New requirements for your citizenship not to be revoked

[acri1]

Trump supporters sure do stay motivated to come in and defend their mans I almost respect the dedication

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Not exactly. Try running for president.

But i do agree in general that other than a pesidential role, the rights are equal. This sets a horrible precedent for the 14th amendment if he is allowed to start slicing up the rights of citizens.

I think the only thing that could be valid on that list is just lying about info prior to naturalization. I think the critical issue here is that he is banking on people not having enough money to have a real legal defense, because this would very easily be thrown out in court. You would be down something like 20 to 50K and several months in detention before they ruled it unconstitutional. And worse, this is technically a civil issue so you aren't automatically granted a defender.



It's actually a violation of several american lead UN conventions and a clear violation of blatant and explicit 14th amendment language.

It create stateless people, which is one of the worst conditions a person can be in.

You're right that there are limited distinctions between natural-born and naturalized citizens, but it doesn't justify mass denaturalization or summary expulsions.

What makes this DOJ directive so dangerous is how it redefines denaturalization from a narrow, legally specific tool into an open-ended enforcement weapon. Historically, denaturalization was reserved for clear fraud. But the memo referenced here tells US attorneys to "maximally pursue" denaturalization by expanding the qualifying categories, and giving them broad discretion to decide who counts as a target. That's a crazy concentration of executive power over citizenship itself.

As you pointed out, that means no guaranteed counsel and a lower burden of proof. They don't even need to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," only by a "preponderance of evidence." That's a subtle but massive difference when the outcome is someone losing their country and becoming stateless. It effectively sets up a two-tier system where naturalized citizens' rights hinge on the whims of the petty tyrant in charge. Something like this effectively chills dissent.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement

This is what this thread is based on.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

The federal government must meet a high burden of proof when attempting to revoke an individual’s naturalization by civil proceedings or as a result of a criminal conviction for naturalization fraud.

For civil denaturalization, the government must show “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt” that the individual procured naturalization illegally and/or concealed or willfully misrepresented a material fact during the naturalization process. There is no statute of limitations for pursuing a civil denaturalization case.

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Division issued an internal memo on June 11, 2025 directing attorneys to prioritize denaturalization cases as one of the Civil Division’s top five enforcement priorities. The memo also appears to expand the criteria for pursuing denaturalization cases beyond the narrow scope of circumstances previously pursued. As noted above, there is no statute of limitations for pursuing a civil denaturalization case. The memo directs attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”

 

[CHICAGO]

Trump supporters sure do stay motivated to come in and defend their mans I almost respect the dedication

nikka MAKES A THREAD THAT SAYS:
"New requirements for your citizenship not to be revoked"

COMMON SENSE COMES IN AND SAYS
HEY THIS DOESNT APPLY TO US....

SHILL SAYS: Trump supporters sure do stay motivated to come in and defend their mans


​

 

[CopiousX]

Redacted upon correction...

 

[King_Kamala61]

Quite the opposite. Any child born in Honduras, irregardless of where their parents are from or what immigration status they have , are from is a citizen of Honduras.

This is a common policy throughout both Americas. It's one of the defining factors that separates the Americas from their European colonizers.

You're looking at almost half a billion people in this hemisphere who disagree with you.

Naw you need to re-read what I typed again.

"I bet ya black ass can't geaux to Honduras and live there illegally....but you wanna put a cape on for illegal immigrates....sad"

Your retort has nothing to do with this statement.

You cannot live in Honduras illegally. I never once mentioned you can't live in Honduras as an anchor baby. I'm talking about you uprooting and living in Honduras illegally like how they do here.

 

[the cac mamba]

the idea that people can come here illegally, or rich chinese/russians can come here on vacation, and if you have a kid here, that kid is a US citizen, is fukking retarded on its face

what exactly is the defense for that, when no other country does it? of course that should be overturned

 

[the cac mamba]

I don't give a fukk what you support. If you're born in the US you become a US citizen. If you have an issue with that change the Constitution or get the Supreme Court to agree with you (spoiler: they won't).

well we know that Democrats will never provide the votes in the senate, out of fear of being attacked by AOC

this bullshyt serves no purpose in 2025, except to incentivize illegal immigration. i'm fine with it being overturned

 

[Uachet]

I care about the political and economic well-being of other ethnicities as much as they have historically cared about Black Americans' political and economic well-being.

That being said, how do these changes specifically affect Black Americans as a whole? If it does not affect us, outside of resorting to emotional pleas, why should Black Americans be against this? Oh, and don't use the old saying of "First they came for..." It is long past the point that we should realize that Black Americans were, are, and always will be first. So, using that saying does not work, because the ones crying for help now were silent when we requested help. They have demonstrated time and time again a desire for support that is one-way towards them.

 

[Yapdatfool]

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This clause reversed a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Piff Perkins]

That birth right citizenship is a relatively recent interpretation. Historically being born here didn't grant citizenship, you had to be subject to us laws and be born here.for instance a foreign diplomats kid wouldn't be an American citizen if his wife gave birth here because he and his wife were here under official duty from another statem

The birth right change came for political reasoning by a liberal court.

"Relatively recent" as in *checks notes* 1898. What are you talking about lol.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

I care about the political and economic well-being of other ethnicities as much as they have historically cared about Black Americans' political and economic well-being.

That being said, how do these changes specifically affect Black Americans as a whole? If it does not affect us, outside of resorting to emotional pleas, why should Black Americans be against this? Oh, and don't use the old saying of "First they came for..." It is long past the point that we should realize that Black Americans were, are, and always will be first. So, using that saying does not work, because the ones crying for help now were silent when we requested help. They have demonstrated time and time again a desire for support that is one-way towards them.

Are you asking why you should be against power being concentrated in the hands of a few individuals? Because that's what this is really about. I get where the resentment comes from, and honestly, a lot of us feel it too. But letting that resentment turn into indifference is exactly how authoritarianism wins. You don't have to be sympathetic to anyone on their terms to recognize the danger in unchecked power. You don't have to feel for others if you don't want to, but you should at least understand how these thing work.

 

[Uachet]

Are you asking why you should be against power being concentrated in the hands of a few individuals? Because that's what this is really about. I get where the resentment comes from, and honestly, a lot of us feel it too. But letting that resentment turn into indifference is exactly how authoritarianism wins. You don't have to be sympathetic to anyone on their terms to recognize the danger in unchecked power. You don't have to feel for others if you don't want to, but you should at least understand how these thing work.

It is already concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. That is what an Oligarchy is. Here, read this Princeton study.

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that...

talkingpointsmemo.com

Also, this:

The Oligarchy in America Today | Benjamin M. Friedman

Alexis de Tocqueville began his classic description of democracy in America by remarking that what struck him most about the strange new country he

www.nybooks.com

And this:

Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

Also, notice the dates on those.

 

[David_TheMan]

"Relatively recent" as in *checks notes* 1898. What are you talking about lol.

Nope not 1898, matter of fact people who bring up that case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark don't seem to realize that isn't a birthright citizenship case. The woman who bore the child was a lawful and legal permanant resident of the US.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.


This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.


Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.


As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”


In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.


American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

 

[Piff Perkins]

Nope not 1898, matter of fact people who bring up that case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark don't seem to realize that isn't a birthright citizenship case. The woman who bore the child was a lawful and legal permanant resident of the US.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

For the record you're linking right wing think tank bullshyt right now. Including a legal argument from John Easton, who is currently disbarred due to his disgraceful involvement in Trump's attempted 2020 coup.

His mother was not eligible to become an American citizen and never naturalized. Furthermore the SC ruling makes it pretty clear the case was about birthright citizenship:

"The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."