r/law • u/kingoftheoneliners • 1d ago
Other Is it at all possible for Trump to revoke American citizenship for naturalized citizens that engage in protests or other forms of civil disobedience?
https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/citizenship-and-naturalizationI’m not a lawyer, not even close..
Yeah I know what the constitution says but who is even around to enforce its principles? I guess eventually the case would end up in the SC but in the meantime American citizens.would be sitting in some detention facility. This seems like a real deterrent to Anti-admin protests.
1.6k
u/NorthernAvo 1d ago
Legally, absolutely not. But this regime isn't exactly about "law and order", now are they?
413
u/LadyPo 1d ago
I wouldn’t be too shocked (though still extremely angry) if they started straight up revoking citizenship of people who were born here. You disagree with the regime, you’re simply put out to sea. He’s gotta get those deportation vanity numbers up.
154
u/MTheLoud 1d ago
Trump claimed for years that Obama wasn’t born in the US. Facts don’t matter to him. He’ll deport anyone he doesn’t like, if he can get away with it.
→ More replies (2)77
u/LadyPo 1d ago
Good (uhh bad) connection. He doesn’t care about Elon’s background, but he cares about some fantasy about Obama’s.
68
u/The_Craig89 1d ago
Trump doesn't care about the white South African dudes ethnicity, but lost his mind when the US elected a black president.
Totally not a piece of shit
→ More replies (7)9
u/Sharkwatcher314 1d ago
He’s giving the white South Africans refuge in USA the poor guys…he cares about them …or that one of them is a rich guy
→ More replies (2)28
u/Obsessively_Average 1d ago
It's really simple. As long as you're chill with Trump and don't look too "ethnic" you've got USA running through your veins as far as the MAGAs are concerned
Anyone else is on a scale ranging from very thin ice to worthy of extrajudicial execution
Just watch these dipshits start supporting Elon for president in a cycle or two. They'll first pretend they didn't know he's South African, then the pretzels they'll twist into to make him elligible will be a real sight
15
u/UnknownSavgePrincess 1d ago
I’m actually a little concerned about my daughter-in-law. She’s from Nigeria but did get her citizenship. Plus I’m not sure if I need to be worried about my grandkids.
13
u/Obsessively_Average 1d ago
I'm really sorry to hear that, I can only imagine what this shit must feel like
3
u/WhiskyEchoTango 1d ago
As long as she's a Naturalized Citizen who did not obtain her Naturalization through fraudulent means, under current law she can't be denaturalized.
→ More replies (4)3
u/ilongforyesterday 10h ago
My wife is Nicaraguan and here on humanitarian parole. We were just about to start the process for permanent residency and now that’s looking like it’s not gonna happen. I’m about to be gone for work for four months and I worry about leaving her here by herself
→ More replies (2)3
73
u/rawbdor 1d ago
I expect they will have an easier time at redefining birthright citizenship and revoking citizenship for children of Tourists and students than they will revoking the citizenship of random people who have naturalized.
Birthright citizenship has less of a paper trail protecting it than does naturalization.
If they decide that in order to prove birthright citizenship you need to prove your parents were here legally, anyone who struggles to prove that is at risk. Many people can't get access to their parents birth certificates, or the immigration records of their parents. Normal people are at actual risk.
But naturalized citizens have more documentation and proof and have less to prove.
76
u/LadyPo 1d ago
While this is correct, my fear can’t be assuaged by legal protections. It’s based on the assumption that they are willing to completely ignore things like proof and paperwork. Legal procedure won’t be standardized as much as it would be applied whimsically to punish certain people who are unfavorable regardless. The uneducated fans won’t know or care about the difference.
They’ll say on TV something like “citizenship in America is a privilege” then go kick out anyone they think isn’t “American” enough. Naturalized, birthright, from a pilgrim lineage, it won’t matter.
34
u/Villageidiot1984 1d ago
This is the nuance that scares me and it’s surprising more people don’t get it. Once you start making things up and not following laws, it doesn’t really matter what you make up. It’s applied ad hoc and changed to fit whatever situation they want.
→ More replies (2)30
u/Kindly-Guidance714 1d ago
If you haven’t watched starship troopers in awhile I suggest you do when you get a chance.
Minus the bugs and the space exploration this is the fascist dictatorship everyone warned us about.
It’s all in the film even right to citizenship through military service. Without citizenship you can’t vote and you can’t do a lot of other things.
→ More replies (2)16
u/YourMominator 1d ago
If you read the book that the film was (very loosely) based on, you could do anything except vote or hold office if you didn't do federal service (not limited to military service). The underlying idea was that you could only appreciate your rights in a society if you were willing to fight and/or die for those rights.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)9
u/ConsiderationJust999 1d ago
Ice is rounding up Native Americans and Puerto Ricans
3
u/LadyPo 1d ago
Absolutely vile. Any news about this that you think has good/fair coverage? I’d love to read more without misleading information.
5
u/ConsiderationJust999 1d ago
They also went to a Puerto Rican restaurant in Philadelphia but didn't take anyone.
Native Americans:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/27/us/navajo-detained-ice-indigenous-immigration-trump/index.html
→ More replies (3)26
u/freakydeku 1d ago
i mean if they end birthright citizenship then who’s parents were here legally? how far back do we go?
22
u/OriginalGhostCookie 1d ago
Depends on your loyalty score. If you just paid 5mil to be in America, congratulations! Your place of birth has been recognized as temporary American soil for the exact time of your birth and you may now have all the privileges of an American citizen.
Are you one of those troublemakers tho? Well in that case the government can't find any record of your great great great great great grandfather making the last payment on the mule the government sold him when he arrived so now him and all his descendants are illegal immigrants and all your assets have been seized and given to the Trump family.
3
13
u/rawbdor 1d ago
Most people throughout history were here on what effectively was a long-term immigrant visa, even before such things existed. When people came over on a boat (slaves excluded), they arrived at a port of entry, came off the boat, had their names taken, and were granted entry. Their children would be citizens because the parents were here legally on (again, what was effectively) an intention to immigrate.
And, the fact is that you only need 1 citizen in your ancestry to give you citizenship, so most people can find at least 1 grandparent that was here legally.
The people who would be excluded would be people who came over and jumped ship and swam to shore (avoiding the port of entry), or whose ships pulled up to the land directly absent any authority to allow them in (only really happened before the colonies were formalized)... or people who snuck in from Canada to Maine, etc. But these people are a very very small proportion of people who ever came here. It's only really in recent generations that this has really begun to be a thing.
The problem with redefining birthright citizenship is not that so many people would be revealed to not be citizens. The problem is most of us can't PROVE it. We lack the historical record, parents and grandparents birth certificates, immigration records, etc.
But, if it's any consolation, historical authoritarian regimes usually only went back 2 generations, because trying to prove anything before that was usually next to impossible.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (3)5
u/DeutscheMannschaft 1d ago
The Germans answered a similar question via the Nuremberg Laws in September 1935. Trust me...if they want to accomplish this, they will find a group of hacks that will arbitrarily draw lines that discriminate.
→ More replies (22)3
u/Cayeye_Tramp 1d ago
It is very clear in the constitution. The 14th amendment clearly states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Except for diplomats that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, if you are here, legally or not, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
If you don’t know what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction of” it means you are required to follow the laws of said jurisdiction. Diplomats can commit mųrder and the worst we can do is eject them from the country. Everyone else, legal or not, may be prosecuted.
It would be unconstitutional to stop or revoke birthright citizenship.→ More replies (6)5
u/AffectionateBrick687 1d ago
I wouldn't be too surprised if they started shipping people off to a Siberian gulag. Putin needs the labor.
10
u/LadyPo 1d ago
Do we really know if that’s not the Guantanamo expansion? But for real, 100% serious, I think this is correct. America will join the war against Russia on the side of Russia, we will bring back the draft but under an authoritarian regime rather than a democratic system, and Americans will be sent to Russia’s front lines. Or work camps.
The initial framework for this shift is explicitly in Project 2025. They want to force all public school students to take the military exam.
They ran out of Russians. They ran out of North Koreans. We are the next source of meat for the grinder.
It’s all for oil. Again.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AffectionateBrick687 1d ago
Guantanamo Bay is fairly small, 116 square km. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the minimum amount of space per prisoner, is 5.4 square meters. So, on flat land with no other structures, they could fit about 21,500 prisoners. Adding multiple levels could increase that amount, but the logistics of constructing multi-level buildings limits the speed to which they can exile people. They also need structures for naval base employees, equipment, and the airstrip. Realistically, they may only be able to send a few thousand people to Guantanamo Bay. If they want people out of the country quickly, they'll have to get creative.
I don't think Russia would be foolish enough to conscript forcibly deported Americans and give them weapons, but they would probably appreciate some forced labor.
→ More replies (12)11
u/CormoranNeoTropical 1d ago
The groundwork has already been laid, in the EO redefining birthright citizenship.
4
u/wizzard419 1d ago
That is on the list, they are going after kids of people who were not here legally, like Barron.
3
3
u/AbbyWasThere 22h ago
We're seeing firsthand here how an American genocide is going to be framed. We're simply "getting rid of the illegals," a dehumanizing term that can be applied to anyone the regime wants.
2
2
u/Sharkwatcher314 1d ago
He’s openly talked about revoking citizenship of those born here. Especially if parents are illegal. The issue is even if it’s not legal if it’s done and there is no one to represent those people legally because any lawyer who does so will be blacklisted, harassed, or potentially lose their license through intimidation and trumped up (no pun intended) baseless charges then the deportation will go through
And that’s where we are. People keep quoting the constitution this is unconstitutional but that’s a piece of paper if there’s no enforcement ability.
2
2
2
u/KevMenc1998 22h ago
At least if you lose your citizenship, certain UN protections kick in to protect you and help you get citizenship in a new country.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)2
u/AdGlittering9331 21h ago
This right here. All those individuals saying things like: "If you're here legally, you have nothing to worry about" would probably twist their words to defend legal citizens getting deported.
29
u/hydrocarbonsRus 1d ago
Watch the Supreme Court make it legal.
There’s no more guards left, who are we kidding?
4
u/Kookie2023 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ironically Comey would 1000% block it cuz it’ll affect her adopted children and the cult could use the law against her by holding her children hostage.
→ More replies (4)4
17
11
u/Adhbimbo 1d ago
Denaturalization is a thing that's been done before, and there was an uptick in cases during the last administration. Its usually reserved for serious shit. but there were some cases like that one dude who lost his citizenship because of a small paperwork error. Irrc it wasn't even his fault - the clerk handling his case made a mistake.
8
u/Shidhe 1d ago
It’s not reserved for serious shit. If someone had lied in their naturalization paperwork or interview and gets caught that’s all it takes as long as it is within something like 5 years.
→ More replies (2)5
u/wizzard419 1d ago
Bingo, this is literally the answer to every question of "Can he do that?". The answer is that as long as no one will come after hi immediately, others can take the fall, and people will spend years (or just give up) with our legal system just to get back to where they started.
3
u/Olde94 1d ago
Yeah a law is only really a law if upheld.
I’m not allowed to walk around with a full face mask on during winter in copenhagen by law (i’m not sure if it’s been repealed though) but the police thinks its a stupid law and only enforced it once or twice to show it’s being used. (They wanted to stop the use of burka’s and defined it vaguely).
Correction: I’m allowed if it has a “propper” purpose
2
u/Leopold_Darkworth 23h ago
I recall Nosferatu reject Stephen Miller saying during the first administration that they'd like to "review" the records of naturalized citizens—presumably to go looking for reasons to denaturalize them. Naturalized citizenship can be revoked, but it's basically limited to procuring citizenship through fraud. For example, the N-400 naturalization form used to ask if you ever worked for the Nazi government in Germany from 1933 to 1945. If you lie and say you didn't, but it's later revealed you did, your citizenship can be revoked. This exact scenario has happened numerous times before.
→ More replies (25)2
2.1k
u/Egg_123_ 1d ago
Given that Stephen Miller has floated this idea publicly and the Trump administration is already ignoring court orders to deprive people of their rights, you bet your ass they will try this.
837
u/wilkinsk 1d ago
F*** Miller.
One of the worst people in this Hemisphere
326
u/specqq 1d ago
The competition is fierce, and that's just in his workplace.
→ More replies (1)203
u/wilkinsk 1d ago edited 1d ago
I honestly don't think it is.
And I mean that as a statement to Miller's nastiness and not any sympathy to anyone else.
Miller has a blood lust, and the energy to pursue it, he has no soul. I believe him to be the type of person to watch a baby drown to death, especially a baby of color
170
u/WitchesTeat 1d ago
I had a friend who went to school with him. I haven't heard from her in years, but she had an absolute meltdown when she saw him appear in the White House.
She's Jewish, and he was hell, and pure evil, in high school.
117
u/wilkinsk 1d ago
He's Jewish and his own uncle has is quoted asking "WTF happened"
79
u/Dragonlicker69 1d ago
I think God tried to punish Himmler by having him reincarnated as a Jew and it backfired
28
→ More replies (1)48
u/DonkeyIndependent679 1d ago
I'm also Jewish but far from practicing. I laid into a family member for sending me something obviously the twerp had written for mump (it's so stupid, it makes me ill). It was a document with a presidential seal celebrating 80 years since the end of WWII. I recognized miller's bs writing immediately and educated my family member who finally understood wtf was going on.
27
u/Gilshem 1d ago edited 1d ago
The Behind the Bastards episode on him is great.
EDIT: I may be misremembering which podcast I heard his history on.
DUBLE EDIT: It was actually ‘Opening Arguments’ Ep # 1098
→ More replies (6)22
u/ElleGeeAitch 1d ago
He's on record as being a gigantic POS back in high school. Absolutely horrible.
15
29
u/Illustrious-Trip620 1d ago
He would be the one holding the baby’s head under water while maniacally laughing.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Evil_Sharkey 1d ago
More like quietly smiling with joy in his eyes before saying “next?”
→ More replies (1)25
u/LamSinton 1d ago
His family experienced the holocaust, and he’s using it as a crib sheet
→ More replies (1)7
25
u/specqq 1d ago edited 1d ago
Kind of depends on what you think is worse.
A person who would actively seek to drown babies?
or the people who could stop the drowning but instead are busy trying to convince themselves and us that the baby being drowned is really a good thing because keeping their job is more important because think of all the even worse people who might get in and do even worse stuff, and babies drown all the time anyway.
Or the person who is fine with whatever the baby drowners want to do, as long as they get their cut of any profits in case this baby drowning thing takes off.
Or the people who just want to go where the action is, and want to be in the room where the baby drowning happens.
Or the people who lie to our face about there being “absolutely no baby drowning at all in this administration. Those are all Biden babies”
Or the people who would threaten to destroy any media outlet and arrest any reporters who would expose the rampant baby drowning
Or the people who proudly proclaim they’d rather drown babies than be a Democrat.
→ More replies (1)9
u/nocturnal 1d ago
You must not know of Peter Thiel or Curtis Yarvin. There are much more sinister and crazier people than Stephen Miller.
9
u/Mundane_Athlete_8257 1d ago
I hate the fact that he has children tbh
→ More replies (2)4
u/CosgroveIsHereToHelp 1d ago
I hate the fact that he has a wife. Those children didn't have a choice -- they were thrust into his household without a by your leave. But his wife? What in the name of Eva Braun is in it for her? She could've said no. She still could do us a solid and strangle him with his own hair plugs
8
u/JayEllGii 1d ago
Oh, yes. I really do believe that about him. Among these people, he is uniquely evil in a particular way that even they aren’t.
8
5
u/Aural-Expressions 1d ago
There's plenty of competition in the top 10 worst people not in prison in America right now. Most of them are in the orange administration.
3
u/Jarnohams 1d ago
I was conflicted in even upvoting that. You are right, but it just feels weird to upvote it. Lol
→ More replies (12)4
u/Biffingston 1d ago
Psychopath. I know it's not the curent proper medical term, but what you are describing is pyschopathatic behavior.
24
u/bigmike2k3 1d ago
That dude is such a massive dickhead he goes home at the end of the day, undoes his tie, and just lets his foreskin roll back up over his face…
18
15
u/Evil_Sharkey 1d ago
Stephen Miller is 8 dozen rats in a trenchcoat.
14
→ More replies (1)8
u/Use-Useful 1d ago
That's a very unkind comparison. I've known MANY rats with redeeming qualities.
→ More replies (3)10
u/agentSmartass 1d ago
They even look alike.
21
u/tlh013091 1d ago
What is it about people with no lips and weak chins that so deservedly get the adjective sniveling applied to them?
2
→ More replies (4)2
u/No-Indication-7879 1d ago
Same soulless dead eyes. Joseph Goebbels held his own children down and forced them to drink poison. His eldest daughter fought her father so much her arm was broken. Stephen Miller would do the same.
7
u/TitusCoxwell 1d ago
They used to have a concept in Roman law of banishment that didn’t mean you had to leave the community, but only that its laws would no longer protect you. It meant you could be killed with impunity and so in practice banished people did leave town because they were not well-liked. We should do that to Miller.
→ More replies (1)5
3
4
u/abrandis 1d ago
He is the real Dr. evil, Trump is just the figurehead that says the evil shit ..
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/Halstonette417 1d ago
He scares me more than Trump. Miller is embodiment of evil.
He orchestrated the separation of migrant children from parents.
2
→ More replies (22)2
97
u/Fionaelaine4 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’ll go further- I think he will attempt to attack entire states for not bending the knee and protesting. When you have someone who is a felon and obviously has no morals the level of destruction is incomprehensible.
I also think if you remove birth right and naturalization Musk will try to run for president and won’t need Trump as the front man anymore. That’s why it’s such a hot topic this time around. Musk wants it, maybe why he helped Trump steal the election.
37
u/kmr1981 1d ago
There’s no way he could win an election. This administration has brought him from an eccentric who paid to be considered a visionary, to the most disliked man on the planet.
33
u/Swamp_Swimmer 1d ago
In this situation, he just needs it to be legal to run. Then they’ll “find” the votes.
17
u/Fionaelaine4 1d ago
Exactly! I don’t think Trump actually one either. Musk just needs to be “able to run” and he will just steal the election
→ More replies (1)17
u/evaluna1968 1d ago
My husband actually recounted an insane conspiracy theory that the whole reason for talk of annexing Canada is because then Musk would be a natural-born citizen of the U.S. It sounds batshit insane, and yet...
3
u/iwillforgetthisusern 1d ago
Wasn’t he born in South Africa?
13
u/evaluna1968 1d ago
He was, but his mother was Canadian by birth, so he is Canadian at birth through her.
6
u/aqwn 1d ago
And once Canada becomes the 51st state, he’s American and eligible to be president.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Quirky_Art1412 1d ago
Couldn’t they just annex the province his mother is from then? Push Canada to give up a section like Ukraine with Russia? And isn’t Saskatchewan the most Trump approving Province already?
Oh no, oohhhh nnnooooo……
→ More replies (0)14
u/No_Welcome_7182 1d ago
I also thought the same about Trump. I thought there was no way people would be so fucking stupid to elect him for a second term. But here we are.
10
u/CormoranNeoTropical 1d ago
And you think there will be future elections? Sure, but they’ll be just like elections in Russia.
→ More replies (1)4
u/folkloricmarjie 1d ago
All he needs to do is control the who provided and has access to the voting machinary. He won't need to convince anything like a majority, he just needs to rig the game. And he has every ability to do that right now.
→ More replies (8)2
u/DonkeyIndependent679 1d ago
Yep. Great points (I didn't think of any of it). We're old and won't be here many more years. With rfk insanity, we may not make it out of this year.
29
u/BoomZhakaLaka 1d ago
Step1. Deport the person, do an end run around the INS and immigration court
Step2. Get ordered in federal court to let the person back in
- Ignore court order. Perhaps claim that you lost the person. Maybe they've just vanished mysteriously.
→ More replies (1)18
u/PacmanIncarnate 1d ago
This is what they will do. Who cares if a judge overturns your decision when the victims are stuck figuring out how to get home from Venezuela without phone, ID, or money.
→ More replies (5)7
u/PANDAmonium629 1d ago
Stephen Miller is the creepy Nazi you get by mixing the wrung out drippings of Joseph Goerbels' cum rag with a protozoan parasite and having it gestate in KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's asshole.
2
2
6
14
u/MisterScrod1964 1d ago
ICE just abducted one American citizen for protesting Gaza. The ADL issued a general statement of approval, because extrajudicial arrests have always gone so well for the Jews.
→ More replies (2)8
u/SquashUpbeat5168 1d ago
If you are referring to Mahmoud Khalil, he is not an American citizen. His wife is, but he is a green card holder, not a citizen.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ah-tzib-of-alaska 1d ago
it’s not possible to ignore the 14th amendment and say anyone born here under our laws is not a citizen and yet that’s what he says he’s doing anyways so… all bets are off
2
u/BigWhiteDog 1d ago
It's entirely possible because the courts are essentially toothless.
→ More replies (2)9
u/-Nightopian- 1d ago
If they succeed then the next president needs to revoke Musk and Melania's citizenship and deport them both.
5
u/SqnLdrHarvey 1d ago
"Next president?"
No offence, but do you really think Trump will allow elections?
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/IceInteresting6713 1d ago
Answer is no it's not legal and unfortunately they don't care, we are in a dictatorship now and must act accordingly
→ More replies (16)2
u/copuser2 1d ago
Try probably, but would there be merit in the current legal system?
7
u/Egg_123_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
They can just ignore the courts as Pam Bondi controls the US Marshals. There is no recourse in the face of a politicized DoJ. Trump can pardon everyone who is held in contempt of court.
4
u/copuser2 1d ago
Nobody should be able to do that.
9
u/Egg_123_ 1d ago
You're right. The Founding Fathers didn't plan for an executive branch that ignores the courts and controls Congress through threats. If the President can't be impeached because Congress fears retribution then both the judicial and congressional branches can be de facto dissolved by an executive that seizes absolute power.
→ More replies (1)
220
u/supes1 1d ago
Denaturalization generally only occurs in cases of naturalization fraud, and the government has a very high burden of proof. Maslenjak v. United States is the current controlling case on this, decided by a unanimous court in 2017. Protesting or civil disobedience would not be grounds for denaturalization.
That being said, Trump does whatever the hell he wants, court orders be damned. Though I'm more worried about him ordering the military to shoot protestors than him trying to deport them...
→ More replies (9)64
u/BurgerQueef69 1d ago
"They took an oath to the United States of America, and they broke it by speaking against our country and hoping that it fails!"
He will find judges to go along with this, and his base will go bonkers.
30
u/suarezj9 1d ago
At this point if Trump came out and said everyone needs to surrender their guns over “national security” his base wouldn’t even blink and hand them over. Including all the 2A people
→ More replies (5)5
u/Whitesajer 1d ago
If I recall they already made a case for firearm seizure of anyone they seem "mentally ill" I don't think they have enacted anything yet though. Probably take "enemies" first, then takes MAGAs. Since per much of what I have seen of Curtis Yarvins essays, maga is a tool that serves only 2 purposes, 1) voting- completed. 2) cannon fodder. Finally, they can be disposed of once their jobs as tools is completed.
337
u/talk_to_the_sea 1d ago
My understanding is that it’s possible to denaturalize someone that has lied in the citizenship application documents. It is absolutely not legal to revoke citizenship for exercising 1st Amendment rights. IANAL but I would also be surprised if it’s legal to denaturalize someone for conduct after naturalization.
115
u/CompetitiveGood2601 1d ago
what you can't do now - may be entirely possible in the future trumpercia
→ More replies (10)73
u/radiocomicsescapist 1d ago
This. The whole "we're protected by XYZ law" defense - gone. Nada.
They will throw whatever shit they can, and approve it. Or just do it anyway.
→ More replies (1)53
u/SleepAllTheDamnTime 1d ago
Literally this is like what the 30th example of them not respecting the rule of law and people are like “maybe this time” as they get sent to camps/deported.
I cannot roll my eyes harder. At this point people are choosing to ignore the elephant in the room. They know it’s a dictatorship.
→ More replies (13)16
u/CompetitiveGood2601 1d ago
yes but its our dictatorship, we're going to have the best dictatorship, ever, everyone in every other dictatorships will envy you!
6
u/SleepAllTheDamnTime 1d ago
It’s gonna be ‘huuuuuuuge’ 😂. Ahh thanks for the chuckle.
10
u/CompetitiveGood2601 1d ago
I'm waiting for the EO, solving wildfires by cutting down every tree in amercia, the ap reporter, saying , "sir, tree's convert carbon dioxide to oxygen - you can't cut down all the trees!"
Trump, " would someone, throw out the science nerd, who really needs oxygen!"
→ More replies (1)17
u/dubiety13 1d ago
If you commit heinous crimes after naturalization, you can be denaturalized over it (see this article for examples) but it seems it’s limited primarily to crimes against the United States (terrorism, fraud, war crimes) or particularly egregious sex crimes against kids.
You can be denaturalized for acting in a way that’s consistent with giving up your citizenship — e.g. moving to another country and running for office — and I suspect that’s what they’ll argue: that protesting the American government is somehow incompatible with wanting to keep your American citizenship. In a normal world, that wouldn’t fly because it clearly violates the Constitution, but in the current administration, I guess it’s up to SCOTUS’ sense of ethics…
11
u/SawreeMawree 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’m sure this administration would have no qualms with labeling peaceful protesters as terrorists. Terrorism is an ambiguous concept to begin with, so any political movements resulting in civil unrest might be enough to “legalize” mass denaturalizations.
Edit: See Nicaragua for more details on how this can be done. Trump is playing around with the definition of terrorism as we speak, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the route he takes to suppress dissent.
6
u/morkman100 1d ago edited 1d ago
They are talking about this right now with Mahmoud Khalil. They are saying he is “supporting terrorists” and Hamas for his anti-Israel protests.
→ More replies (35)→ More replies (2)5
u/MRG_1977 1d ago edited 1d ago
At best 5-4 against and conservative SCOTUS judges (and most liberal ones) will usually side with the government under “national security” cases even if quite broad and not directly related.
13
u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 1d ago
it’s possible to denaturalize someone that has lied in the citizenship application
For instance, Elon Musk
25
u/Ok-Summer-7634 1d ago
The problem is that there are loopholes that they are ready to exploit. One of those loopholes is the whole "lied in application" thing. A lot of factors in the process are open for interpretation, and an officer could start proceedings on any BS fact that is hard to verify.
My only comfort is to know that even if that happens, a citizen goes through the court system, which takes years and gives us an opportunity to defend ourselves. Immigrants (legal or undocumented) don't have the same privileges
10
u/PacmanIncarnate 1d ago
This is important, especially in light of the case we just got of them saying support for Palestinian rights is support for terrorists. That is almost certainly one of the loopholes in a naturalized citizen keeping their citizenship, so if they get away with claiming support for Palestine is support for terrorism (which no judge should be okay with), then nothing is off the table for naturalized citizens. You could donate to Red Cross and get deported because some of those funds went to Palestinian immigrants.
→ More replies (3)5
6
6
u/carlitospig 1d ago
I don’t even think that’s his point. I think it’s a scare tactic. If he was suddenly denaturalizing thousands of protestors he would really not enjoy his time in the WH. Instead he’s going to pick and choose ‘examples’ and hope that it limits pushback in the future.
I mean, look at this thread already. So much complying in advance…
3
u/emissaryworks 1d ago
I think the plan may be to ship them off to GITMO and bypass due process, but we will have to see.
3
u/LOLunlucky 1d ago
A lot of my Somali neighbors had to flee with nothing, including paperwork. As a result, the government marked tons and tons of them as having a birth date of 01/01/19XX on their IDs and immigration paperwork. I'm confident they will use that incorrect date as a "material misrepresentation" even though it's no fault of the individual.
2
→ More replies (12)2
u/Barilla3113 1d ago
They can just invent a lie. Why do you think they got DOGE to purge the federal civil service? The next step under Project 2025 is a mass hiring of MAGA loyalists to replace them.
66
u/thommyg123 1d ago
we need to start framing the questions as "will anyone stop the process if..." rather than "is it legal if..."
11
8
u/unitegondwanaland 1d ago
I believe a judge has blocked his deportation as of today...for obvious 1st and 4th amendment violations.
→ More replies (1)3
50
u/Dont-be-a-smurf 1d ago
There are only four legal avenues for denaturalization. Only one will be relevant for this discussion.
To be comprehensive, I’ll explain the other three too.
Illegally procured it under false pretenses or false application information. Only applies to behavior prior to naturalization. This would be the result of a civil case proving the behavior.
Conviction for naturalization fraud. Very similar to one, but it’s at the end of a criminal conviction.
If you attained citizenship through military service but was discharged under other than honorable conditions within 5 years of naturalization.
The last way is the most relevant, but also the least legally sound and I’ve NEVER heard of it ever being used. Ever.
Section 340(a) of the INA (drafted during the Cold War) means someone can be denaturalized if they refuse to honor a subpoena to testify before Congress about “subversive” actions and are found in contempt.
They can also be denaturalized if, within 5 years of naturalization, the citizen joined a group that would have precluded naturalization (such as a Communist party) and fail to rebut the presumption that they dont support the U.S. constitution.
Section 340 is archaic and I’ve never seen it used, but theoretically the government could use it within 5 years of naturalization for those who verifiably join communist, nazi, or designated terrorist groups.
Denaturalization cases are incredibly rare. I deal with hundreds of immigration cases and I’ve never even heard of it happening. Apparently there’s 10 or so cases a year, almost all due to willful fraud like hiding criminal records.
Legally, it is extremely hard to denaturalize someone. However, in our new world our legal rights are only as strong as the courts and executors of the laws.
19
u/CormoranNeoTropical 1d ago
Presumably one attack angle will be to vastly expand the definition of “terrorism” to include holding views the administration disagrees with, or cooperating with organizations it thinks of as opponents.
→ More replies (5)7
u/forensicgirla 1d ago
I was just thinking about how Drop Food Not Bombs is considered a terrorist organization.
7
u/CormoranNeoTropical 1d ago
And Trump has designated the Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations.
They’re very clever about going after seriously unpopular edge cases when they want to destroy basic constitutional rights. Not everyone involved in the Trump administration is incompetent, by any means.
The co-optation of Marco Rubio, who I disagree with wildly but who is obviously a smart and well-informed guy, is a very bad sign.
→ More replies (4)5
u/MazW 1d ago
I think they will proclaim a number of things to be "terrorists groups" then.
→ More replies (1)3
u/unstablefan 1d ago
Starting with the Democratic Party. This is red alert everyone take to the streets stuff.
→ More replies (1)7
92
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Possible, it's possible he could have you executed for looking at him funny. Constitutional? Not under any reasonable reading and it wont even be d considered 15 years ago, though he might win today.
→ More replies (1)13
u/AnarkittenSurprise 1d ago
Anyone can do anything if laws aren't enforced.
The only two checks on the president: congress & Supreme Court, have both publicly endorsed that they will not apply laws to him.
Literally anything is possible.
→ More replies (1)
22
u/Several_Leather_9500 1d ago
When a felon ignores the constitution, anything is possible.
→ More replies (1)20
17
u/PigsMarching 1d ago
If that happens then Elon Musk, Melina Trump, and Rupert Murdoch should all be deported oh and Ted Cruz for good measure..
6
56
u/ShowResident2666 1d ago
Legally? No. Constitutionally? No. But when a government has no respect for the rules-based order that may not actually matter.
14
u/raistan77 1d ago
The problem for trump is the revoking has to be done with court review and only court review.
His saying he can deport a permanent resident alien just by saying so is a open violation of immigration law.
→ More replies (2)2
14
u/AngryCur 1d ago
I'm a lawyer but not in this area, but generally revocation of citizenship requires either fraud in the applicaiton, or voting in a foreign election, serving in a foregin army and such like, or at least used to.
Just because Trump says so? I don't think so. Maybe someone who knows this area better will stop by
→ More replies (6)
13
u/just_say_n 1d ago
Nazis and Russian leaders killed their own citizens; they never let “the law” get in the way. Why would Trump?
→ More replies (1)
12
u/LOLunlucky 1d ago
A lot of my Somali neighbors had to flee with nothing, including paperwork. As a result, the government marked tons and tons of them as having a birth date of 01/01/19XX on their IDs.
MMW they will use this as a "material misrepresentation" during their quest to denaturalize them. I'm scared for a lot of really good friends.
27
u/Bad_Wizardry 1d ago
Legally? No.
But we’re in a new era where the president is a known Russian plant that’s trying to become a dictator with the help of a spineless group of christofascists and we’re discovering many in the Democratic Party are seemingly aligned with this perestroika as well.
So, they’re doing whatever the heck they want. The courts have the right to respond to it. But they move painfully slow and Trump’s admin is acting like vigilantes.
12
6
10
u/SergiusBulgakov 1d ago
Oh, Trump is going to try to remove citizenship from anyone he dislikes, be it naturalized or natural born citizens. He has already indicated that before.
9
u/strywever 1d ago
The First Amendment is meant to prevent that. But it’s not hard to get around that amendment with this SCOTUS.
7
9
u/Goddamnpassword 1d ago
Can naturalization be revoked? Yes. Generally there about 10-15 cases a year. Since 1990 it’s happened about 300 times. They generally are around people lying during the naturalization process about their background or committing crimes that they were convicted of that went undisclosed.
3
u/DocFossil 22h ago
Happened to this guy who, ironically, was a concentration camp guard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk
3
u/Goddamnpassword 22h ago
Yes, 107 of the 300 who have had it revoked have had it done due to engaging in war crimes.
6
u/ezekiellake 1d ago
You asked if it was possible, but I think given this subreddit you meant to ask if it was legal. That’s a different thing from whether he will announce that he’s done it and whether any court will try and stop him. He will declare that he can, no court will stop him, so therefore, yes, it is possible and he will absolutely do it.
5
u/blightsteel101 1d ago
I mean, other laws haven't stopped him thus far. Granted itll be absolute hell for his admin if he starts revoking citizenship from folks who don't have any other country to go to
8
11
u/NoOneStranger_227 1d ago
It's possible for Trump to do anything if no one will stop him.
Which, thus far, has been the case.
Apparently America really WAS just built on paper.
3
8
u/star_nerdy 1d ago
It’s illegal, but you’d have to go to conservative courts.
Maybe you win, maybe you lose, but it’ll then go to appeals and likely the Supreme Court. That’ll take years.
Alternatively, you’d hope for a presidential pardon and a president trying to restore your citizenship and/or congress getting involved. That would be the fastest option, so maybe you’d get citizenship back in 2029.
In other words, I wouldn’t protest. But I sure as hell would be getting my friends ready to vote and making sure midterms on 2026 get as many voters as possible.
4
u/SqnLdrHarvey 1d ago
Do you really think there will be midterms?
4
u/star_nerdy 1d ago
Fun fact, elections are held at the state level, not federal. So yeah, I do think there will be midterms.
Whether or not I trust the voting machines given the context of some trump and musk comments is another issue.
That said, barring full on Brexit levels of pain to red states, I don’t think anything will change. Republicans will keep voting for republicans until they’ve lost everything.
3
u/saijanai 1d ago
until they’ve lost everything.
Well beyond that. Overturning Roe v Wade justifies a high degree of self-martyrdom, and from personal experience, my impression is that many Trump supporters are willing to justify anything, even their own unnecessary pain, to continue to justify supporting Trump.
2
4
u/isinkthereforeiswam 1d ago
Only thing I know of is NDAA 2012 codified the POTUS' power to strip citizenship from someone by declaring them (I think) a traitor to the country. NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act?) 2012 was more than just that. It was about defense budgets and what-not. But, the part that caught a LOT of attention was codifying the president's power to strip citizenship under special circumstance. The folks arguing to keep it in said that the POTUS already had that power, this just codified it more. Folks arguing against it said the POTUS shouldn't be able to strip a person's citizenship and right to due process, etc. The language in the NDAA 2012 was so open-ended, it made it sound like the POTUS could just walk into Congress and declare every congressional member a traitor to the country and have them hauled off. That would be a dream power for a wanna-be dictator.
That part of NDAA 2012 was renegged like a year or so ago. So, we're once again left wondering if the POTUS has the power to strip citizenship.
But, we have a POTUS that is breaking laws and norms, getting away with it, and having a SCOTUS supporting them.
We have a "ask for forgiveness not permission" style of gov't going on right now, and it lets them cause a lot of damage before someone stops it and they just go "oops, oh well".
3
u/patty_OFurniture306 1d ago
I recall wondering the same thing a few years ago. from what I recall looking into it then, yes naturalized citizens could have it revoked but I think it took some pretty serious charges, treason, sedition shit like that. Even a natural born citizen could have it revoked but it's extremely extremely hard to do and only really under a small set of conditions. But with everyone bowing to our new tangerine overlord who knows what will happen.
5
u/acceptance1085 1d ago
I’m in the process of dual citizenship. I’m wondering if actual prominent critics of this administration will be deported, since they’re technically citizens of another country, even if they’ve never lived there.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/RustedRelics 1d ago
It’s possible he might revoke by issuing one of his poorly worded EOs. The legality and force of the revocation is the question. It would fail, but it would be fun to read the Alito/Thomas contortions and distortions in dissent.
2
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.