The landscape of denaturalization in the United States is dynamic and ever-evolving. Recent advocacy has illustrated an uptick in attempts to deny or strip citizenship from people who are deemed without “good moral character.” This new emphasis is in line with a broader global trend. Indeed, 18 other European countries have added to their denaturalization powers in the name of national security and counter-terrorism. Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court had restricted denaturalization actions to instances of fraud or “willful misrepresentation.” Now, alarm bells in the form of new memos are signaling a ramping up of denaturalization proceedings by the Trump administration.
This reflected a broader trend of denaturalization cases, which plummeted after the late 1960s. This decision by USCIS followed the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that citizenship could only be revoked in cases of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This ruling resulted in a major reduction in denaturalization cases. Before 2017, only 10 to 15 of these cases were filed annually throughout the entire country. These cases almost always preceded egregious crimes, often human rights violations or connections to those who guarded concentration camps.
That all started to change in a major way during Donald Trump’s presidency, when denaturalization moved to the front burner. During these years, more than 42,000 people were allegedly stripped of their citizenship. National security used as blanket justification The administration’s approach is a new twist in a disturbing trend to use national security as the all-purpose justification for revocation. Indeed, the development of solutions on these lines is quite commonplace across Sweden and in other EU countries.
As a result, in the U.S., “good moral character” is the key consideration for denaturalization. This term is incredibly subjective and open to a wide array of interpretations. This ambiguity leaves the door open for judges to abuse their power. Matthew Hoppock, an expert in immigration law with Fox Rothschild, expressed concern over the possible consequences of such definitions.
“We’ve seen dictators use the taking-away-of-citizenship as a way to control a population or bend people to their will.” – Matthew Hoppock
In addition, a recent memo from the U.S. government emphasizes the need to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.” In the absence of published guidance, this directive subjects all asylum seekers to heightened scrutiny if they are suspected of being gang or cartel members. It creates a new category of denaturalization.
Internationally, nations such as Vietnam and Bulgaria have set their own standards for citizenship revocation. Like Vietnam, in Cambodia citizenship can be revoked for acts against national honor. At the same time, Bulgaria permits citizenship stripping only for serious crimes against the state. Latvia allows revocation for anyone who serves in the security or military forces of another country.
As denaturalization efforts ramp up, concerns are being raised about what resources the administration will commit to these proceedings. Muzaffar Chishti, a prominent immigration policy expert, highlighted that the actual outcomes of denaturalization will largely depend on resource investment.
“The most important thing is: how much resources is the administration going to put into it, to target prosecutions?” – Muzaffar Chishti
As Chishti explained, without enough resources and steam, these waves might only produce worry and confusion instead of real advances.
Jorge Loweree, while acknowledging the allure of a system like this, stressed the potential for abuse. He warned that restrictions on resources might hamper effectiveness and lead to discriminatory enforcement.
“Resource constraints would be a significant limiting factor in this type of thing.” – Jorge Loweree
Loweree cautioned observers against forgetting other discriminatory deportation cases based on paper-thin evidence. This creates troubling risks of unfairness and lack of accountability in denaturalization proceedings.
The historical transformation of denaturalization efforts illustrates the shifting cultural and political undercurrents animating the landscape of immigration and citizenship today. As countries around the world implement stricter responses to national security concerns, the legal framework surrounding citizenship revocation is in flux.