But that circles back to my original question. How does the gov not have the power to boot you out (or jail) just from committing the terrorist act in itself? OR even just from finding out that said person has terrorist ties? I don't buy the answer of needing the question to boot someone out. You can already boot them out for committing crimes. And I'm sure there's a question along the lines "Do you intend to commit a crime while in the US?" (I'm sure this is already on there) The above questions definitely fall under this. So I don't understand how these questions don't just become noise. I'd imagine noise in these forms leads to more mistakes too.

> But that circles back to my original question. How does the gov not have the power to boot you out (or jail) just from committing the terrorist act in itself?

Because they have to prove it in court. And the defendant can ask for a lawyers. And then both the cost, and the level of proof required is a lot higher. Will the US have enough time and resources to go to the originating country and inspect all the evidence, check the archives and so on? Probably not for every case.

The alternative they just need to prove they lied on a form and they signed and acknowledged that lying on it means getting kicked out. That's a simple and shut case most of the time.

To prove that they lied on the form, wouldn't they have to legally prove that he is a terrorist and go through the same legal process which you said will be avoided?

It seems pointless.

I believe it is 1) different venue for trial (administrative vs a criminal case) and possibly 2) different standard of proof, especially for non permanent residents.

(Not a lawyer nor an immigration expert on US law, though.)

As per the previous comment, most of it comes from the way the laws were written. If immigration law says “members of a terrorist group can’t get citizenship”, then USCIS has to have a process for following it. In addition to background checks, they ask the question.

In terms of booting them out, the question makes it much easier. If they are a member of a terrorist group and they said “no”, well it’s an open and shut case of lying on an immigration application. If they didn’t ask the question, sure they could still boot them out, but it may be a prolonged process.

But doesn't proving that the person has lied also require additional efforts, and if that person will contest the desicion in court, can become a long process?

I would argue that proving somebody lied on an application would be easier than proving something like “this person is a danger to the US”. The 2nd is much subjective.

To prove that he lied on the application form, they would have to legally prove him as a terrorist. The legal process of proving someone is a terrorist would be same. So isn't it pointless?

I'm actually okay with that. Read it the other way around. You can only kick someone out for being dangerous if you can prove they are dangerous.

I don't think judicial courts accept challenges to rulings by administrative judges as a matter of course.

I guess to kick people out who have terrorist ties even if they don’t commit any crimes while in the US?

That seems like the job for the NSA or CIA though. To flag these individuals.

There is an FBI database they use to do background checks. Last time I heard there is a huge backlog and it’s delaying cases by a lot.

It’s actually Department of State databases, specifically, CLASS (Consular Lookout and Support System) and the TIDE (Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment) systems that are used. There is also (as you mentioned,) an FBI fingerprint and name check that is completed, but that’s for domestic (US) criminal records and not specific to overseas terrorism.

> Of course no one will answer yes, but if the govt finds out later you did commit a terrorist act, they have the power to boot you out.

Wouldn't the terrorist act do the trick?

And don't we mostly imprison people forever when they do those?