Denaturalization goes through civil courts and requires only “Clear and convincing evidence” which is a lower standard than “Beyond reasonable doubt”
Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Loss_of_nationality
The process of denaturalization is a legal procedure which results in nullifying nationality. Based upon the 1943 Supreme Court decision of Schneiderman v. United States, clear and convincing evidence must be evaluated in processing a denaturalization action. United States Attorneys for the district in which a defendant resides bring suit in the jurisdiction’s Federal District Court. Juries are typically not present and the defendant may be compelled to testify. Failure to testify may result in a presumption of guilt, though defendants can plead against self-incrimination. The standard of proof is not reasonable doubt, but rather clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Decisions may be appealed in federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Once the legal process has concluded, the Department of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Standards of Proof in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Clear_and_convincing_evidence
Excerpt:
Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality. In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions (i.e. preponderance of the evidence), which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.
Why YSK: If you are a naturalized US citizen, you might want to reconsider if you want to protest and ending up being another Mahmoud Khalil. (Not saying to not protest, just informing you of the risks so you can decide for youself if its worth it or not).
And if you aren’t a naturalized US citizen; Why YSK: So you understand that the risks of protesting is higher than the risks of natural-born US Citizens protesting, so I hope you don’t judge them too harshly for not protesting.
I’m not even convinced that the Trump admin wouldn’t try to use denaturalization upon natural-born citizens and/or deport them for specious reasons.
They do not respect the rule or even the spirit of the law. Finding new and creative ways to interpret statutes is practically a sport to them.
At this point I almost wouldn’t mind being deported, if they sent me back to where my ancestors came from (Germany/Poland). Of course, what would actually happen would be getting shipped to that hole in El Salvador instead.
Do you have citizenship in those countries?
Because you might want to learn about statelessness
I’m not sure if you would get citizenship in those countries just because the US is being autocratic.
My situation tho: I was born in PRC so I had citizenship in China, but, the moment I obtained US Citizenship, according to PRC law, my PRC citizenship is automatically revoked.
So if the US denaturalizes me, I’m so fucked lol. (Not to mention, my anti-CCP speech in the US isn’t gonna go well with pooh bear 👀)
I mean, if the US stripped my citizenship and deported me to Germany or Poland, obviously I’d be a refugee at that point.
But again, it wouldn’t ever get to that point because Trump’s ICE gestapo wouldn’t give a shit about what would be best for me and would make deliberately punitive decisions about what to do with me instead.
Ditto for you, probably: you wouldn’t be headed to China; you’d be headed to CECOT too.
Same gulag, different flag.
Poland has citizenship by ancestors. If one of your grandparents (or maybe great grandparents?) were polish citizens you qualify to apply for citizenship. A number of European countries have options like that
I looked into that, and I’m fairly sure I don’t qualify (I think most/all of my ancestors immigrated before 1920).
ok but its litterally a war crime to take away someones citizenship if they only have one
Trump is detaining European tourists in ICE camps for weeks for the “crime” of holding an incorrect visa (as determined by ICE for volunteering to do chores while staying with a host family).
I don’t think he cares too much about committing war crimes. He hired Hegseth specifically because he’s a loyalist who’s happy to commit war crimes. The fascists are in charge, and cruelty is the point.
what do you think the end game is?
Brain drain, the collapse of public universities that rely on international students (which is probably many), and making tourists, legal residents, and non-natural-born citizens afraid to come or stay here.
Constantly attacking foreigners will make them leave or never show up, leaving the US a little dumber, a little poorer, making a little less economic/scientific/social progress, and a little more white.
And it’s that last piece that they’ll trumpet among their propaganda outlets and call it a victory.
I think you mean Internation Laws or Geneva Conventions, not all violations of the aforementioned is a “War Crime”.
Human Rights Violation would be a better term for what you are describing.
yrah thats right, thanks for the correction
Is it? Because war crimes are only defined in the context of a war, and I can’t see this scenario of an enemy combatant that is also citizen of the country it’s fighting and had no other citizenship. And even if it is, war crimes are only enforced after the war is over, on the losing side. Not on internal dealings of a country.