Administration working to strip citizenship from foreign-born Americans
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
Also, this is not the bottom; the bottom is worse and further away. Concerned US citizens, whether by birth or by legal immigration, should at this time probably start working on an exit strategy just as a backup.
I am not saying this because it's ideal; it's far from ideal, but because one has to be realistic and pragmatic.
Unless a HUGE portion of the country decides to take up arms at the same time, the second amendment isn't going to make the difference. As the administration's policies seems to be affecting individual groups one at a time, I doubt that enough people will be willing to lay down their lives over any single issue.
The 2A helps only when a whole community were to get picked up all at once, which basically never happens. When individuals get picked up one at a time, it is in effect useless. Also, the state-specific interpretation of the 2A doesn't allow concealed carry of compact automatic weapons, and even if it did, it is basically a recipe for self annihilation because there are a lot more of them.
Also, there is no way that the people will mass organize to fight ICE violently. This again is because ICE targets individuals, not entire communities.
Unfortunately they will instead continue writing fan fiction about protecting their rights while they vote for team "take the guns first" yet again.
I'm going to assume that second amendment is going to continue to be upheld by Republican supporters. And you'll have an NRA who look at people getting executed for possessing a weapon without drawing, and keep saying "this is fine".
The hypocrisy with 2A supporters is palpable. They never supported 2A rights.
> "Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalisations and demonising law-abiding citizens," the NRA said in a statement.
I mean, I guess you could imply that? But considering they have held marches when there were rumours of Democrats restricting gun ownership, it is literally the least they could do. Where are are gun touting matches? Where are the stages with "from my cold dead hands" statements?
> WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is dramatically expanding an effort to _revoke U.S. citizenship_ for foreign-born Americans _as it works to curb immigration_
Next up is rounding up citizens into camps as it works to curb immigration, and we all know what comes next as it works to curb immigration.
Well, I hope for the citizens that they're married to card-carrying MAGA members highly ranked in the Party, as this is the only thing that matters and gives one a shield.
"A spokesman for USCIS, Matthew Tragesser, said the agency reviews cases of naturalized citizens when there is credible evidence that citizenship was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.
[Is denaturalisation for committing fraud in the application process common in the enforcement of immigration laws of similar countries (rhetorical question)]
"We maintain a zero-tolerance policy towards fraud in the naturalization process and will pursue denaturalization proceedings for any individual who lied or misrepresented themselves," he said.
...
The Justice Department has already told attorneys to focus on denaturalization cases, and it has offered possible case examples, from "individuals who pose a risk to national security" or who have engaged in war crimes or torture to people who have committed Medicaid or Medicare fraud or have otherwise defrauded the government.
Roughly 800,000 people become naturalized citizens every year, according to DHS. To become a naturalized citizen, a candidate must be over 18, already be a legal permanent resident, speak English, know U.S. history and social studies and have "good moral character," according to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Foreign-born Americans were generally stripped of citizenship only if they were found to have committed fraud during their application processes. In past decades, those cases focused on ferreting out former Nazis who fled to the U.S. after World War II under false pretenses. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have sought to increase investigations, but it's still rare for a reason, a former USCIS official said.
[Is fraud in the application process consistent with "good moral character" (rhetorical question)]
...
The denaturalization process is lengthy and time-consuming, and there is a high legal bar. Even if the administration makes the push to investigate someone with the aim to denaturalize, it could take years, and a subsequent deportation would take even longer."
Republican lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would allow the government to strip citizenship from anyone found to have committed fraud against the government or joined a terrorist group or anyone who is convicted of a serious felony within 10 years of their citizenship."
Headline makes it sound much more significant than it is.
I am a naturalized US citizen. If I want to critique the administration, this is a message to me -- am I sure? What if they decide to make an example out of me? Maybe I'd better keep quiet.
Question: have you never broken any laws? Maybe a technical error in a tax filing? Have you ever driven faster than the speed limit? If not you, how about the people you care about?
Do you think it's okay for the administration to go after you or your loved ones on the basis of these violations, simply because you spoke out against them? For example, the "mortgage fraud" allegations against Lisa Cook, which is something Trump himself is alleged to have done. Most people get off scott-free, but some people get the book thrown at them, and the only difference is they're on the wrong team. It's a separate conversation whether it's legal to go after that person, or if the law that's being used as pretext is or is not a good law. What I'm specifically curious about is whether you endorse lawfare, the weaponization of the legal system against political enemies.
The reason the "stripping your citizenship" thing particularly gets to me is that it's a way to destroy someone's entire life. Like, okay, maybe they go after you for the "mortgage fraud" and you end up owing fines or something, but life can generally continue. If they strip your citizenship, you have to leave your job, community, and any possessions you've accumulated, and start over somewhere else -- unless you're detained in an El Salvadorian gulag. Okay, maybe this is a tools been available to past administrations -- I haven't looked into it. I do think it's a bad tool. More importantly, I know it's a tool that's being wielded not by impartial administrators of justice but by corrupt political hacks. I submit this is... not good. What do you think?
If we model the national policy as a person, the person would be totally insane and basically heartless and possibly schizophrenic. Like you let somebody into your house for years, and they benefit from being in your house and they get used to it, and you may threaten every now and then that you are going to kick them out, but they can tell you aren’t serious. But then one day blam, you kick them out with no warning and you don’t even check if they have somewhere to go.
But if we think about the policy as the output of the desires and actions of a bunch of competing factions in America and not as a person, the faction that wants the people kicked out now has wanted them kicked out since they got here. They never stopped wanting them kicked out. The only thing that changed is that now, for whatever reason, the dominant politician is aligned with that faction. If that faction were in charge the whole time (not this particular politician, mind you, the faction of people who wanted them kicked out the whole time), we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place. So to them I think saying things like “it’s terribly bad for the people being kicked out”, they just go: I didn’t want them to be in that situation, I wanted them gone the entire time, and I’m not responsible for them having been here this long.
A framing I heard that doesn’t seem to have gotten traction (yet?) is that these people are “victims of migration”. The faction who wants them to leave isn’t harming them, per se, they are harmed by the totality of the migration policy situation over the last many decades. I think that makes a lot of sense
On your specific point: I think analogies to other law violations and what the consequence should be for those is not applicable, because they aren’t being removed from the country as a punishment. They are being removed because the violation is that they are here, they violated laws about being here. So the real equivalent would be: if you messed up your taxes, is it fair for the government to ask you to fix them?
That is a convenient assumption, and while it was been true sometimes, unfortunately it often isn't true. Mass internment has worked very well in El Salvador and China. There's no reason to think it can't continue to work in the US.