[dschuler]

I think avmich is getting at the idea that some actions may or may not be legal until determined to be a crime, at which point there would be two: the original crime, and using radio to facilitate it.

This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge.

I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.

[vaduz]

The goal of similar questions (also, my favourites: have you ever been training child soldiers, or have you been involved in a violent overthrow of a legal government) is to make any discrepancy a separate immigration offense - making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end.

[dschuler]

> making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end

Aah got it, that makes sense now. So it's not just political posturing for the extra-tough- on crime stuff.

[fredophile]

My understanding is that the purpose of those types of questions is to make it easy to deport you for lying on the immigration paperwork.

[avmich]

And some immigration lawyers can perhaps successfully argue that it was due to sincere change of heart - no intent at the time of answering the question. /s

[fredophile]

I've been through the immigration process to get a green card. The questions I remember answering are all about your past and not so much about what you intend to do in the future.