Justice Department moves to strip citizenship from 40 naturalized individuals

0 2 min read
Justice Department moves to strip citizenship from 40 naturalized individuals

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Monday that it is seeking to revoke the citizenship of 40 naturalized individuals.

The complaints, filed in district courts across the country between Aug. 21 and Oct. 2, represent the largest volume of denaturalization actions submitted in a single period under the Trump administration, according to the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, citizenship may be canceled if the naturalization was obtained through illegal procurement, concealment of material facts, or willful misrepresentation. Attorney General Todd Blanche called the announcement “the largest denaturalization effort in modern history.” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate added that “every single one of these individuals lied their way into U.S. citizenship.”

The defendants, whose ages range from their mid‑30s to mid‑70s, hail from countries including Mexico, Colombia, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Cameroon, Nepal, Peru, Haiti, Ghana, China and Cambodia. Their alleged crimes span aggravated sodomy, sexual abuse of minors, manslaughter, espionage, fraud and other serious offenses.

The move aligns with a broader immigration agenda that has emphasized deportations, visa reforms and the use of denaturalization as a deterrent against future criminal activity. It follows a recent DOJ indictment of ten foreign nationals alleged to have voted illegally in Minnesota elections and a wave of ICE arrests targeting murderers, child sexual predators and drug traffickers.

Legal experts note that revoking citizenship can lead to removal proceedings, potentially resulting in deportation and loss of rights for those convicted. The DOJ’s actions signal a continued commitment to enforcing immigration laws and protecting national security, while raising questions about the balance between enforcement and due process.

Loading comments…