By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is making denaturalization a top priority, directing its attorneys to aggressively pursue cases against naturalized citizens who commit crimes. This initiative will focus on individuals who may have committed fraud or other violations, expanding the criteria for which crimes could result in a loss of citizenship. Immigration experts express serious concerns about the constitutionality of the effort, especially regarding its potential impact on naturalized citizens and their families. The government has indicated that it plans to pursue these cases through civil litigation, raising due process questions and fears of creating a second class of citizens.
Read the original article here
The DOJ’s recent announcement to prioritize cases aimed at revoking citizenship certainly raises some eyebrows. The focus is now on denaturalization, specifically targeting naturalized citizens who have committed certain crimes. This move, as outlined in a June 11 memo, essentially gives district attorneys more leeway in when and how to pursue these cases, a concerning shift in priorities.
The process itself is particularly worrying. We’re hearing that these denaturalization cases will be handled through civil litigation. That’s especially problematic because, unlike criminal proceedings, those facing denaturalization in a civil court aren’t guaranteed legal representation, and the government faces a lower burden of proof. This makes it easier and faster for the government to reach a decision, potentially speeding up the process considerably. Think about it: the DOJ’s resources could be redirected, maybe away from white-collar crime investigations, and towards these denaturalization cases.
The question becomes, why now? There’s a sense that this is more than just enforcing existing laws. It is also clear that, many people think this is the beginning of a dangerous trend that expands on the practice of revoking citizenship. The fact that this move could be seen as targeting political opponents is also concerning. We all remember the phrase, “First they came…” Well, here we are, watching the beginning of the show.
The case of Elliott Duke, a military veteran who has been denaturalized after being convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material, is a good example. This case has some layers. It involves an individual who uses they/them pronouns, and the crimes happened before they became a citizen. Some fear that the choice to use this case as an early example of this new power may be a deliberate move to use identity politics to create a distraction that prevents critical questions from being asked. This could be a tactic to polarize those who might otherwise protest the stripping of citizenship.
It’s important to remember that denaturalization isn’t new. It’s a tool that has been used before, most notably during the McCarthy era. While there is a legal basis for it – lying on a citizenship application, for example, or committing crimes – the way it’s being prioritized and the context in which it’s happening are what cause concern. The shift we are seeing now could be aimed at going after those the current administration considers “enemies from within,” a vague and dangerous phrase.
The legal foundation for this lies in U.S. law. You can find details, for example, in 8 US Code 1451, and information about the grounds for revocation of naturalization can be found on the USCIS website. This isn’t about a lack of laws; it’s about the potential abuse of them.
One of the biggest fears is the speed at which this is all happening. We are going to see this process “speedrun,” and there is a feeling this will be a way to shut down cases quickly. There’s a sense that the rules don’t apply in the same way anymore. The fact is, the administration appears to treat laws more as guidelines than hard-and-fast rules, which is a cause for alarm for anyone who values due process and equal protection under the law.
The implications are far-reaching. This move is a chilling reminder that citizenship, even after going through the naturalization process, could be seen as provisional. If it is the case that anyone can be targeted, regardless of their background, that’s when the system itself begins to falter. The goal of going after naturalized citizens might be to create fear and intimidation, which is what we have seen. It’s about controlling the narrative and making sure people are afraid to speak out. This all contributes to a sense of unease about where the country is headed.