Denaturalization is an extraordinary legal step that strips a naturalized citizen of their U.S. citizenship. Historically, it has been reserved for the most severe violations, such as fraud during the naturalization process, participation in terrorism, or engagement with enemy forces. The process is bound by strict legal safeguards and due process requirements, making it an uncommon occurrence.
Understanding Naturalization and Its Legal Boundaries
Naturalization refers to the conferral of U.S. citizenship on individuals who have met statutory requirements, including lawful residence for a set period, good moral character, and knowledge of English and civics. Citizenship can also be acquired through statute or treaty when the United States gains new territory or through derivation, when children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents become citizens themselves.
Denaturalization, in contrast, refers to the revocation of this citizenship after it has been granted. Congress’s authority in this area derives from its constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, along with the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Supreme Court has upheld this authority, stating that if citizenship was obtained through false representations or omissions, and the certificate of naturalization would not have been granted otherwise, then denaturalization may be justified.
The Legal Foundation
The Naturalization Act of 1906 was the first federal statue to explicitly authorize denaturalization. It permitted judicial proceedings to cancel certificates of citizenship that were obtained by fraud or through illegal means. The law even included a controversial clause stating that a naturalized citizen who returned to their country of origin and established permanent residence there within five years of naturalization could be presumed to have lacked intent to remain in the U.S.—a basis for canceling their citizenship unless they could provide evidence to the contrary.
This legal framework set a high bar for denaturalization, requiring clear evidence that citizenship was improperly obtained. These protections were designed to preserve the integrity of citizenship while preventing abuse of the naturalization process.
Renewed Interest from Executive Branch
Despite the narrow legal criteria, recent administrations have revisited the possibility of expanding denaturalization as a tool of immigration enforcement. Reports indicate that officials under the Trump administration explored how to apply denaturalization more broadly, including in case where individuals were suspected—but not convicted—of criminal or gang-related activity. These discussions included possible legal justifications rooted in historical laws and national security concerns.
In some cases, administration officials even considered deporting denaturalized individuals to foreign countries such as El Salvador, which raised immediate red flags for both U.S. and international law. Critics have described such proposals as authoritarian, citing the lack of due process and the use of unproven allegations, such as gang affiliation based on tattoos or clothing.
A Constitutional Crossroads
Courts have consistently resisted efforts to weaken the standards for denaturalization. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of proof lies with the government, which must demonstrate that citizenship was unlawfully obtained. Citizenship is not a privilege that can be taken away easily—it is a constitutional right once fully granted.
The troubling aspect of recent discussions is not just the legal overreach, but the political motivations behind it. Tying citizenship status to allegations of criminality without evidence, or seeking to remove political undesirables, undermines the principles of equal protection and the rule of law. As some administration allies have suggested targeting naturalized citizens based on perceived affiliations, experts warn that this tactic could be misused to marginalize entire communities.
Efforts to expand denaturalization, particularly through backdoor legal maneuvers, place the nation at a constitutional crossroads. Citizenship is a foundation of democratic society, conferring not only legal rights but a sense of identity and belonging. Undermining that foundation for political ends threatens the very fabric of civil society.
Conclusion
As debates over national security policy and immigration policy continue, it is important for citizens to remain vigilant. Policies that erode the permanence of citizenship or circumvent due process do more than impact individuals, but they also redefine the values of the nation itself.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.