4 ms·

Green Card has a risk of deportation that citizenship does not. But the current administration is working to make citizenship revocable.

nraynaud 8y ago
They have a unit for stripping people's citizenship now.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Lying on immigration applications has always been grounds for revocation of citizenship.
  - nraynaud 8y ago
    It's not always lying, that's why they created a unit to look into things when they decide to target someone. The trick is asking a lot of information on the forms (to increase the risk of mistakes), and then arguing that any discrepancy found does not have to be material to strip the citizenship. And also stripping the citizenship of all the babies that one doctor or nurse has delivered over their career because they have lied at least once on a form.
ericd 8y ago
Gotta give some context or a source for a claim like that. Is the revocation related to people found guilty of terrorism/treason, or is it a lower bar? Or is it if they found you lied in order to get citizenship, as was the case historically with Nazis?
- toast0 8y ago
  There's been some recent cases around not wanting to accept certificates of home births in southern texas from 20+ years ago.
btilly 8y ago
But the current administration is working to make citizenship revocable. I firmly believe that the current administration would love to change the rules on citizenship. However the 14th amendment is extremely clear on this, and the courts have consistently ruled for decades that Congress and the President do not have the right to change the laws to strip citizenship from people. (This was extensively litigated over laws against dual citizenship.) Therefore it is no more reasonable to fear the current administration making citizenship revocable than to fear the previous administration taking all the guns away.
- d1zzy 8y ago
  I would say that it heavily depends on the current justices in the supreme court. With the current court composition I wouldn't say that both of those issues have equal risk of being revoked.
  - btilly 8y ago
    The current court makes this one pretty safe. The most recent decision relevant to this topic was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslenjak_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslenjak_v._United_States in 2017. It was a 9-0 decision that a naturalized citizen who had made minor errors of fact in their citizenship declaration couldn't have their citizenship stripped because of that. Between stare decisis and how solidly the court has been in protecting citizenship, this principle is not in any sort of trouble any time soon.
- zaptheimpaler 8y ago
  The US has a history of stripping people of their citizenship when things get bad, regardless of what the law says. It has happened before with Mexicans, it is happening again right now [1]. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17800410/trump-passport-birth-certificate-hispanic-denial-citizens https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17800410/trump-passport-birth-...
  - btilly 8y ago
    That is not "regardless of the law". That is "when it can be argued that the law does not apply". The law itself is solid. Whether a particular person with paperwork issues will be given the presumption of the facts being in their favor is another story.

nraynaud 8y ago

They have a unit for stripping people's citizenship now.

pnw_hazor 8y ago
Lying on immigration applications has always been grounds for revocation of citizenship.
- nraynaud 8y ago
  It's not always lying, that's why they created a unit to look into things when they decide to target someone. The trick is asking a lot of information on the forms (to increase the risk of mistakes), and then arguing that any discrepancy found does not have to be material to strip the citizenship. And also stripping the citizenship of all the babies that one doctor or nurse has delivered over their career because they have lied at least once on a form.

ericd 8y ago

Gotta give some context or a source for a claim like that. Is the revocation related to people found guilty of terrorism/treason, or is it a lower bar? Or is it if they found you lied in order to get citizenship, as was the case historically with Nazis?

toast0 8y ago
There's been some recent cases around not wanting to accept certificates of home births in southern texas from 20+ years ago.

btilly 8y ago

But the current administration is working to make citizenship revocable. I firmly believe that the current administration would love to change the rules on citizenship. However the 14th amendment is extremely clear on this, and the courts have consistently ruled for decades that Congress and the President do not have the right to change the laws to strip citizenship from people. (This was extensively litigated over laws against dual citizenship.) Therefore it is no more reasonable to fear the current administration making citizenship revocable than to fear the previous administration taking all the guns away.

d1zzy 8y ago
I would say that it heavily depends on the current justices in the supreme court. With the current court composition I wouldn't say that both of those issues have equal risk of being revoked.
- btilly 8y ago
  The current court makes this one pretty safe. The most recent decision relevant to this topic was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslenjak_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslenjak_v._United_States in 2017. It was a 9-0 decision that a naturalized citizen who had made minor errors of fact in their citizenship declaration couldn't have their citizenship stripped because of that. Between stare decisis and how solidly the court has been in protecting citizenship, this principle is not in any sort of trouble any time soon.
zaptheimpaler 8y ago
The US has a history of stripping people of their citizenship when things get bad, regardless of what the law says. It has happened before with Mexicans, it is happening again right now [1]. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17800410/trump-passport-birth-certificate-hispanic-denial-citizens https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17800410/trump-passport-birth-...
- btilly 8y ago
  That is not "regardless of the law". That is "when it can be argued that the law does not apply". The law itself is solid. Whether a particular person with paperwork issues will be given the presumption of the facts being in their favor is another story.