On June 11, the Justice Department’s Civil Division issued a memo that told its prosecutors to impose civil proceedings on individuals that “illegally procured” naturalization or obtained it via “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation” in an effort to revoke their American citizenship.
As these are civil proceedings, the defendants are not entitled to a state-sponsored attorney. The memo also emphasized that civil proceedings require a lighter burden proof than criminal ones. Echoing Trump, it says that this new initiative will prioritize criminals.
The directive gives justice department attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue denaturalization, including in instances of lying on immigration forms, cases where there is financial fraud or medical fraud against the US or against private individuals; and cases referred by a US attorney’s office or in connection with pending criminal charges.
The Guardian
Sameera Hafiz, policy director of the Immigration Legal Resource Center, warned that this could create a second class citizenship status. Indeed, the memo makes it clear that, while criminals are supposedly prioritized, the Civil Division of the Justice Department has full discretion in pursuing denaturalization cases.
These categories are intended to guide the Civil Division in prioritizing which cases to pursue;
U.S. Department of Justice
however, these categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case, nor
are they listed in a particular order of importance. Further, the Civil Division retains the
discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate. The
assignment of denaturalization cases may be made across sections or units based on experience,
subject-matter expertise, and the overall needs of the Civil Division.
Ominously, this could lead to a legal precedent in which citizenship is viewed more as a “privilege” than a right.
The memo also called for a rejection of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within all federal agencies, as well as “illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” It also orders the administration to enforce civil-rights laws. This is despite the fact that the administration has done the opposite, exemplified when it ended a school desegregation order.
