The Justice Department is intensifying its efforts to denaturalize some naturalized citizens in the United States, as per a recent memo from the department’s leadership. The memo directs attorneys to prioritize denaturalization cases involving naturalized citizens who commit specific crimes, providing district attorneys with broader discretion to pursue these cases.
This initiative targets U.S. citizens who were not born in the country; approximately 25 million immigrants had obtained U.S. citizenship by 2023.
One of the first cases under this new directive involved Elliott Duke, a military veteran from the U.K. After being convicted for distributing child sexual abuse material, a judge ordered Duke’s citizenship to be revoked in mid-June, with the individual admitting to committing these offenses even prior to naturalization.
Denaturalization has a historical precedent, notably during the McCarthy era and expanded in recent administrations. This action is typically taken against individuals who may have lied on their citizenship applications regarding criminal records or membership in illegal groups.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate outlined in the memo that denaturalization should be one of the top five enforcement priorities for the civil division of the DOJ. The memo emphasizes, “The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”
The current focus on denaturalization underscores the ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to reshape the immigration system, redefining who is considered an American citizen. Under President Donald Trump, there have been moves to end birthright citizenship and reduce refugee programs. Experts in immigration law have raised significant concerns about the constitutionality of these actions and the potential implications for families of naturalized citizens.
According to the DOJ memo, the criteria for crimes that may lead to denaturalization is broadening, now including national security violations and fraud-related offenses, such as those involving Paycheck Protection Program loans. Sameera Hafiz, policy director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, voiced her concern, stating, “It is trying to create a second class of U.S. citizens.”
The memo allows for U.S. attorneys to exercise their discretion in identifying cases for denaturalization, which many legal experts find vague and potentially overreaching. Legal scholar Steve Lubet noted that the language in the memo grants federal authorities a wide berth regarding whom they might choose to target, creating uncertainty around the criteria for denaturalization procedures.
Hans von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation expressed support for the Justice Department’s actions, arguing that protecting the public from criminals and predators justifies these efforts. Von Spakovsky claimed that due process concerns were unfounded, insisting that individuals have the right to hire their own attorneys, underscoring that no one is entitled to government-funded legal representation in civil matters.
Critics warn that this denaturalization approach may have a far-reaching impact, particularly on children of naturalized parents. Lubet expressed concerns about the consequences these changes may have for children born in the U.S. to parents who later lose their citizenship, putting a new generation at risk of statelessness.
The case of Elliott Duke illustrates the potential fallout from these denaturalization efforts. Duke, who had renounced their U.K. citizenship to become a U.S. citizen, is now facing consequences that could leave them stateless after their citizenship was revoked based on their criminal behavior prior to naturalization.
Duke’s situation raises critical discussions about the ramifications of retracting citizenship. Laura Bingham of Temple University’s Institute for Law Innovation and Technology emphasized the slippery slope involved in reconsidering citizenship status that has already been granted. “Citizenship is not supposed to be something that can continuously be opened up for some people, and not for others,” she remarked.
Denaturalization, while a method to address serious criminal behavior, may have unintended consequences that echo historical applications of this tactic, particularly during the politically charged McCarthy era. A 2019 report indicated that denaturalization has referenced a significant national interest, with thousands of cases a year filed in the past, a trend seen to resurface in recent years.
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that denaturalization could compromise democratic ideals by establishing different tiers of citizenship; the ruling curtailed the frequency of such cases for decades. However, subsequent administrations, including Obama’s, utilized digital tools to identify potential naturalization fraud, which has paved the way for a renewed focus on denaturalization, especially during President Trump’s administration.
Although experts express skepticism regarding the volume of cases under the current administration’s broad guidelines, they also fear that if enforcement is pursued aggressively, individuals who may be otherwise law-abiding could find themselves facing significant legal ramifications. Robertson remarked, “If they really intend maximal enforcement, I think they will focus on cases where there is a question, potentially targeting those who haven’t committed serious infractions.”
This evolution in denaturalization practices signifies a shift in how immigration laws are applied, with significant implications for civil rights and the treatment of citizens in the U.S. As the Justice Department continues down this path, the landscape of citizenship and its accessibility for naturalized individuals may face ongoing challenges, raising essential questions about fairness and the application of justice in matters of citizenship.
The implications of this new denaturalization approach call into question the integrity of the justice system in protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of their origins, as the nuances of immigration enforcement continue to unfold in the current political climate.
image source from：npr
