Author: Staff Reporter

The Justice Department is increasingly focusing on stripping U.S. citizenship from certain naturalized Americans. According to a memo dated June 11, DOJ leadership is instructing attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who have committed specific crimes. The directive also grants U.S. attorneys more authority in deciding when to pursue such actions. This policy shift targets individuals not born in the United States, and as of 2023, nearly 25 million immigrants had obtained U.S. citizenship through naturalization.

The new emphasis on denaturalization has already produced results. On June 13, a judge revoked the citizenship of Elliott Duke, an American military veteran originally from the United Kingdom who uses they/them pronouns. Duke had been convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material, a crime they later admitted to committing even before becoming a U.S. citizen.

Historically, denaturalization was a prominent tool during the McCarthy era in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It was further utilized during the Obama administration and expanded under President Trump’s first term. The process has typically targeted individuals who concealed past crimes or affiliations with banned organizations—such as the Nazi Party or communist groups—on their citizenship applications.

In his memo, Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate emphasized the importance of this effort: “The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”

This renewed focus aligns with the Trump administration’s broader effort to reshape the U.S. immigration system. President Trump has made immigration policy a central issue in his governance, seeking to end birthright citizenship and reduce refugee admissions. These moves reflect a fundamental redefinition of who is entitled to American citizenship.

However, constitutional scholars and immigration experts have expressed significant alarm about this denaturalization push. Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, noted that the DOJ’s reliance on civil litigation for denaturalization raises serious concerns. In civil court, those targeted do not have the right to government-appointed attorneys, the standard of proof is lower, and cases can be resolved more quickly.

Robertson warned, “Stripping Americans of citizenship through civil litigation violates due process and infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”

Still, the move has supporters. Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation endorsed the initiative, stating, “I do not understand how anyone could possibly be opposed to the Justice Department taking such action to protect the nation from obvious predators, criminals, and terrorists.” Regarding concerns over legal representation, he added, “Nothing prevents that alien from hiring their own lawyer to represent them. They are not entitled to have the government — and thus the American taxpayer — pay for their lawyer.”

He further argued, “That is not a ‘due process’ violation since all immigration proceedings are civil matters and no individuals — including American citizens — are entitled to government-furnished lawyers in any type of civil matter.”

Neither the DOJ nor the Trump White House commented on the matter.

The June 11 memo significantly broadens the categories of offenses that could trigger denaturalization. These include crimes related to national security and fraud against individuals or the government, such as Paycheck Protection Program loan fraud or Medicaid and Medicare fraud.

Sameera Hafiz, policy director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, described the administration’s new approach as “very shocking and very concerning.” She stated, “It is kind of, in a way, trying to create a second class of U.S. citizens,” implying that naturalized citizens remain vulnerable to losing their status despite having followed legal processes.

Adding to these concerns, the memo grants federal attorneys the discretion to pursue denaturalization cases beyond the listed categories. “These categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case,” the memo reads, further noting that priorities may include “any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.”

Steve Lubet, professor emeritus at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, found this language troubling. “Many of the categories are so vague as to be meaningless. It isn’t even clear that they relate to fraudulent procurement, as opposed to post-naturalization conduct,” he observed.

Von Spakovsky countered that the government is right to be uncompromising. “When we extend the opportunity for naturalization to aliens, we are granting them a great privilege — the privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen,” he said. “Anyone who has abused the privilege of the opportunity of becoming a U.S. citizen should have that citizenship revoked when they engage in such reprehensible behavior.”

Lubet also pointed out the broader implications for families, particularly children who derived citizenship through a naturalized parent. “People who thought they were safely American and had done nothing wrong can suddenly be at risk of losing citizenship,” he said.

The DOJ did not address questions about how children of denaturalized parents would be affected or what would happen if individuals were rendered stateless.

The case of Elliott Duke appears to be an early example of how the new denaturalization efforts might play out. Duke, who became a U.S. citizen in January 2013, was found to have started distributing child sexual abuse material while serving in Germany in 2012. Duke relinquished their U.K. citizenship to become an American. The DOJ filed the case in February in Louisiana, citing both the prior conviction and Duke’s failure to disclose criminal activity during the naturalization process.

During the legal proceedings, Duke struggled to secure representation and could not attend court in Louisiana. “My heart shattered when I read the lines [of the order]. My world broke apart,” Duke said.

Shumate, in a statement, warned, “If you commit serious crimes before you become a U.S. citizen and then lie about them during your naturalization process, the Justice Department will discover the truth and come after you.”

Laura Bingham, executive director of the Temple University Institute for Law Innovation and Technology, cautioned that the Duke case sets a worrying precedent. “Citizenship is not supposed to be something that you can continuously open up for some people, and you can’t for others,” she said.

Historically, denaturalization surged during the McCarthy era, with over 22,000 cases filed annually. “At the height of denaturalization, there were about 22,000 cases a year… It was huge,” Robertson recalled. However, a 1967 Supreme Court ruling curtailed the practice, citing its incompatibility with democratic values.

From that point until the Obama era, denaturalization became rare. The Obama administration revived it with initiatives like Operation Janus, which sought out potential naturalization fraud, especially linked to national security concerns.

Trump’s first term saw further expansion, with a preference for pursuing denaturalization through civil rather than criminal courts. Although Robertson questions how many cases will meet the criteria outlined in the recent memo, she fears the aggressive push may target individuals with minimal infractions. “It fits in with the other ways that we’ve seen immigration enforcement happening,” she said.

This recent policy shift marks a significant chapter in U.S. immigration enforcement, raising crucial questions about due process, equal protection, and the long-term security of naturalized citizenship.

The United States Embassy in India has reiterated the stringent vetting procedures tied to its visa policies, describing each visa adjudication as a matter of national security. In a statement posted on the social media platform X, the embassy highlighted the requirement for all applicants to provide complete details of their social media presence over the last five years while applying for nonimmigrant visas.

“Visa applicants are required to list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last 5 years on the DS-160 visa application form. Applicants certify that the information in their visa application is true and correct before they sign and submit,” stated the US Embassy in a recent post.

This disclosure requirement, according to the embassy, is an integral part of the broader national security screening process employed by the United States. Failing to comply with this requirement could have serious consequences. “Omitting social media information could lead to visa denial and ineligibility for future visas,” the post further warned.

This advisory is part of a broader campaign by the embassy to inform and caution visa applicants about the importance of accuracy and transparency in their applications. The embassy’s post included digital posters reiterating the security aspect of the visa process. One poster read, “Every U.S. visa adjudication is a national security decision,” and emphasized, “The United States requires visa applicants to provide social media identifiers on visa application forms. We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting.”

In a related update earlier this month, the embassy had urged applicants falling under F, M, or J non-immigrant visa categories to make their social media accounts public. This recommendation was made to aid US authorities in verifying applicants’ identities and establishing their admissibility under American law. These visa categories include F and M for students and J for exchange visitors.

The embassy elaborated that since 2019, the United States has mandated the disclosure of “social media identifiers” as part of both immigrant and non-immigrant visa applications. This long-standing requirement, according to the embassy, is vital to national security and helps immigration authorities thoroughly vet each applicant.

The embassy’s statements come amid a wider crackdown on immigration in the United States. Recently, the Trump administration intensified enforcement actions in Los Angeles, targeting immigration violations more aggressively. In light of this, the US Embassy in India has stepped up its communication, providing frequent updates on policy and legal expectations for visa applicants.

On June 24, the embassy issued another warning, stating that immigration law enforcement had been stepped up across the country. The message was unambiguous—those found violating immigration laws would face strict penalties, including detention, deportation, and permanent ineligibility for future visas.

Adding to this, the embassy’s statement noted, “The US had increased enforcement of immigration laws, and violators would face detention, deportation and permanent consequences for future visa eligibility.” The warning was not limited to overstays or misrepresentation; it also made it clear that illegal entry into the United States would result in jail time and removal from the country.

This was not the only caution issued during the month. On June 19, the embassy released another strongly worded statement reminding applicants that obtaining a US visa is not a guaranteed right but a discretionary privilege. It emphasized that screening and scrutiny continue even after a visa is issued. Authorities in the US reserve the right to revoke a visa if the holder is found in violation of any laws.

The embassy said, “A US visa was a privilege, not a right,” underscoring that post-issuance reviews are routine and can result in visa cancellation if necessary. It further added that involvement in illegal activities, including drug use or breaking US laws while in the country on a student or visitor visa, could severely impact one’s ability to receive future visas.

This line of messaging from the US Embassy in India has been consistent throughout the month. The campaign has included reminders that although the US continues to welcome legal travelers, any attempt to enter the country illegally or abuse the visa system will not be tolerated.

Reiterating this stance, the embassy made a significant statement on June 16, asserting that the United States “will not tolerate those who facilitate illegal and mass immigration to the US.” This message also revealed a policy shift: the US had introduced “new visa restrictions” aimed specifically at foreign government officials and individuals who violate immigration laws.

This multi-pronged approach by the US government reflects a broader tightening of immigration and visa processes, especially in the wake of mounting concerns around illegal immigration. With policies targeting both individual applicants and those facilitating unlawful entry, the US is sending a clear signal about the importance of legal compliance.

By highlighting these issues through multiple channels and on various dates, the US Embassy in India is working to ensure that prospective travelers are well aware of the rules and expectations. The detailed advisories, warnings about visa ineligibility, and emphasis on national security collectively serve to underline the gravity with which the US government views visa applications.

These measures not only aim to safeguard national interests but also serve as a deterrent for those considering bypassing legal immigration processes. By requiring disclosure of social media identifiers, encouraging transparency, and increasing legal enforcement, the United States is fortifying its immigration system against potential risks.

At the same time, the US government continues to stress that it welcomes legal immigration and supports those who abide by the rules. But any deviation from lawful practices will result in serious and lasting consequences.

The embassy’s message, repeated throughout June, is unambiguous: compliance with visa rules, honesty in the application process, and adherence to US laws are non-negotiable. The US authorities are equipped to detect discrepancies and enforce immigration laws without hesitation.

From urging public visibility of social media accounts to warning against drug use and law violations, the embassy has rolled out a series of reminders to leave no room for misunderstanding. These reminders serve both as guidance for sincere applicants and a deterrent for those contemplating any kind of misuse of the system.

Ultimately, the consistent tone and content of the embassy’s advisories reflect a strategic policy direction that prioritizes national security while maintaining opportunities for legal entry. Through transparency, accountability, and firm enforcement, the United States aims to maintain the integrity of its immigration system.