If the U.S. truly aims to offer citizenship to deserving immigrants, it also needs to address the issue of revoking citizenship from those deemed unworthy.
In 2024, over 800,000 immigrants are likely to gain U.S. citizenship, with a similar number expected in 2025. Currently, around 25 million naturalized citizens reside in the U.S., which accounts for about half of the foreign-born demographic. We embrace those who comply with regulations and engage in society, taking the oath of allegiance earnestly.
However, the reality is that not everyone does. This highlights the problem of citizenship deterioration.
Citizenship in America is a privilege, not an automatic right.
The conversation around stripping citizenship from immigrants taps into broader discussions regarding what it means to be part of a global community. This matter has gained urgency, especially as the political establishment has permitted mass immigration over the past half-century.
A robust and unyielding approach to denaturalization forms a crucial aspect of reclaiming the validity of American citizenship. It’s not merely about limiting access; it’s about affirming that being a U.S. citizen is indeed a privilege.
Historically, very few individuals have been denaturalized. Between 1990 and the start of the Trump presidency, the annual average was fewer than twelve cases. Most targets were not typical offenders but rather serious criminals, including war criminals and terrorists who falsified their applications.
The emphasis on this issue broadened during the first term of the Trump administration, when the Justice Department established a dedicated unit to investigate these cases, increasing the annual count to around forty.
Interestingly, the trend toward denaturalization began during Obama’s presidency, largely due to advancements in technology, with activity ramping up even more during Trump’s second term.
Last year, the Justice Department issued a memo stating that the Civil Division would prioritize denaturalization proceedings wherever legally permissible and backed by evidence. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services aims to refer between 100 and 200 cases monthly to the Justice Department.
Citizenship and Immigration
It’s generally positive that the path to citizenship is relatively accessible. Regardless of the incoming numbers, the objective should be that newcomers integrate effectively into American society.
This contrasts sharply with practices in Persian Gulf nations, where most foreigners can never be part of the political community. In a republic like the U.S., the goal of immigration should fundamentally be to transform newcomers into Americans.
Becoming a citizen is not the same as obtaining a driver’s license or setting up a bank account, though there is substantial paperwork involved. A more apt comparison might be to a marriage or adoption. Such commitments should not be taken lightly, and once established, they shouldn’t be easily undone.
However, if a citizenship candidate deceives or was never fit for naturalization, that relationship must be revoked. While courts might not explicitly refer to “invalidity” in this context, the parallels are evident.
Delaying naturalization due to unmet prerequisites isn’t a punishment; it’s simply rectifying an action that should never have occurred.
Even now, the volume of denaturalization cases is relatively low, despite the fact that fraud is prevalent throughout the immigration system.
According to current laws, denaturalization reasons include actions that occurred before gaining citizenship and do not focus solely on post-naturalization behavior. While subsequent actions can be a factor, they mainly serve as evidence that the applicant lied while taking the oath. For example, if someone joins a hate group shortly after naturalization, it likely indicates dishonesty during their oath.
Even in WWII, the Supreme Court maintained a high burden of proof that made it challenging for the Justice Department to denaturalize Nazis. In response, Congress created a rule which states that membership in an organization prohibiting naturalization within five years post-citizenship is strong evidence against the individual adhering to constitutional principles at their oath-taking time.
This rule has not faced significant legal challenge, mainly due to its rare application. However, if Congress’s recent proposals succeed, they may soon be tested in court.
For instance, after uncovering extensive fraud by Somali-born citizens, Sen. Eric Schmidt (R-Missouri) introduced legislation aimed at enhancing the criteria for denaturalization. This bill extends the window from five to ten years and broadens the list of crimes that could lead to revocation.
If a new citizen commits an aggravated felony, joins a terrorist organization, or commits fraud against the government within ten years of their oath, such acts will be seen as evidence of poor moral character or an unfaithful commitment to the Constitution—criteria that bar citizenship.
In essence, engaging in these acts invalidates their citizenship, suggesting they were never actually qualified to become citizens.
One approach to reducing denaturalization issues is to be more discerning upfront and avoid approving applications from individuals lacking integrity. In light of this, USCIS has resumed neighborhood investigations. Certain candidates will now undergo thorough evaluations concerning their character, loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, and commitment to national welfare.
While this approach can be labor-intensive, it’s more efficient to deny dishonest or criminal applicants than to catch them after they’ve obtained citizenship.
Related: The consequences of leftist immigration policy
Valuing Citizenship
Increased focus on denaturalization represents just one aspect of a broader movement to reaffirm the value of American citizenship. Recent presidential directives during Trump’s administration aimed to clarify that children born to undocumented immigrants, travelers, and other non-residents shouldn’t automatically receive citizenship. This issue is set to be addressed in the Supreme Court.
The government is launching initiatives to curb birth tourism, where pregnant women enter the U.S. on visitor visas to ensure their children gain citizenship. There are regulations requiring visa denials for pregnant women seeking to establish citizenship for their children.
Some other necessary changes to reinforce the significance of citizenship haven’t been given comparable attention. For instance, the idea of foreign language ballots is puzzling—if candidates for citizenship must pass an English test, why should essential civic duties be translated into Korean, Spanish, or Armenian?
Upon obtaining citizenship, individuals must vow to enfeoff all allegiance to other authorities. Yet, a ruling by the Supreme Court deemed this portion of the oath legally ineffective.
Reaffirming the value of citizenship isn’t limited to immigration because the impact of mass immigration complicates matters significantly. If legal immigration were to be reduced dramatically, denaturalization concerns would lessen. Lowering new immigrant numbers and reducing citizenship applicants would minimize errors, thus decreasing the need for denaturalization.
As is often the case with immigration issues, part of the solution might simply be “less, please.”
