Move forward. You shouldn't have any issues whatsoever (based on the facts that you provided).

My case was very similar, I switched jobs in about 2 months from getting the GC. I recently got my citizenship, and it was no problem at all.

    > ... especially considering the new administration?

Not to be rude, but it sounds like you are a lawful permanent resident. Do you have any evidence that suggests that lawful permanent residents are being treated any differently by the government now or in the future by the government? There’s a lot of FUD trying to conflate what’s happening to people entering the country by bypassing official immigration processes and those, like yourself, who have done things by the book.

There have been plenty of news articles in the last two days about the current administration forming a task force to remove citizenship from naturalized citizens that they believe lied on their applications. That's citizens, not just permanent residents. The immigration process is long and complicated. It would be easy to make small mistakes here and there. Technically, some of those mistakes could get you deported.

> remove citizenship from naturalized citizens that they believe lied on their applications

If the individual was given citizenship on the basis of those lies, then it makes total sense to revoke citizenship.

That would be like hiring a developer who says he is an amazing programmer who can solve any problem. Turns out after he got the job, not only is he terrible at programming, but he's also a liar. So you fire him.

If you lie on an application for something, and you are awarded, generally speaking it makes sense to revoke the award if it is discovered that you lied.

On the other hand, what if you say, for instance, that you got your degree in '93, but actually it was '92? The trouble with the law is that it doesn't distinguish between whoppers, fibs and clerical errors. They are all falsehoods, and all are grounds for deportation if the government decides it wants you out of the country.

I assume you meant to say "you claimed you got your degree in 93 when you actually got it in 92". I work in the background check business and each check has its own windows of acceptance. Depending on how long ago the degree was awarded, the window can vary from 0 years to 10+ years. This is also contextual, as if the immigration application was submitted in 93, and you say you got your degree in 92, when you actually got it in 94, and your immigration was approved in 95. This is a clear case of an invalid application.

Having said that, I'd like to see an example of deportation on the grounds of a 1 year mistake in the year one had received their degree, when the degree was received 30 years prior to application. I would like to see it not because I'd agree with such a measure, but because it would give you a strong case.

As it stands I don't believe that anything close to that has happened.

If I continue the logic of your reasonning, the employer should have a technical test the candidate needs to perform in order for the employer to ensure that the candidate is not simply lying about his competences. If the employer gives the test, the employer hires him because he succeeded, then it is more the employer fault to hire him in the first place, not the employee fault because he performed the test.

The moment a person becomes a citizen of a country, he is entitled to the exact same right that the citizen next to him. There is no distinction of a citizen who was born in the country vs a citizen that was naturalized.

In your case, if someone profits from a lie, then we correct the process so that people cannot profit from it anymoreinstead of revoking things you gave by mistake (things _you_ gave by _your_ mistake).

If you hire someone without checking that what they say is true, then I am sorry but you're just stupid. If a country give citizenship to people without verifying that what is written in the application is true, then I think the process is incredibly stupid.

Okay let's just spend trillions of dollars giving every person who has applied for immigration complete background checks, and if any of the checks can't be completed for any reason what-so-ever, we should deny them citizenship. Sounds like a plan, Stan. That, or we just deny everybody because we can't afford it.

Employers can afford to vet their employees. The state cannot afford to vet any regular citizenship application to the same degree. If we could, that'd be great.

This is why it makes sense to assume the best in people (like we do), and if it turns out they intentionally lied or mislead on their application, then revoke the awards that were provided based on that misinformation.

Not to repeat myself, but this is similar to an action taken by the Obama administration.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/politics/us-citizens-deported...

I have sponsored an immigrant (have you?) who is now a citizen. If they were at even minimal risk of losing their citizenship, it would be horrifying. Since the articles referenced involve fraud on immigration applications, I’m sure there is zero percent risk of deportation in my case.

Fraud requires intent. It’s not making a small mistake here and there on an application (been there, done that, fixed it, process goes on).

Once again, this is a quote where a small "mistake" (if you can call it that) caused a visa holder already in the country to be deported: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679062

First of all, an H-1B does not give someone not a lawful permanent residence. Second of all, it seems like his/her employer screwed up. The poster was vague on the timing, but if accurate, the employer was supposed to notify USCIS about the change prior to it taking affect (hence the response that they were not notified on time).

    “If you do not file an amended petition for these employees…,
    you will be out of compliance with USCIS regulation and 
    policy and thus subject to adverse action. Similarly, 
    your H-1B employees would not be maintaining their 
    nonimmigrant status and would also be subject to
    adverse action.

This is from a decision made in 2015. By changing locations prior to notification, they didn’t maintain their status. No ill will or targeting. USCIS did exactly what they said they would do.

LPR or not, it seems totally scary to me that a visa was revoked because the company committed a minor mistake in filing the notification: for all we know, the company filed the notification in a timely manner but sent a superfluous check with it that caused the document to be returned.

In what world is this something that shouldn’t be considered a minor mistake and be looked past by an immigration officer, considering that the company was in good faith? Hell, the guy didn’t even change employer, it was a simple change of address for the same company!

That has always been a possibility. Nothing new with this administration.

Please read this, from another fellow HN user just a few months ago, and let me know what you think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679062

This is an employee working with a company where things have been done "by the book", and yet USCIS found a silly reason to deport the candidate.

The comment you link to [1] is not written by a "lawful permanent resident." They were on an H1-B visa. That's lawful, but not lawfully permanent.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679062

As I said in another comment, LPR or not, it seems totally scary to me that a visa was revoked because the company committed a minor mistake in filing the notification: for all we know, the company filed the notification in a timely manner but sent a superfluous check with it that caused the document to be returned.

In what world is this something that shouldn’t be considered a minor mistake and be looked past by an immigration officer, considering that the company was in good faith? Hell, the guy didn’t even change employer, it was a simple change of address for the same company!

Both LPRs and even naturalized citizens are being targeted; notably, for the first time since this was done during the second Red Scare, the Administration is actively seeking out naturalized citizens to denaturalize.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/625980910/white-house-launche...

> for the first time since this was done during the second Red Scare

The Obama administration also sought out citizens for potential denaturalization when it was revealed that some of the fingerprint records they were naturalized under may have been faulty, or incorrectly held.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/politics/us-citizens-deported...

The article you cite does not say the Obama Administration actively sought to find denaturalizable citizens, it says that an error which would have made citizens denaturalizable was discovered late in the Obama Administration, and a recommendation was made to identify all the effected persons and decide what course of action to take.

Yes, every Administration has reacted to discovery of information which would have made citizens denaturalizable, sometimes by pursuing denaturalization. Since the second Red Scare, however, the government has actively and specifically sought to find bases for denaturalization as a policy goal.

Despite the poor media framing, Trump's "task force" is a response to that same fingerprinting snafu, and is predicated on the suspicion that some of these naturalized citizenships were improvidently granted.

https://www.theroot.com/trump-creates-denaturalization-task-...

From CNN:

> Since the Obama administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has also been working to put more than 300,000 fingerprint records into a system that can be checked against citizenship applications.

> According to USCIS, the effort to followup on those records has resulted in 2,500 cases that have been flagged for in-depth review, and 95 of those have been referred to the Justice Department to date.

Yes, I get that Trump's a big scary monster, but despite the media charade, and his inartful presentation, this seems to be exactly an extension of what the Obama administration did.