| |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Denaturalization is a process which exists and has been used for years, scaling up the intensity of its use is a much easier thing (and one which both the current [0] and the previous [1] Trump Administration actually have done) than ending birthright citizenship. Since it is, in fact, already happening, I think it is a mistake to view it as something to worry about only if and when the administration succeeds in overturning birthright citizenship. [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalizatio... [1] https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/trump-administration-seek... | | |
| ▲ | pfannkuchen 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Isn’t this strictly for convicted criminals, though? I imagine this goes along with the T&Cs of being naturalized? I didn’t read GP as being worried specifically about convicted criminals. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Isn’t this strictly for convicted criminals, though? No. Denaturalization is a civil process that does not require a criminal conviction, and the people that have been denaturalized are not always convicted criminals. (Denaturalization usually involves an allegation that could also be pursued as a crime, such as fraud against the government, but that's very much not the same as it applying only to convicted criminals.) |
|
| |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "If that happens" is still an "if", but, I mean, Republicans are actively working on that as we speak. | | |
| ▲ | pfannkuchen 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Source? I haven’t seen anything about it and I just googled again and still don’t see anything (though that could be Google’s fault). I think legally it is possible since Supreme Court decisions are applied retroactively in general (just not the existing EO one because the EO was forward looking), but that would be super unpopular since it’s basically a huge rug pull and I’m skeptical they would do it. | | |
|
|
