[ad_1]
These questions, says immigration lawyer Ira Kurzban, are asked to see whether an applicant obtained their residence validly, a prerequisite for citizenship. US immigration authorities have, he says, become “very exacting” on this point over the past 10 years.
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service didn’t respond to an inquiry about whether forms used by its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, asked exactly these questions at the time Musk would have been using them, but experts say he would have been asked substantively similar questions, as the relevant law hasn’t changed.
“Those grounds of deportability have been around for decades,” says Yale-Loehr, “and the forms back then probably had similar or identical questions.”
An immigrant who makes misrepresentations as part of the naturalization process can also face criminal exposure: Under US federal law, making a false statement to or concealing a material fact from the government carries a potential penalty of five years in prison.
Greg Siskind, a leading immigration attorney, doesn’t disagree that the law as written could expose someone who lied about working without authorization to loss of citizenship, but says that as a practical matter, it may not amount to a material fact.
“If he had disclosed it, would that have prevented him from getting later immigration benefits?” he asks. “The answer to that is probably no.”
Siskind nonetheless believes that there are serious questions here about, among other things, the nature of the professional relationship between the Musk brothers. And Musk’s past is highly relevant to the clearances he reportedly holds as a top government contractor with an extensive portfolio of holdings related to national security.
Even if Musk were found to have violated the law, he would not be summarily deported. “It’s generally quite difficult to revoke someone’s citizenship for relatively minor status violations which occurred decades earlier,” says Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, who adds that this is “a good thing given how easy it can be to violate arcane immigration rules.”
Under Trump, though, several experts pointed out, the government did far more to denaturalize citizens than it had previously. As Frost wrote in 2019, in the first year and a half of the Trump administration, USCIS opened an office dedicated to denaturalization, investigated thousands of citizens, and reported 95 to the Department of Justice with a recommendation for deportation. (From 1990 to 2017, there was an average of just 11 denaturalization cases per year.)
Even if USCIS had solid evidence that Musk had broken the law, it would, experts say, not handle the matter administratively, but rather could refer it to a US attorney’s office. Prosecutors, who have broad discretion to take up or decline cases, could then proceed, or not, as they saw fit.
Many of the open questions here could be cleared up by Musk authorizing the release of his immigration records under the Freedom of Information Act. His lawyer, Spiro, did not respond to a question asking whether he would do so.
[ad_2]
