7 ms·

Until recently, I would have said that the only way a citizen could have his or her citizenship taken away was by committing treason but there has been talk by

Until recently, I would have said that the only way a citizen could have his or her citizenship taken away was by committing treason but there has been talk by the current administration about expanding the grounds as well as increasing denaturalization efforts. The first Trump administration tried this but it was largely unsuccessful but it's a different administration and a different Supreme Court so I don't think concerns now are unjustified.

rayiner 2y ago
To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter.... 8 USC 1451(a): > a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation According to USCIS, the misrepresentation need not be but-for material. That is, you only need to show that the omission or misrepresentation was relevant to the naturalization inquiry. But you do not need to prove that the government would have denied naturalization had it known the true facts. In that respect, the standard is similar to 18 USC 1001, which has been applied extremely broadly in federal prosecutions. The second Trump administration has much smarter lawyers than the first one, and I'd count on them to be aggressive about using the full scope of section 1451(a).
- grahamgooch 2y ago
  Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No Years go by and the person gets a green card. The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable. The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member. Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder. Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org. Is the green card holder under threat?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    So this is not legal advice and I'm not an immigration lawyer. And I'm not explaining how the law is likely to be applied. Instead, I'm explaining how an aggressive government prosecutor could plausibly seek to apply it. The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation." The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process. As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad: > No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.
- refurb 2y ago
  This is why the ask what seems like an absurd question - “Are you a Nazi?” - on the US citizenship application. Not because they expect people to say “yes”, but because if they find out later you hide information about your involvement in WW2, they deport you for lying. No need to prove you were an actual Nazi. You withheld information which is enough grounds for revoking citizenship.
ggernov 2y ago
[flagged]
- dttze 2y ago
  Advocating for Palestinians isn’t advocating for a “terror group”. Which is itself a nebulous term that is used for political reasons. Now, working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason, but that’s okay when you’re the president I guess.
  - yes_really 2y ago
    Are you denying that Hamas is a terrorist group? Committing terrorism is literally the central part of their operations. Are you denying that October 7th was terrorism? Are you denying that launching thousands of rockets against Israel to kill as many Jewish people as possible is terrorism?
    - latentcall 2y ago
      Is calling out a right wing military state for bombing and killing over 14,000 Palestinian children terrorism? Just talking about it makes you the bad guy, huh?
      - tome 2y ago
        Presenting it in those false terms makes you a bad guy, yes. Israel is not a "military state" and a left wing Israeli government would have carried out much the same military operations. "Children" were not bombed. Military targets were bombed. Many children died in consequence, not least because of Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way in an attempt to win over credulous fools, albeit some of them well-meaning.
        dttze 2y ago
        There is no left wing in Israel, you are painting a false narrative. It is a fascist state run by thugs (much like ours, which is probably why they are so eager to sell out Americans to Israel). Children were bombed. They knew the kids were there and they bombed them. Often happily doing it knowing they'd slaughter hundreds to get one supposed terrorist. They bulldozed bodies. They tiktoked the destruction of universities and hospitals. "Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way" is such a tired lie to cover up for the slaughter of innocent people by the Israeli terror state.

rayiner 2y ago

To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter.... 8 USC 1451(a): > a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation According to USCIS, the misrepresentation need not be but-for material. That is, you only need to show that the omission or misrepresentation was relevant to the naturalization inquiry. But you do not need to prove that the government would have denied naturalization had it known the true facts. In that respect, the standard is similar to 18 USC 1001, which has been applied extremely broadly in federal prosecutions. The second Trump administration has much smarter lawyers than the first one, and I'd count on them to be aggressive about using the full scope of section 1451(a).

grahamgooch 2y ago
Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No Years go by and the person gets a green card. The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable. The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member. Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder. Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org. Is the green card holder under threat?
- rayiner 2y ago
  So this is not legal advice and I'm not an immigration lawyer. And I'm not explaining how the law is likely to be applied. Instead, I'm explaining how an aggressive government prosecutor could plausibly seek to apply it. The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation." The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process. As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad: > No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.
refurb 2y ago
This is why the ask what seems like an absurd question - “Are you a Nazi?” - on the US citizenship application. Not because they expect people to say “yes”, but because if they find out later you hide information about your involvement in WW2, they deport you for lying. No need to prove you were an actual Nazi. You withheld information which is enough grounds for revoking citizenship.

ggernov 2y ago

[flagged]

dttze 2y ago
Advocating for Palestinians isn’t advocating for a “terror group”. Which is itself a nebulous term that is used for political reasons. Now, working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason, but that’s okay when you’re the president I guess.
- yes_really 2y ago
  Are you denying that Hamas is a terrorist group? Committing terrorism is literally the central part of their operations. Are you denying that October 7th was terrorism? Are you denying that launching thousands of rockets against Israel to kill as many Jewish people as possible is terrorism?
  - latentcall 2y ago
    Is calling out a right wing military state for bombing and killing over 14,000 Palestinian children terrorism? Just talking about it makes you the bad guy, huh?
    - tome 2y ago
      Presenting it in those false terms makes you a bad guy, yes. Israel is not a "military state" and a left wing Israeli government would have carried out much the same military operations. "Children" were not bombed. Military targets were bombed. Many children died in consequence, not least because of Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way in an attempt to win over credulous fools, albeit some of them well-meaning.
      - dttze 2y ago
        There is no left wing in Israel, you are painting a false narrative. It is a fascist state run by thugs (much like ours, which is probably why they are so eager to sell out Americans to Israel). Children were bombed. They knew the kids were there and they bombed them. Often happily doing it knowing they'd slaughter hundreds to get one supposed terrorist. They bulldozed bodies. They tiktoked the destruction of universities and hospitals. "Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way" is such a tired lie to cover up for the slaughter of innocent people by the Israeli terror state.