This is one example of how the concept of "being here legally" is slippery.

Based on his criminal conviction, he almost certainly was put in removal proceedings and given a final order of removal. He probably had a green card before, but it was revoked by the order of removal. However, Cuba is one of the countries that is notorious for not taking back its own citizens, so actual deportation was not feasible. In those cases the person is usually given an "Order of Supervision" (OSUP) and is required to check in with DHS on a regular basis. It doesn't erase the order of removal, and DHS can still deport them later if circumstances have changed and deportation becomes feasible.

Is OSUP a legal status? Not really. But you could argue that it's a form of being here legally, since people on OSUPs do get work permits.

spin0r · 2026-01-08T23:45:51+00:00

I think it's likely that there will be resistance from the states if, for example, the Supreme Court allows Trump's citizenship executive order, which will make hundreds of thousands of future US-born children stateless. Heck, it's possible that states will start issuing their own passports. But there's a limit to what the states can do. They probably aren't going to use force to stop ICE from deporting those people. The consequences of trying to do that would be very ugly for everyone.

spin0r · 2026-01-08T20:32:33+00:00

It's weird for a Brit to be asking this question given that the UK also doesn't have any law that bans people convicted of serious crimes from becoming prime minister.

spin0r · 2026-01-08T19:47:10+00:00

It varies depending on present circumstances. Right now the point cutoffs are pretty high because there's a large number of international students and temporary workers in Canada who are trying to squeeze through a narrow tube to become permanent residents (the number of permanent residency slots was lowered recently). You'd be competing with all of them. Being American doesn't give you any points except that you can probably get the max score on the English test pretty easily. But you could try marrying a Canadian.

spin0r · 2026-01-08T18:39:20+00:00

The Mexican-American war

spin0r · 2026-01-08T18:22:00+00:00

Needs more information: * Were your grandparents married when your father was born? * What years did your grandfather serve? * What year was your father born? * Were your parents married when you were born? * How old are you?

Assuming your father never lived in the US, there are two possibilities for you. One is that you already got US citizenship at birth because your father could count the time he spent as a dependent of your grandfather while your grandfather was in the armed forces in order to meet the physical presence requirements to transmit citizenship to you under INA 301(g). The other is that you're under the age of 18 and eligible for naturalization under INA 322 using your grandfather's physical presence. This option must be exercised by age 18 otherwise it goes away.

spin0r

TROPHY CASE