DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship

E

Earl

Well-known member

DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship​


June 30, 20255:00 AM ET

By


Jaclyn Diaz
Juliana Kim

The Department of Justice logo is displayed before U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives for a news conference at the agency on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. The DOJ announced in a June memo that it is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.

The Department of Justice logo is displayed before U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives for a news conference at the agency on May 6 in Washington, D.C. The department announced in a June memo that it is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Justice Department is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.


Department leadership is directing its attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes — and giving U.S. attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue this tactic, according to a June 11 memo published online. The move is aimed at U.S. citizens who were not born in the country; according to data from 2023, close to 25 million immigrants were naturalized citizens.


At least one person has already been denaturalized in recent weeks. On June 13, a judge ordered the revocation of the citizenship of Elliott Duke, who uses they/them pronouns. Duke is an American military veteran originally from the U.K. who was convicted for distributing child sexual abuse material — something they later admitted they were doing prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.
 
Earl said:

DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship​


June 30, 20255:00 AM ET

By


Jaclyn Diaz
Juliana Kim

The Department of Justice logo is displayed before U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives for a news conference at the agency on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. The DOJ announced in a June memo that it is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.

The Department of Justice logo is displayed before U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives for a news conference at the agency on May 6 in Washington, D.C. The department announced in a June memo that it is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Justice Department is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.


Department leadership is directing its attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes — and giving U.S. attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue this tactic, according to a June 11 memo published online. The move is aimed at U.S. citizens who were not born in the country; according to data from 2023, close to 25 million immigrants were naturalized citizens.


At least one person has already been denaturalized in recent weeks. On June 13, a judge ordered the revocation of the citizenship of Elliott Duke, who uses they/them pronouns. Duke is an American military veteran originally from the U.K. who was convicted for distributing child sexual abuse material — something they later admitted they were doing prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...
You skipped past things like the fact that he lied about his conviction on the form for naturalization.

I am disturbed that we can revoke someone's citizenship, but it does require them to have lied on the forms or otherwise committed a crime and then lied on the form to have it done.

Basically, we'd have said no had they followed the law, so we're just saying "no" now.
 
Damocles said:
You skipped past things like the fact that he lied about his conviction on the form for naturalization.

I am disturbed that we can revoke someone's citizenship, but it does require them to have lied on the forms or otherwise committed a crime and then lied on the form to have it done.

Basically, we'd have said no had they followed the law, so we're just saying "no" now.
Click to expand...
It's in the link:

"Denaturalization is a tactic that was heavily used during the McCarthy era of the late 1940s and the early 1950s and one that was expanded during the Obama administration and grew further during President Trump's first term. It's meant to strip citizenship from those who may have lied about their criminal convictions or membership in illegal groups like the Nazi party, or communists during McCarthyism, on their citizenship applications."

I see the merit of stripping the citizenship of all who distribute child sexual abuse material.
 
Last edited:
Earl said:
It's in the link:

"Denaturalization is a tactic that was heavily used during the McCarthy era of the late 1940s and the early 1950s and one that was expanded during the Obama administration and grew further during President Trump's first term. It's meant to strip citizenship from those who may have lied about their criminal convictions or membership in illegal groups like the Nazi party, or communists during McCarthyism, on their citizenship applications."

I see the merit of stripping all who distribute child sexual abuse material.
Click to expand...
I see the merit of stripping it from white supremacists too.
 
Damocles said:
However, lying about it to gain naturalization IS illegal. But heck, you can go ahead and defend the pedophiles and racists. I'll happily let them revoke those who committed a crime to gain naturalization.
Click to expand...
you moved the goal post

I replied to a comment about policing thoughts. no actions. thoughts
 
zymurgy said:
you moved the goal post

I replied to a comment about policing thoughts. no actions. thoughts
Click to expand...
I did not. I gave you the bullet point version of the story. The story tells us that it is illegal to lie about things on the form, then they find that the gentleman they talk about here did, and point out that this same thing was used by Obama to revoke naturalization from white supremacists that lied on the form to get naturalization.

You said it was a "bridge too far", and I told you that it is clearly not, those folks lied, were caught, and faced the known consequences of their action.
 
Damocles said:
I did not. I gave you the bullet point version of the story. The story tells us that it is illegal to lie about things on the form, then they find that the gentleman they talk about here did, and point out that this same thing was used by Obama to revoke naturalization from white supremacists that lied on the form to get naturalization.

You said it was a "bridge too far", and I told you that it is clearly not, those folks lied, were caught, and faced the known consequences of their action.
Click to expand...
I didn't reply to a story. I replied to a post.
 
Damocles said:
I did not. I gave you the bullet point version of the story. The story tells us that it is illegal to lie about things on the form, then they find that the gentleman they talk about here did, and point out that this same thing was used by Obama to revoke naturalization from white supremacists that lied on the form to get naturalization.

You said it was a "bridge too far", and I told you that it is clearly not, those folks lied, were caught, and faced the known consequences of their action.
Click to expand...
It’s a “bridge too far” to explain anything to these far left loons.

Prioritizing cases to revoke citizenship benefits Americans, saves lives.

They oppose this for reasons that can be explained in one word…votes…power…wait, that’s two words.
 
Damocles said:
And I gave a redux of the story. You said I "moved the goalposts"... And I accurately described what I had done...

Anyway, get on with it... You were in the process of defending pedophiles who illegally lied on a government form...

You may continue.
Click to expand...
LOL

fucking clown shoes

no. Had you said - they can be removed for fraud - you would of been correct on why the story was allowed

but nope. you dumbed it down to words that aren't actually supportable. being racist isn't enough
 
El Salvador is the place where a Democratic senator goes to have cocktails with a Tren De Aragua terrorist and human trafficker who beats his wife.

The “Maryland dad” hero of the far left loons.
 
"Would have" is in the conditional perfect tense. It is used to talk about something that would have happened in the past under a certain condition, but did not. It is often used to express regrets, missed opportunities, or hypothetical situations in the past.

De nada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top