Color me surprised. I had no idea until yesterday that it was possible to revoke someone’s citizenship, even years and decades after it’s been sealed. I have to admit, I’m a bit concerned about this. The case that brought this to my attention was that of Elliott Duke, previously of the UK (NPR). The NPR article is obviously biased, so I went and found the removal order announcement from the Office of Public Affairs. Basically, Duke had kiddie porn that he was watching and distributing, and was arrested and sent to jail for that crime (ICE). Now, he’s also facing deportation.
Do I want kiddie diddlers in my country? No. But frankly, that’s something that should have been discovered during the lengthy and grueling process of becoming a US citizen. Somewhere in the multiple interviews, the background checks, the letters from people at home, and frankly, the check into his military status, SOMEONE should have see this. People applying for entry to the United States should be undergoing hefty scrutiny.
It feels to me like this is similar in nature to the idea of criminals losing their 2nd Amendment rights. I can agree that I don’t want violent criminals having access to firearms. However, if you’re letting a violent criminal out of jail, and you’re so sure he’ll re-offend that you want to strip him of a Constitutionally protected right, then why the hell are you releasing him at all?
When it comes to Duke, he broke the law while a citizen, and before becoming a citizen. He’s shown he’s a cretin.
When I go and read the actual DoJ papers in regards to stripping previously naturalized citizens of their citizenship, it’s incredibly open-ended. Whether I believe Trump’s people are going to use it poorly doesn’t even matter. I know that some Left leaning president will do so. Therefore, we should not be doing this. The Civil Division memo dated June 11, 2025, states, in part:
3. Cases against individuals who further or furthered the unlawful enterprise of criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels;
4. Cases against individuals who committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process;
5. Cases against individuals who committed human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes;
6. Cases against individuals who engaged in various forms of financial fraud against the United States (including Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan fraud and Medicaid/Medicare fraud);
7. Cases against individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations;
8. Cases against individuals who acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations, not otherwise addressed by another priority category;
9. Cases referred by a United States Attorney’s Office or in connection with pending criminal charges, if those charges do not fit within one of the other priorities; and
10. Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.
These categories are intended to guide the Civil Division in prioritizing which cases to pursue; however, these categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case, nor are they listed in a particular order of importance. Further, the Civil Division retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate. The assignment of denaturalization cases may be made across sections or units based on experience, subject–matter expertise, and the overall needs of the Civil Division.
The first five are fine, at least as far as I’m concerned, although I have concerns about #4. What constitutes a felony? Are we using US definitions? Because there are acts that are equivalent to felonies in other countries that are perfectly legal here. Women driving comes to mind, along with wearing modern (non burka) clothing. I’m not sure what PPP is so I can’t speak on it, but fraud seems to be fairly rampant. I understand what it means, but fraud is again a broad term with meanings that are not the same here as elsewhere.
Number 9 definitely has me concerned. And number 10 is so open as to allow elephants to walk through without concern.
Just as we concern ourselves with the wording in 2A cases, and the Left concerns itself with wording of abortion cases, I have to look critically at this. I have to look at this order, not just as a moderate Right person, but as an American. Would Trump or his people, when presented with a DUI or other misdemeanor, consider that “sufficiently important to pursue…” if the person were otherwise someone they didn’t care for? I don’t think so, but I don’t know so. What I AM certain of is that a Dem certainly might consider it sufficiently important to pursue.
I’m uncomfortable with a country that can allow you to become a citizen, then pull it away a decade later. Treason, sure, I get that being a reason for removal. But for the vast majority of people who’ve at most had a speeding ticket or maybe a DUI, I have concerns. Moreso, if someone comes here (ostensibly legally, in that they go through the process) and lives their life, they then are entangled in United States life. A spouse, kids, and the rest. How is it fair for those the person leaves behind? Again, I’m not talking about the kiddie diddler here. I’m talking about someone who didn’t mention a DUI on their application, or something small of that kind. The idea that citizenship can just be stripped away, and that it’s so easy to do… that bothers me.
And it is easy, in the grand scheme of things. The government has unlimited funds (at least from our point of view), whereas the average citizen does not. These cases are civil law, not criminal, and so no lawyer is guaranteed. So if someone wants to fight it, but has no money, they will likely lose. Even if they’re in the right. Good lawyers win bad cases all the time. It just doesn’t seem… American, to me.
I guess at this moment, I’m strongly of the opinion that if we let them in, if they passed our background checks, then they are our problem. If they do something wrong (like Duke above), then we jail them and let them pay for their sins. Short of acts of treason done while in the country, I can’t say that I consider it right or moral to strip someone of something they fought so hard for.
Leave a Reply