How would the Trump administration denaturalize immigrant citizens?
The next step in the Trump administration's deportation campaign is here. The Department of Justice will prioritize stripping citizenship from naturalized Americans it says have violated the law, a process known as denaturalization.
Denaturalization gives the White House "another tool to police immigrants' free speech rights," said Axios. The administration has already used the deportation process to target immigrant students who criticized Israel's war on Gaza, including green-card holder Mahmoud Khalil. The Justice Department guidance says denaturalization proceedings will be focused on "terrorists," as well as people convicted of "war crimes," "extrajudicial killings" and "human rights abuses."
The denaturalization program is an attempt to "protect the nation from obvious predators, criminals and terrorists," said The Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky. But immigration experts "expressed serious concerns about the effort's constitutionality," said NPR. The Justice Department will pursue denaturalization in civil courts, which require a lower burden of proof for the government to win. They also do not require that defendants be furnished with an attorney. The Trump administration is "trying to create a second class of U.S. citizens" with fewer rights, said Sameera Hafiz, the policy director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
"Aggressive" denaturalization is at odds with "constitutional principles of citizenship," Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta, law professors at Case Western University and Hofstra Law School, respectively, said at MSNBC. There is an unsavory history: "Denaturalization was relatively rare" for most of American history but "spiked during the Red Scare era." The Supreme Court in the 1960s limited denaturalization to those who had "illegally procured" citizenship through fraud or failing to meet naturalization requirements. Going beyond that represents the sort of "arbitrary governmental authority the Constitution was designed to prevent."
Pursuing denaturalization in civil courts lets the Trump administration paint potential deportees as "criminal" while "avoiding the safeguards of an actual criminal court," said Rafia Zakaria at The Nation. There is no statute of limitation on civil denaturalizations, allowing Justice Department lawyers to "target U.S. citizens who were naturalized decades earlier." But there is more than citizenship at stake: The threat of denaturalization will allow the Trump administration to tamp down on dissent from migrant citizens "who know that they could either face deportation or massive debt" from attorneys' fees. Either way, the "Trump administration wins."
Republicans already have a political target for denaturalization: Uganda-born Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayoral candidate. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) has called on the Justice Department to strip Mamdani of citizenship, said Semafor. Mamdani's membership in the Democratic Socialists of America "would have disqualified him" from citizenship because it is a "communist organization," Ogles said. If those claims are "true, it's something that should be investigated," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Mamdani was defiant in response. New York is "my home," he said on X. "And I'm proud to be a citizen, which means standing up for our Constitution."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's EPA Reportedly Wants to Remove Limits on Tailpipe Emissions
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." A new draft plan is reportedly going to unwind the EPA's ruling that greenhouse gases are a public health issue. If passed, the federal agency's ability to enforce restrictions on automakers could be limited in the future. The plan would overturn official EPA policy that has been in place since 2009. A newly drafted plan from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said to be days away from going public, aims to strip the agency's ability to limit greenhouse gases. According to reporting from the New York Times, the draft proposal rescinds a 2009 declaration that carbon dioxide and methane emissions are hazardous to public health. If verified and passed, such a proposal presents further headwinds to EV adoption and also removes limits on tailpipe emissions. The ruling would also affect industrial pollution, but as far as the automotive industry is concerned, it would remove carbon emission limitations as a target for automakers. With fines for CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) violations largely eliminated and federal rebates for EV purchases gone, this new change could continue to change the course of domestic car manufacturing. Long-term, such a change would limit the EPA's authority to enforce rules aimed at limiting climate change. The proposed draft is said not to argue with the science regarding greenhouse gas emissions, but rather it states that the EPA has legally overstepped its authority. It seeks to limit the EPA's ability to legislate except in specific circumstances. There are several steps to be taken before such a change occurs, not least of which are various legal hurdles. If enacted, the new plan would almost certainly face challenges from various sources. It also has to weather some form of public review. It took two years for the EPA to officially label greenhouse gases as a public health issue after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that they were pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unwinding this finding may take a similarly long timeline. If you are in the automaking business, however, it's fairly straightforward to see which way the winds are blowing. For the near future, investing in combustion-powered transportation is likely to be the safe bet. You Might Also Like Car and Driver's 10 Best Cars through the Decades How to Buy or Lease a New Car Lightning Lap Legends: Chevrolet Camaro vs. Ford Mustang!
CBS News
10 minutes ago
- CBS News
New exhibit explores the impact and legacy of the Hollywood blacklist
New York — The central question in 1947, as the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated alleged Communist influence in Hollywood, was: "Are you a member of the Communist Party?" Chaired by Republican Rep. John Parnell Thomas of New Jersey, the committee eventually led to a Hollywood blacklist, now the focus of a new exhibit at the New York Historical Society. "The exhibit really tells the story of the Hollywood Ten," Louise Mirrer, president of the New York Historical Society, told CBS News, of a group of 10 Hollywood writers and directors. "And the charge was for the Hollywood Ten, that they were making movies that espoused the Communist point of view." The Hollywood Ten refused to answer the committee's questions. They were held in contempt of Congress, each sentenced from anywhere between six months to a year in prison, and blacklisted by studio executives. "I think it had an enormous effect," Anne Lessy, who helped curate the exhibit, told CBS News of the impact of the blacklist. "If you wanted to be a part of the film industry, you essentially forfeited your privacy and your right to your own political ideas and affiliations." Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood Ten, spent 10 months in prison. His daughter, Mitzi, was 5 years old at the time. Her drawings and letters to him are on display in the exhibit, as well as testimony from those who named suspected Communists. "In an effort to save themselves, their careers and their reputations, many, you know, creatives felt compelled to name names, which is what the committee wanted," Lessy said. Even Walt Disney famously testified before the committee. "Walt Disney very much objected to labor organizing that had taken place in his studios and blamed it on Communist infiltration," Lessy said. "And then you also have Ronald Reagan, who at the time, was president of the Screen Actors Guild. While he didn't name names in public, he did to the committee's investigator. And he went on to very much endorse the anti-Communist crusade." The blacklist later expanded to include classically trained pianist Hazel Scott, the first Black entertainer to have a nationally syndicated TV show. But the show was canceled after she was named in an anti-Communist pamphlet. Once out of prison, Trumbo used pseudonyms to write the Academy Award-winning films "The Brave One" and "Roman Holiday." "So it took about four the Academy Awards to finally recognize Dalton Trumbo," Lessy said. " was seen as the beginning of eroding of the committee's power." The impact of the Red Scare also extended beyond Hollywood. "A number of regular Americans got caught up in this anti-Communist fervor, members of labor unions, high school teachers," Lessy said. "College professors also came under scrutiny. There was a well-known publication called Red Channels that would provide very detailed information on a wide range of creatives. And so even just your name appearing in one of these publications was enough to get you blacklisted." By the 1960s, as the Red Scare had faded, so too did the blacklist's power. And in 1975, the House Un-American Activities Committee was abolished. "I think it [the Hollywood blacklist] raises important questions about how to protect a robust democracy," Lessy said. "How do we protect our rights and freedoms, particularly freedom of you hold unpopular views, should you be punished? Should you lose your job? These are all questions we should be wrestling with."
Associated Press
10 minutes ago
- Associated Press
With Columbia as a model, White House seeks fines in potential deals with Harvard and others
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is pursuing heavy fines from Harvard and other universities as part of potential settlements to end investigations into campus antisemitism, using the deal it struck with Columbia University as a template, according to an administration official familiar with the matter. Fines have become a staple of proposed deals in talks with Harvard and other schools, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The new strategy was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Federal civil rights investigations into schools and universities almost always have been resolved through voluntary settlements, yet they rarely include financial penalties. The Biden administration reached dozens of such deals with universities and none included fines. Columbia's settlement with the Trump administration included a $200 million fine in exchange for regaining access to federal funding and closing investigations accusing Columbia of tolerating harassment of Jewish students and employees. The agreement announced Wednesday also orders Columbia to ensure its admissions and hiring decisions are 'merit-based' with no consideration of race, to hire more Jewish studies faculty, and to reduce the university's reliance on international students, among other changes. It places Columbia under the watch of an independent monitor and requires regular disclosures to the government. The agreement deal includes a clause forbidding the government from directly dictating decisions on hiring, admissions or academics. Columbia leaders said it preserves the university's autonomy while restoring the flow of federal money. The Trump administration is investigating dozens of universities over allegations that they failed to address campus antisemitism amid the Israel-Hamas war, and several institutions have faced federal funding freezes, like those at Columbia and Harvard. The federal government has frozen more than $1 billion at Cornell University, along with $790 million at Northwestern University. In announcing the Columbia settlement, administration officials described it as a template for other universities. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a 'roadmap' for colleges looking to regain public trust, saying it would 'ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.' As Trump departed the White House on Friday, he told reporters that Harvard 'wants to settle' but that Columbia 'handled it better.' The president said he's optimistic his administration will prevail in Harvard's legal challenge — at least on appeal — and he suggested Harvard may never regain the level of federal funding it received in the past. 'The bottom line is we're not going to give any more money to Harvard,' he said. 'We want to spread the wealth.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
