Fact Check: "Denaturalization efforts could create a 'second class' of U.S. citizens."
What We Know
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently announced plans to prioritize denaturalization cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes. This directive, outlined in a memo from June 2025, indicates that the DOJ will focus on individuals who may have lied about their criminal history or affiliations during their naturalization process (NPR). The memo specifies that denaturalization will be a top enforcement priority, with broad criteria that could encompass various criminal activities, including national security violations and fraud against government programs (The Guardian).
Experts have expressed concerns that these efforts could lead to a situation where naturalized citizens are treated as a "second class" of citizens, particularly as the criteria for denaturalization appear vague and could potentially target individuals without clear justification (LAist). This concern is echoed by immigration law experts who argue that the denaturalization process, particularly when pursued through civil litigation, may violate due process rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment (NPR).
Analysis
The claim that denaturalization efforts could create a "second class" of U.S. citizens is supported by several factors. First, the DOJ's memo indicates a shift in focus towards naturalized citizens, suggesting a potential disparity in how citizenship is treated based on the origin of the citizen (NPR). The language used in the memo allows for broad discretion in determining which cases to pursue, raising concerns about arbitrary enforcement and the potential for discrimination against naturalized citizens (The Guardian).
Critics of the DOJ's approach, such as law professor Cassandra Robertson, argue that the civil litigation route for denaturalization lacks the protections typically afforded in criminal cases, including the right to an attorney. This could disproportionately affect naturalized citizens, who may face denaturalization without adequate legal representation (NPR). Furthermore, the potential ripple effects on families, particularly children of naturalized citizens, could lead to situations where individuals who believed they were secure in their citizenship status suddenly find themselves at risk of losing it (LAist).
On the other hand, proponents of the DOJ's actions, such as Hans von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation, argue that denaturalization is a necessary measure to protect national security and uphold the integrity of citizenship. However, this perspective may overlook the broader implications for civil rights and the potential for creating a class of citizens who are more vulnerable to losing their status (NPR).
Conclusion
The evidence supports the claim that denaturalization efforts could create a "second class" of U.S. citizens. The DOJ's prioritization of denaturalization cases, particularly against naturalized citizens, combined with the vague criteria for enforcement and the potential for civil litigation processes that lack due process protections, suggests a significant shift in how citizenship is perceived and enforced in the U.S. This could lead to a scenario where naturalized citizens are treated differently from those born in the country, thereby creating a hierarchy within U.S. citizenship.
Verdict: True
