The government of the United States has intensified its efforts regarding U.S. citizenship acquired through naturalization. It has ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritize cases involving the revocation of citizenship for individuals who have committed certain crimes, even if these occurred before obtaining their legal status.
The measure, disclosed in a memo dated June 11, grants federal prosecutors greater discretion to initiate denaturalization proceedings, raising concerns among civil rights and immigration experts over its legal and humanitarian implications.
According to the memo signed by Deputy Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, the DOJ will place denaturalization proceedings among its top five civil enforcement priorities.
Specifically, federal authorities will focus on cases where citizenship was obtained through fraud, concealment of relevant information, or when the individual has engaged in serious criminal conduct, including:
- Sexual offenses, such as child abuse or human trafficking
- Threats to national security, including activities related to terrorism or espionage
- Financial fraud, such as those related to the pandemic relief program (PPP) or Medicaid/Medicare fraud
- Violent crimes not disclosed during the naturalization process
- Involvement in transnational criminal organizations or illegal armed groups
Additionally, the document allows prosecutors to refer “any other case they deem sufficiently important,” broadening the scope of application and granting discretion that has been criticized for its lack of clear limits.
The Case of Elliott Duke
A concrete example of this policy has already materialized. On June 13, a federal court in Louisiana ordered the revocation of U.S. citizenship for Elliott Duke, a nonbinary individual from the United Kingdom, who was convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material.
Duke admitted to committing the crime before obtaining citizenship in 2013, a fact omitted from their naturalization application, according to NPR.
To do so, the DOJ used a civil procedure, which has raised concerns among academics and rights advocates. In such proceedings, individuals do not have the right to a court-appointed attorney, and the burden of proof the government must meet is considerably lower than in criminal cases.
Duke, without access to legal defense and unable to travel to the hearing, is now effectively stateless after renouncing British nationality. “My world collapsed when I read the order. I felt completely unprotected,” Duke told NPR, still evaluating appeal options.
Criticism Over Potential Violations of the U.S. Constitution
For Professor Cassandra Robertson, a constitutional law expert at Case Western Reserve University, this legal offensive represents a violation of due process and contravenes the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “This type of measure creates a second-class citizenship,” she warned.
Concerns extend to families, particularly children who acquired nationality through their parents. Steve Lubet, professor emeritus of law at Northwestern University, warned about the “domino effect” these proceedings could trigger: “If a parent loses their citizenship, what happens to their children? We are opening a dangerous door.”
The U.S. Supreme Court had already limited the use of denaturalization in 1967, ruling that it created levels of citizenship, something incompatible with a democracy. However, the practice was revived under President Barack Obama with the implementation of digital tools and later expanded by Trump during his first term through civil litigation under the so-called “Operation Janus.”
A Mechanism with History
Denaturalization is not a new tool. During the McCarthy era in the 1940s and 1950s, the government used this mechanism against individuals suspected of ties to communism or Nazism.
According to data cited by Robertson, there were more than 22,000 cases annually at its peak. After the 1967 ruling, the number of cases dropped to minimal levels until the program was relaunched under Obama.
Upon returning to power, Donald Trump has sought to radically redefine immigration policy. In addition to denaturalization, he has proposed eliminating birthright citizenship, limiting refugee programs, and tightening entry conditions into the country.
Who Decides Who Loses U.S. Citizenship?
One of the most frequent criticisms of the DOJ memo is the breadth of the criteria and the lack of clear limits. According to Lubet, many of the described categories “are so vague they could be applied arbitrarily.” This grants the government nearly absolute discretion, which experts warn could be used as a political tool.
From the other side of the spectrum, conservative figures like Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation defend the measure. “Those who abuse the privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen should lose that right. It doesn’t matter if the crime occurred before, during, or after the naturalization process,” he stated.
Von Spakovsky argues that constitutional rights are not violated by using civil procedures, as “there is no obligation for the state to provide an attorney in immigration or civil proceedings.”
Despite the drastic nature of the announcement, it remains unclear how many cases might proceed under this new approach. According to Professor Robertson, cases that truly meet the specified criteria are limited, raising the risk that the DOJ may end up targeting individuals without serious crimes but who have committed minor errors or formal omissions.
Image: Infobae
