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.
On #4, “felonies”, I would think the US definition would apply. That would make it analogous to extradition cases: you can’t be extradited on charges of something that’s not a crime in the USA, as I recall.
I’m reminded of the case, some decades ago, of a very elderly Nazi immigrant in Chicago being stripped of his citizenship (which he had held for dozens of years) and being extradited to Germany for trial on war crimes charges.
The key point here is false statements on a naturalization application, which invalidates that application and what results from it. The US is not alone in having such a rule. There is a notorious case from Holland, involving Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia, refugee immigrant to Holland, who was naturalized there and at one point was elected to the national Legislature. She became a vocal advocate for women’s rights against Muslim practices such as female genital mutilation, which got her in hot water with muslim fanatics. It also made her politically incorrect and some politicians wanted to get rid of her. This came to a head when the Home Secretary charged her with making false statements on her naturalization paperwork and proposed to have her stripped both of her legislative position and her citizenship. It was a contrived charge; she had given her name omitting the family name of her father — apparently not unusual in Somalia but somehow made into a major crime by that politician. Final outcome: the Home Secretary lost her position in the outcry, the government was toppled by a vote of no confidence, and Ayaan eventually emigrated. She’s now in the USA and I think a US citizen. Oh yes, she also was the subject of ongoing death threats for her involvement with a documentary about islam that got the maker (Theo van Gogh) murdered, and of course the problem in Holland is that you’re not allowed to use effective self defense.
maybe he didn’t become a kiddie diddler til after citizenship….
maybe…
ever notice these liberals cant seem to come up with ONE person being deported who is 1000 percent decent and honest…..
I know decent and honest people who came here the right way and were run thru the ringer , accusations and 3rd degree interrogations…
i really can’t give a toss about criminals being deported…
after they are all gone maybe we can start deportation of lawyers…. heh
Oh, he was reading the porn before. It’s in the documentation (both the legal and the explainers). I can’t even. *sigh*
“When it comes to Duke, he broke the law while a citizen, and before becoming a citizen. “
I think that is the operative phrase.
Given this individual was coming from the UK, which used to be a safe place free from gangs and terrorism, the background check was likely not as extensive as it should have been. Assumptions are made, likely based on regulatory requirements, and a child pornographer slipped through the cracks.
This person committed crimes, and child porn is a felony in the UK, before emigrating to the US. They knowingly lied on this application. They got caught.
Another operative phrase, they got caught. Had this person traded in some child porn in the UK, but stopped it when they moved to the US, they would not have been caught. And, their citizenship would be solid.
No different than getting charged with possession of burglary tools. Do you have a tool set in your vehicle? Does it have screwdrivers, prying tools, some kind of hammer? Yes to all. Perfectly innocent, but get arrested for some crime, and suddenly those things are burglary tools. Why? To pile on the charges and help to get a conviction.
Any test of reasonableness says this individual knowingly broke the law when they completed the application for citizenship. If the consequences of that action were made clear (and I am sure, like most government forms, there is a felony reference on the form), then sorry, bummer, too bad so sad, you are now a man without a country.
So here’s an article forwarded to me via channels.
https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Fact-Sheet-on-Denaturalization.pdf
It highlights some of the current concerns. It also points out that the denaturalization has been upticking since 2010. That’s Obama. Having it start with the Dems doesn’t make it okay for the Republicans to do it, but it certainly explains a few things.