With threats by US President Donald Trump's administration to denaturalise immigrants who have gone through the citizenship application process, many are wondering how far this policy will be taken.
The legal term made headlines when Trump recently suggested that his estranged megadonor Elon Musk could lose his citizenship, and days earlier other far-right figures suggested newly elected New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani should be denaturalised.
Among those who have called for Mamdani to lose his citizenship are political pundit Charlie Kirk; the New York Young Republican Club, which called on the Trump administration to invoke the 1954 Communist Control Act to revoke Mamdani's citizenship; and Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who referred to him as "little Muhammad" and called on him to be deported. Several days later, "border czar" Tom Homan also chimed in, warning that so-called sanctuary cities such as New York were not safe from ICE raids.
Weeks before that, Trump said he would be aiming to deport "home-grown" immigrants, suggesting that those who had spent decades in the country could lose their status, even if they had attained citizenship.
What is denaturalisation?
Denaturalisation is the legal revocation of US citizenship against the wishes of the naturalised citizen. The individual goes through court proceedings to argue against losing US citizenship.
Historically, denaturalisation has disproportionately targeted ethnic minorities and political dissidents, a pattern that is being revived under Trump's second administration.
Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil is currently facing removal proceedings, even though his status as a green card holder (permanent resident) essentially gives him the same rights as a US citizen. In another example of student activists, a case went to trial in Massachusetts federal court on Monday over the deportations of non-citizen students for political speech.
In a democracy with a long history of immigration, denaturalisation of citizens without criminal records is concerning, say immigration attorneys.
"Unfortunately, we think the US Constitution applies equally, but we’re seeing freedom of speech is not being applied equally," an immigration rights attorney with the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told The New Arab.
"It's obvious the administration is using the law to retaliate against political opponents," she said. "I don't know if everyone is aware of how much this is going against our core principles."
How common is denaturalisation?
Denaturalisation has been extremely rare since the 1960s, when multiple Supreme Court cases strengthened citizenship for those who immigrated to the US, giving them the same general protections as US citizens.
In one of the most important cases related to denaturalisation, in 1967 the Supreme Court found in Afroyim v. Rusk that denaturalisation for any reason other than fraud or intentional mistake was unconstitutional.
In the early 1900s, the Supreme Court in US v. Bhagat Singh Thind found that South Asians were not white. Following the Naturalisation Act of 1906, more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalised prior to 1967. After 1968, fewer than 150 Americans were denaturalised.
At present, the few ways for a naturalised citizen to lose their status is if they've committed fraud, including misrepresenting themselves in the immigration application. This could include not listing membership in a terrorist-designated organisation or committing identity fraud in an asylum application.
Contrary to administrations of the last six decades, Trump has revived targeting people for civil offences, rather than just criminal allegations. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security is increasingly using algorithms and other technology to determine who should be investigated for denaturalisation.
What does all this mean for basic freedoms?
As the threats of denaturalisation, deportation and detention grow, many worry what the crackdowns mean for civil rights and an intangible culture of fear that can be difficult to quantify.
"The administration engages in a lot of pronouncements and threats that have the effect of intimidating people from engaging in perfectly legal activity," Lucas Guttentag, a professor of law at Stanford University and founder of the Immigrants Rights Project with the American Civil Liberties Union, told TNA.
"It's important for people to understand what their legal rights are, and it's important to see that the courts have consistently struck down actions by this administration when they're illegal and unconstitutional," he said, adding, "I understand that's small solace."