MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Latest Target of the Trump Administration's Anti-Immigration Jihad: Naturalized Americans

It has revived a dead program and created a task force to review citizenship applications

The Trump administration's unquenchable thirst to slam immigrants—unauthorized but also, as I wrote recently, authorizedAmerican Flagdanita delimont photographynewscomhas now taken an even more ominous turn. It is training its sights on a group largely considered sacrosanct: naturalized citizens.

It is reviving a post-9/11 counter-terrorism program called Operation Janus that was disbanded in 2016. The program's purpose was to stop terrorists from slipping through the cracks in the naturalization process. But the Trump administration is using it to denaturalize citizens who've been living in the United States for decades, are married to American citizens, and have no criminal history.

Last September, the administration filed three complaints in federal courts to denaturalize three men who it alleged had obtained naturalization through "fraud." All three were South Asians—two from Pakistan and one from India. They had come to the United States without proper papers, were ordered deported but obtained citizenship under different names after marrying American citizens. The rap against all of them is that they did not reveal their other names on their citizenship application or that they had been ordered deported.

The administration apparently doesn't care that none of this would have necessarily nullified their citizenship petition. A deported person can still obtain citizenship if an American citizen marries him or her, as was the case in all these three instances. And the Supreme Court last year unanimously ruled in Maslenjak vs. United States that merely withholding information (such as past names) or even lying is not sufficient grounds to denaturalize someone. The falsehood has to be material to the citizenship application. (Maslenjak involved a Bosnian-Serbian woman who obtained citizenship after lying to immigration authorities about her husband's role in assisting the Serbian army's 1995 massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims.) Anything less, it noted, would open "the door to a world of disquieting consequences," in which a lie "would always provide a basis for rescinding citizenship," even if the lie merely resulted from "embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy."

For example, notes The New Yorker's Masha Green, when he applied for his citizenship in 1989, immigration law banned "aliens afflicted with sexual deviation," or those suffering from "psychopathic personality," from entry to the United States. And when he came to this country as a gay fourteen-year-old in 1981, he was aware of his "sexual deviation." Technically that meant that he should not have entered. But he did and he decided to append a letter to his citizenship application, informing the Immigration and Naturalization Service that he had done so. He still got his citizenship. But many others in his situation might have chosen not to fess up because their families didn't know or they were ashamed or because that might indeed jeopardize their application even though it shouldn't.

Still, one court has acquiesced to the Trump administration's request to strip the citizenship of the man from India, Baljinder Singh. Singh is a Sikh who came to the United States in 1991 under the name of Davinder Singh a few years after India's ruling regime presided over a Sikh pogrom. He was ordered deported after he failed to show up for an immigration hearing. However, he subsequently filed for asylum but abandoned his application when he married an American woman who sponsored him and put him on the path to citizenship.

The court, at the administration's behest, has downgraded his status to that of a permanent resident, which means that if he does not appeal or loses his appeal he would be subject to deportation. The other two cases are still pending.

What's particularly troubling about Singh's case is that although the administration claims that it is targeting naturalized citizens with past criminal records, it didn't outline any such record on his part.

More chillingly, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Francis Cissna claims that under the revived Operation Janus, he has cued up 1,600 cases like Singh's for prosecution.

Operation Janus was conceived after a Customs and Border Protection employee in 2008 identified 206 people who had received final deportation orders but went on to obtain citizenship under different names. A subsequent 2014 Inspector General report flagged about a thousand more such cases. But because the odds that terrorists were lurking among them were so low, the Department of Homeland Security basically decided to deploy other counter-terrorism strategies. The program was disbanded in 2016.

But the Trump administration revived it within months of assuming office. It has created a task force in the US Citizenship and Immigration Service and is furiously hiring lawyers, the Washington Examiner recently reported. The administration claims that apart from the 1,600 cases like Singh's it is pursuing legally, there are 315,000 more cases of suspect citizenship approval that it wants to investigate. These cases stem not from any evidence of malfeasance on the part of the applicants. Rather, they've been flagged because the DHS is missing their fingerprints. Why? Because the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to digitize all its records.

Stripping people of citizenship is an awesome—and potentially—dangerous exercise of government power. Therefore, it is only right that the Supreme Court has set a rather high bar. Hence it is unclear how many people the administration will eventually succeed in denaturalizing. But what is clear is that it will use a lot of taxpayer resources to sow terror in yet another non-native group without any security upside for anyone. Indeed, since 1990 only seven denaturalization suits on average have been filed per year because it takes too much time and effort put together a credible case.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is the brains behind the effort, is an anti-immigration zealot who doesn't care about any of this because he doesn't consider naturalized Americans to be real Americans, notes Dan Kesselbrenner, executive director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. The wait times for obtaining citizenship have doubled in the last few years. But far from tackling that problem, the administration wants to double down on harassing those already here.

Notes Kesselbrenner to Rewire.News:

The Trump administration is so concerned with enforcement in immigrant communities, they've chosen to prioritize this operation in ways another administration wouldn't. It's one thing to target these people and convict them for hiding serious criminal backgrounds. It's an entirely different thing to go after people who've been citizens a long time because they were dishonest for reasons we don't even know...It's vindictive...and it's totally unreasonable.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rockabilly||

    Open the borders

    Abolish ICE. - we don't need refreshing drinks

    Welfare for all.

    That's only fair, man.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As a libertarian, I enthusiastically endorse the first two items.

    "Welfare for all" though? Maybe, maybe not.

  • DiegoF||

    You forgot to throw in something totally irrelevant about the Jews this time. I think you're starting to slow down a step, dude.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't say much about "the Jews." I do, however, often clarify that I reject the alt-right proposal of "Open Borders for Israel." But "Jews" and "Israel" are not interchangeable.

  • DiegoF||

    "Jews" and "Israel" are not interchangeable.

    Nice try pal.

    Indeed, when you are doing your "cartoonish Beltway cocktail-party libertarian" bit, you will usually throw in, apropos of nothing whatsoever, something like, "Except Israel. They are the only ones who get to have closed borders, who get to limit who comes into their country. Everyone else who wants it for their country is a racist white nationalist, but if you criticize Israel for it then you are a racist white nationalist."

    Which is quite odd because zealous support for Israel is hardly a notorious distinguishing characteristic of the open-border extremist movement! In fact it is not even a characteristic of any note of the cocktail-party cosmotarianism that OBL is supposed to exemplify. The only reason the issue would even occur to someone is if they had a weird ongoing fixation with Israel and Zionist influence--if they were the kind of people, for example, who couldn't help but think of such things knee-jerk whenever they think of the very concept of cosmopolitanism, and of hobnobbing with the power elite.

    You've always been one of my favorite commenters, but I have now come to see that there is a very ugly edge to your schtick. On the bright side, the mystery of your true identity has now thickened, because most of the people I thought you might have been are not that kind of person.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    This reminds me of the time somebody here thought it was strange that I knew who Tara McCarthy is. Yes, you got me — I think it's important to know one's enemy. And the alt-right is the most destructive force in the country today. The President is even one of them! You better believe I have done my homework and familiarized myself with the big names in the movement, and their talking points.

    When I mention that my advocacy for unlimited immigration doesn't apply to Israel, I'm just preemptively addressing a dumb, but common, response. You're reading too much into it if you suspect something more sinister.

  • DiegoF||

    This reminds me of the time somebody here thought it was strange that I knew who Tara McCarthy is.

    Well that's just dumb; I follow that shit all the time myself. No one is a bigger fanboy of the white-identitarian community and its drama (used to do the hard left too, but that got too time-consuming) than me. But still, even IRL my familiarity with that world raises eyebrows--and I basically look like Fez from the 70s show. So I feel you there.

    What I am saying, on the other hand, is that you have displayed some blatant and unmistakable tells while performing your schtick. I am saying that you, the flesh-and-blood human behind the sock, have a weird obsession with the Jews and their influence--in reality, not kayfabe. But then it was pretty obvious from the beginning that this is what I was saying.

    All that said, you remain one of my favorite accounts and I do appreciate your presence here.

  • Nardz||

    I don't know, Diego - I've honestly never seen him break character. Additionally, it's no secret that leftists are anti-Israel (likely because Israel is self assertive, and communist ties to Palestinian terror groups back in the day).

  • nychotpilot||

    And why does unlimited immigration not apply to Israel?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    It's been clear from the get-go that OBL is an alt-righter with racist tendencies. I suspect he used to comment here with a different username but left during the Glibening. That part is just a guess, though.

  • Nardz||

    Chipper, never go full progressive

  • ThomasD||

    That ship sailed long ago, Nardz.

  • Flinch||

    Are you saying the open borders progs are actually 'alt-right'? [Or is it the other way around?] I know there is an unholy intersection on the circle where the anarchists dwell, but... people from that realm are not part of my life - they creep me out. For that reason, I'm minus a few insights. My first view of open borders arguments came from a handful of nutjobs in the Californai legislature decades back that liked to hang around arguments like "communism didn't go far enough", and they were the vanguard of a cry for open borders, leading to sanctuary cities as a method to usurp congressional powers in the tradition of divide and conquer.
    I note the 'alt-right' didn't label themselves: the left did it for them, and that just doesn't smell right. Political movements generally declare who they are and what they want [to at least some audience, even if some things are shielded from public discourse].

  • JesseAz||

    So you prefer the standard liberal talking point of "welfare for those I can bribe into voting for me?"

  • BambiB||

    Open borders is the issue most people interested in libertarianism choke on. Frankly, I don't want 500 million Pakistani, Indian, Chinese and Mexican "immigrants" flooding America and turning it into a third-world shit hole. It's not just the rape of the American taxpayer in destroying our "safety net" for less-fortunate citizens. It's the ACTUAL rape of American citizens by criminals imported from other countries - and murder, and robbery and all manner of other crimes. When one considers the hundreds of thousands of KNOWN criminals deported under current policy and the fact that serious crimes are still prevalent throughout the criminal alien population, the idea of "open borders" which would allow the unrestricted and unaddressed flood of criminals to enter and remain can be seen for what it is: National Suicide.

    As usual, Shikah has missed the forest for the three. Three liars guilty of fraud who should have been deported. Correct the error. Deport them now.

  • Pepe||

    Another issue that nobody touches: many immigrants come from countries that do not have systems, or the culture, for self-govt. They look at laws as rules to be avoided, not as a system to achieve certain goals such as civil peace, order, public cleanliness, etc. Many use the streets as their trashcans ( I witness this at least weekly). It is a dilution of our culture, and when the numbers are great, they tend to not assimilate.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    What the fuck all does that have to do with the subject of the article?

  • ThomasD||

    the only 'subject' of this article is Dalmia's Id.

  • Benitacanova||

    Eww.

  • Eman||

    As in opposite of ego or identification?

  • Barry soetaro||

    Too many recreational chemicals, "man"?

  • Flatulus||

    Ah, Shikha. You were so close to comprehension. Perhaps if you took the quotation marks off the word "fraud", you'd be able to understand what's happening here.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Fraud is ok if it serves Open Borders Uber Alles!"

  • Fancylad||

    She's just phoning it in now.

  • rocks||

    The whole of Reason has gone full blown TDS. Shikha I hope you get deported.

  • Flinch||

    Understand? That doesn't seem to be the trend. She gets more and more manic, and further detached it seems to me. She's almost ready to work for MSNBC, but doesn't quite have the "depth" for that progressive enterprise. She will have to further narrow her world view, and schitz a little harder before submitting her resume. That, and hit the cocktail circuit - progs die if they can't drop a couple names every week, and in the case of a network its a job requirement: its the preferred method to cover up the abandonment of reason.

  • DiegoF||

    The SCOTUS precedent sounds very sensible and straightforward, and important to maintain for the sake of the institution of citizenship. The Administration should stop bringing cases it cannot win (here and of course in general), if that is what it has indeed been doing, since that is a waste of taxpayer money and litigative harassment of private persons. No reason not to come hard at real fraud cases, though.

  • Jerryskids||

    I don't know where you think you are, but reasonable comments like yours have no place here. The only allowable response is a frothing-at-the-mouth denunciation of Shikha, immigration and TDS. In that order.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Reviving this program still terrorizes the fuck out of naturalized citizens. Because having done nothing wrong doesn't mean shit when a gov't agent decides he doesn't like the looks of you. Doesn't matter if you eventually prevail, we all know they can and will make your life hell in the meanwhile.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Reviving this program still terrorizes the fuck out of naturalized citizens who have used fraud to become naturalized

    FTFY

  • NashTiger||

    I guess we shouldn't have Police of any kind

  • retiredfire||

    Now you're talking like a libertarian.

  • Pepe||

    The rule of law comes first. If we don't like the law, we are to change it through constitutional remedy. These people were perjuring their statements, but this escapes you somehow.

  • Nardz||

    "Technically that meant that he should not have entered. But he did and he decided to append a letter to his citizenship application, informing the Immigration and Naturalization Service that he had done so. He still got his citizenship."

    So... The only example in this article of someone who didn't commit fraud got citizenship.
    The horror!

  • JesseAz||

    You don't understand... He was forced to staple two pieces of paper together. That is unacceptable.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Have you seen the "Little Sisters" case? Filling out forms is contributing to sin.

  • JesseAz||

    I missed where the little sister is were asking for a government benefit in return for their actions.

    They also self insured, so any dollar contributed to Obama's idiotic plan was literally paid by them.

  • Pepe||

    Are you saying that's ok?

  • Ron||

    So did Trump personally order this to be done or was this standard operating procedure of bureaucrat?
    Yes bureaucrats are often evil but that doesn't make it about Trumps

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "Jihad". I like that.

    So we're going with the "bad" definition of "Jihad", not the one the press usually goes with when talking to svelte young Western Muslims who equate Jihad with a 'Personal internal struggle'.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It has revived a dead program and created a task force to review citizenship applications"

    Yay!

    "It is reviving a post-9/11 counter-terrorism program called Operation Janus that was disbanded in 2016."

    So they're reviving a program that lasted til the final year of the Obama administration.

    Please point me to the articles where Shikha railed against the evil evil evil racist xenophobic Nazis of the Obama administration on this. She had 8 years to do it. She must have written multiple articles on it.

    As for lying on citizenship applications, if it's not an automatic disqualification, it should be. I don't care what else motivated you to lie to Americans when petitioning to join our club; if you weren't motivated enough to answer us truthfully, I don't want you in our club.

  • Harvard||

    Seems I recall we booted that Demjanjuk shitstain for omitting his Nazi past on his application too. I'm guessing Shecky had a cow over that one too.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, how dare they revive a program that was ancient history. If it was so awful, why did Obama cancel the program right before leaving office?

    So that Democrats could complain about Trump uncanceling it, of course.

  • Flinch||

    Gee, um... getting out the motor-voter [non-citizen] crowd to the ballot box by throwing them [and key registrars] some red meat? If that doesn't inform of how damaged the Hillary campaign was on announcement, nothing will. California is usually a lock, and doesn't need damage control.

  • Wizard4169||

    Screw that, the restrictionists will just define "lying" to include even the most trivial, innocent and inconsequential statements that can't be proven 100% accurate. Give me enough time and resources, and I'm sure I can find a long list of things you've "lied" about in the past week.

    Was anyone at all actively prosecuted under the Obama-era program? The article isn't totally clear on that, but it suggests that no one was. People are being actively targeted under Trump. That strikes me as a fairly significant difference which undermines your whataboutism.

    Stuff like this is why I laugh at the "It's the lawwwwww!" crowd who insist they're only against illegal immigration and legal immigration is just hunky-dory. Dig deep enough, and they're usually only too happy to throw up roadblocks to legal immigration, as well.

  • retiredfire||

    "...define "lying" to include even the most trivial, innocent and inconsequential statements that can't be proven 100% accurate."
    You mean like what the FBI does to those it interviews, that have any connection to Trump, while not even thinking about that, when they talked to HiLIARy's minions?

  • Pepe||

    Ok- so you are saying that lying, and perjury, are ok?

  • Moo Cow||

    They can start with melania.

  • Moo Cow||

    They can start with melania.

  • Rich||

    Don't start with Melania. You know how she gets.

  • Mark22||

    How about starting with Shikha?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thats why this scares Shikha. She knows weather she lied on her application for citizenship.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    If she attached one of her Reason articles to the application, she has reason to be scared.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Boom

  • Rich||

  • DiegoF||

    I think once you do that (and the noncitizen thing does have strong precedent in the U.S., as mises.org is always pointing out, horrible idea as I think it is) you might as well not bother with the lowering of the voting age to 16--an idea that seems to be finally gaining traction here, perhaps inspired by the efforts of the Scots to use it to rig their independence referendum. 14 year old kid who wants to vote? Good news; you already lack the proper documentation!

  • TangoDelta||

    to non-citizens who are over the age of 18, city residents and have children under age 19


    So the proggies are readily admitting to discrimination is totally acceptable by not allowing non-parent non-citizens to vote. More or less straight out of the "Animal Farm" manual - some are truly more equal than others. I'll struggle to suppress my surprise.

  • TangoDelta||

    Hmmm, I wonder if heavy breeders will be given two votes while regular breeders will get one and non-breeders will get the finger, as always when it comes to schools and taxes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny thing about states deciding who votes according to the constituion. The constitution also gives Congress a say.

  • DiegoF||

    I believe that neither now, nor back when noncitizen voting was more commonplace, was it suggested that noncitizens might vote in Federal elections. Of course even elections for Congress and Presidential electors are very much state elections for Federal office--which is why I'm always pointing out that we will need a painstaking total revolution in the way we do elections in this country if we do wish to hold a true national election for President in this country, not this absurd abortion that we are hurdling toward with the dangerous "Interstate Popular Vote Compact." Thus it's understood that Congress can and does impose whatever regulations it pleases upon the states for the process. Plus it's just naturally understood that one must be a citizen of the U.S. to vote in U.S. elections. (The very concept of citizenship had traditionally been subsidiarized along with the right to vote in the old days.)...

  • DiegoF||

    ...Unfortunately for the states (and for the local authorities, to the extent that they want to and are permitted to make their own voting rules subsidiar to those), they do take on quite a bit of an extra bureaucratic expense if they want to run elections for different offices under different eligibility rules (perhaps in retrospect the Federal government cast the first modern stone to that effect with the Motor Voter Bill; states had to pass their own versions to cover non-Federal elections, and many did not). But that is indeed what they seem intent on doing once more with these various noncitizen, illegal alien, and children proposals.

  • Mark22||

    All three were South Asians—two from Pakistan and one from India. They had come to the United States without proper papers, were ordered deported but obtained citizenship under different names after marrying American citizens. The rap against all of them is that they did not reveal their other names on their citizenship application or that they had been ordered deported. The administration apparently doesn't care that none of this would have necessarily nullified their citizenship petition

    If you let such offenses slide, it will simply encourage more people to lie on their citizenship applications. In different words, lying itself nullifies a citizenship petition, and for good reason. I'm glad these laws are being enforced again.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Don't you understand? This is exactly the same as refusing to naturalize gay people.

  • retiredfire||

    To the open borders crowd, this is the same as the Holocaust.

  • ||

    Racist American: "Baljinder Singh"
    Singh (in Abu voice): And if I refuse?
    Racist American (perplexed): Uh...
    Singh: I keed, I keed. I write poetry. I don't sing.

    /nervous grin. Looks for Vaudeville cain.

  • DiegoF||

    Sikh joke, dude.

  • ||

    WELL, AT LEAST I TRY!

    /takes whiff from asthma pump.

  • ||

    Geez, this all sounds so complicated and intricate. Due to a mishap, Baboo wasn't able to send his citizenship renewal form in time and was deported.

    Times seemed so much simpler back then. You break the rules, you face possible deportation.

  • rocks||

    "were ordered deported but obtained citizenship under different names after marrying American citizens"

    You are seriously arguing that this is not fraud. They got citizenship only through fraud.

    You are also arguing that this is racist? It is only racist if there are people from Europe who are getting different treatment. The fact the 3 here are asia is immaterial.

  • Wizard4169||

    Unless you're alleging the marriages were shams, I'm not seeing the fraud here.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The fraud is that they avoided deportation by changing their names and hiding their deportation order from the naturalization process.

    SD deflects by saying they might have gotten citizenship even if they had revealed this information.

  • Pepe||

    It is fraud- you can't spin that- unless you are on MSNBC.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is remarkable. On position after position, when it comes to immigration, the closed-border crowd adopts the completely opposite position compared to what they normally advocate.

    They want less spending - except with immigration enforcement. There, they want more spending.
    They want limited government - except with immigration enforcement. There, they want expansive, muscular government.
    They want fewer regulations - except with immigration enforcement. There, they want a far-reaching regulatory state.
    They portray themselves as 'rugged individualists' - except when it comes to immigration. There, they start talking in collectivist terms, of tribal loyalty to the "American tribe".
    They oppose prohibitions, say on guns and drugs and sex work - but not when it comes to a prohibition on labor.
    They vocally support freedom of association - but not when it comes to foreign workers associating with American employers.

    It's like a blind spot. They can't see how they are taking the 180 degree opposite position, compared to all of their other positions, on this one subject.

    And on this particular article - if the police had used some ticky-tack violation in order to justify, say, a questionable search, everyone here would be up in arms about it. But, not with immigration! Here, a ticky-tack violation that is completely immaterial to the case of naturalization itself, is sufficient justification, according to them, to take one's citizenship away.

    It really is amazing.

  • Tony||

    Racism is not that amazing.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It must be for you. You're a massive racist.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You'll get no responses or explanations to this great comment, chemjeff.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    It's a great comment if you enjoy being in a crowd of strawmen.

  • JesseAz||

    Intelligent people don't ignore the issues or costs of a welfare state being mixed with open borders. Jeff isn't intelligent. Why argue with dumb people?

  • perlchpr||

    They portray themselves as 'rugged individualists' - except when it comes to immigration. There, they start talking in collectivist terms, of tribal loyalty to the "American tribe".

    This is a ridiculous assertion.

    I assure you, it is quite possible to be a rugged individualist and still recognize that you, y'know, have a past. And that your philosophical positions came from somewhere. And to want that place to continue.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    And why is "American tribe" in quotes? I've never seen a conservative use that phrase, so I'm curious who he's quoting. Strong suspicion that person is made of straw.

  • Flinch||

    Maybe because "American tribe" is a fiction that some treat as real, looking at their behaviors? The only thing I can think of is Hillary's senate bid, where she ran on "our values"... and left an empty picture frame for the voters to fill with their imaginations without a single brushstroke in it. It's not a perfect analogy, but lends itself to a tribal mentality where the only thing needed to constitute fact is the collective "us" making a claim - or in her case she cast herself as the proxy with all the self appointed grandeur she could muster.

  • Eman||

    I dunno how anyone could miss that she really meant "white values" (like r=0)

  • ThomasD||

    With Jeff it is always and everywhere projection all the way down.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    How does it follow from that that you are required to express loyalty to that past?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    How does it follow from that that you are required to express loyalty to that past?

    LOL. If you consider loyalty to the past to be optional, then the government can opt to abrogate every single one of your constitutional rights and you would have no justification for complaint. Of course that's what's going to happen if we have open borders anyway.

  • Zeb||

    The government is doing a lot of that anyway, without open borders.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    They want less spending - except with immigration enforcement. There, they want more spending.

    So if you want to cut total federal spending, you therefore must support cutting every single kind of federal spending by an equal amount? Is that the standard you're proposing? You're against spending money on agriculture subsidies and the drug war, therefore you must also be against spending money on interstate highway repairs and missile defense, for example?

    They want limited government - except with immigration enforcement. There, they want expansive, muscular government.

    I don't think you understand what limited government is. It is limited in the areas where it may exercise power, not limited in its strength and competence in fulfilling the purposes the people have established it for. Controlling the borders of a country is a core function of government the world over, not an "expansive" power.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    They want fewer regulations - except with immigration enforcement. There, they want a far-reaching regulatory state.

    That one is just total bullshit. What kind of far-reaching regulations are you claiming open borders opponents support regarding immigration enforcement?

    They oppose prohibitions, say on guns and drugs and sex work - but not when it comes to a prohibition on labor.

    Again, who is supporting a prohibition on labor? Never seen that one. Most of the open borders opponents engage in labor themselves, so it would be pretty hypocritical if they wanted to make working illegal, but I've never seen one that does.

    They vocally support freedom of association - but not when it comes to foreign workers associating with American employers.

    Again, who is against freedom of association between foreigners and American employers? Is somebody calling for an international phone and internet communications ban? Or a ban on American employers traveling to meet with foreigners? Or meeting with foreigners who have legally entered the country?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    It's like a blind spot. They can't see how they are taking the 180 degree opposite position, compared to all of their other positions, on this one subject.

    This from the guy who was defending Reason writers who were offering an evidence-free indictment as evidence of guilt yesterday. No, this isn't an ad hominem; having already shown your argument to be bunk, now I'm showing that they were made in a dishonest and disingenuous fashion.

    if the police had used some ticky-tack violation in order to justify, say, a questionable search, everyone here would be up in arms about it. But, not with immigration! Here, a ticky-tack violation that is completely immaterial to the case of naturalization itself, is sufficient justification, according to them, to take one's citizenship away.

    Concealing a previous name under which you experienced negative immigration outcomes is hardly a ticky-tack violation. Note Shikha's weasel words: none of this would have necessarily nullified their citizenship petition. A deported person can still obtain citizenship if an American citizen marries him or her, as was the case in all these three instances. The reference to the SCOTUS decision is completely irrelevant, as it did not deal with the concealment of previous names, but a falsehood that actually was irrelevant to naturalization.

  • General_Tso||

    Well said, sir or ma'am.

  • Flinch||

    I don't think its a good idea for security reasons, but we can go open borders. Two things have to exist first: end welfare [100%], and give people 25 years in jail for voter fraud. No promises or pie in the sky thinking allowed. Milton Friedman had it right: you cannot have both an open society and a welfare society at the same time. Put differently... is a closed society the best evidence of socialism in action? I can think of a couple cases: East Germany and Maoist China for starters.
    We should be careful about building a wall not because of Trumps intentions, but with several decades worth of congresses that prove they don't care about law enforcement as a general matter, what makes us think they will care when a later president uses that to hem us in? We are building a wall as a reaction to congress purposely failing us when we should be talking a term limits amendment. We are building a wall because socialism has infected the body politic.

  • Pepe||

    You must end welfare in order to have open borders, but I still do not see how we can guarantee security in that scenario.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It really is.

    Enforcing and defending the border is something that the government is actually supposed to do--unlike declaring that human exhalate is a deadly poison or demanding that braiding hair requires licensing and regulation.

    We want the government to do the things it's supposed to do--and those things, while few--include maintaining the border.

    So no, it's not a blind spot..

    The blind spot is how you all keep trying to make a government enforced 'su casa es mi casa' into a libertarian position.

    You want to take away my liberty, remove my right to choose to associate or not, in favor of forcing YOUR choice on everyone.

    With my way, the citizens get to say who gets to come into their country--and who doesn't. With yours, they don't.

    Which one expands the liberty of the citizens of the US?

  • Bubba Jones||

    This is a straw man argument.

    Why are the only two options "open borders" and "totalitarian state"?

    How about, "we make an effort to enforce our borders so that we don't have 100M Mexicans move in next week, but not get freaked out about a few million helping to lubricate our economy"?

  • nychotpilot||

    Ah! It is the fear of the "other" and nothing stokes that to a greater degree than a different colored skin

  • Pepe||

    Didn't take long for someone to play the race card on this. I have brown skin and am opposed to unlimited, unvetted immigration. Do you watch "The View" everyday?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "muh anarchy"

    Socialists want the wealth produced by free markets without the free markets.

    Open Borders Anarchists want the liberty, security, and prosperity produced by Anglo-American governance without the Anglo-American governance.

    "I want everything I want for the price of wishing for it."

  • buybuydandavis||

    "And on this particular article - if the police had used some ticky-tack violation in order to justify, say, a questionable search, everyone here would be up in arms about it. But, not with immigration! Here, a ticky-tack violation that is completely immaterial to the case of naturalization itself, is sufficient justification, according to them, to take one's citizenship away.

    It really is amazing."

    Citizenship has its benefits.

    Naturally, anarchist boy disagrees, but the idiotic thing is his amazement over people seeing it otherwise. What planet has he been living on?

    It's not surprising that anarchist boy doesn't understand rule based systems, but how can anyone be surprised at this?

    If you're not for open borders, but want to allow some immigration for the good of the citizens already here (you know, that government of, by and *for* the people jazz), you're going to ask questions of the applicant and make decisions based on the answers.

    If we set the rule as "if we eventually discover that you lied on your application, we will only reevaluate based on the new information", we're inviting every applicant to make up the best lie they can come up with on the initial application. That's the smart play under those rules. It's unlikely they get caught in the first place, but moreover, even if they do, they are just put back in the position they were in the first place had they been honest.

    No. You lie, you're out.

  • Pepe||

    Non- citizens who are here without permission should never have the same constitutional protection that citizens enjoy- they shouldn't be here in the firet place.

  • vek||

    Right? It just invites people to lie. If it is known that the process is slack, and that you aren't automatically disqualified, one might all of a sudden find that every applicant from Somalia is a brain surgeon, or every Mexican a rocket scientist.

    NOT a good precedent to have.

  • retiredfire||

    "I want everything I want for the price of wishing for it."
    Isn't that the libertarian motto?
    Or, as I like to say, libertarians are cheapskate progressives - they want all the socialist programs, they just don't want to pay for them.

  • Rufus T. Firefly.||

    This dumb bitch never quits. And her name sounds fucking retarded.

  • Flinch||

    "... upstart. That's it!"
    Nice moniker.

  • nychotpilot||

    I guess you checked your IQ - assuming you ever had any - out in the womb

  • JFree||

    But Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is the brains behind the effort, is an anti-immigration zealot who doesn't care about any of this because he doesn't consider naturalized Americans to be real Americans

    Not sure why this is a surprise. The guy is named Jefferson Beauregard Sessions - after two guys who not only thought Dred Scott was correctly decided but thought it was important enough to fight a war over.

    Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument. Roger Taney

    If you can't trace ancestry back to a DAR or SAR patriot - then you ain't really an American.

  • Wizard4169||

    I'm not sure what the point of the second half of this comment is, since establishing standards for citizenship is a power that the Constitution explicitly delegates to the federal government.

  • Flinch||

    "Fraud" she claims, then cites the very evidence that makes the case. As both quantity and quality in the ebbing comments trend, I don't marvel at the downward spiral. Shikha is headed for a padded room I shouldn't doubt and most people aren't interested in going there, hence my late comment. It's just... over.

  • Harvard||

    I've come to believe she feels the hot breath of ICE on her own brown neck.

  • nychotpilot||

    You're just another disgruntled racist punk who resents the "browns" who rule most of corporate America

  • vek||

    In what universe do browns rule corporate America... Or anywhere else? White people and Asians, which can includes Indians who are a tan bunch, basically run every major company in the world. Even in South America it is almost exclusively whiter and more Spanish/Portuguese people who run that shit.

  • mpercy||

    "Indeed, since 1990 only seven denaturalization suits on average have been filed per year"

    But Trump administration has done three? They better pick up the pace.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Need more winning!

  • ||

    Hey what about being fully honest to the country you want to let you in? Fuck them,they changed their names they likely paid someone to marry them as a scam to get citizenship. I am an Argentinian. I wish we had someone like Trump here. As mostly a libertarian with only exceptions for border security i think this is fine. Some things from him i do not like. This? Total scam only attacked by zealots.

  • Pepe||

    Exactly. But posters here cannot understand that the rule of law is critical to peaceful and productive societies- which is why Hammurabi's Code is considered a major turning point in the history of civilization.

  • nychotpilot||

    Stephen Miller (and Steve Bannon) are the prime nativist racists in the Trump administration with Sessions a close 2nd. That said, they may get some hideous satisfaction out of prosecuting these few thousand cases but the US as they envisage is never going to come back. Many of the titans of US industry are immigrants and middle management in most US multi-nationals are not native born. The US is far better for all of that with more to come.

  • vek||

    And who is against letting in educated, criminal record free, people who don't LIE and illegally avoid deportation orders???

    Open borders brings in janitors in far greater numbers than engineers... The fact that I'd rather mostly only bring in engineers, doctors, etc doesn't make me satan.

  • Barry soetaro||

    So we're reviewing citizenship obtained by fraud? Good. The folks who applied honestly can stay, and welcome aboard. The cheaters can leave.
    As to the open borders crock, quick! Name functioning countries with open borders where anyone can wander in and stay. I can think of a couple of third world sh**holes you can wander into, but they don't tax the legitimate citizens to pay welfare, schooling and other freebies for them.
    I'm glad the "democrat" party has come clean and shown itself as the socialist party. It makes it easier to identify the country's enemies.

  • marshaul||

    Bosnian-Serbian

    She would be a Bosnian Serb.

    "Serbian" is a citizen of Serbia, while an ethnic Serb is a Serb.

    cf. Croat and Bosniac.

  • Sandab||

    Doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, unless there is something material. It'll fail, get appealed, fail, get appealed to the SCOTUS, and fail with prejudice. Anything less than a 9-0 vote against would be astonishing.

  • Pepe||

    I can tell that Shika Dalhmia is on a mission to make the US an unlimited open border country, probably because she is an immigrant, or is related to immigrants, and is assuming that all immigrants are like herself. We cannot have open borders as long as the immigrants have instant access to the welfare state, period. We are not in libertarian utopia yet. Every nation has a right to decide who enters their nation, just as you and I have a right to decide who enters our house.

  • marshaul||

    Every nation has a right to decide who enters their nation

    A natural corollary to this is that you have the right to decide who enters my house. But this is collectivist hogwash.

    The simple fact is you prefer to keep out the furriners AND maintain the welfare state, because you're a communist. That's the natural conclusion from your collectivist modes of thought.

    In truth, a "nation" is an abstraction, having no rights beyond the sum of its individual constituents' rights. Furthermore, strictly speaking a "nation" is an ethnic tribe (cf. the "Cherokee nation" or the "Serb nation"), not a state, and the US government is not a state created on a nationalist basis.

    Open borders are right or wrong on principle. The welfare state doesn't enter into the equation. Libertarianism is not a utilitarian framework, though usually its results are optimific.

    I can't stop you from clinging to your fears, but don't pretend that you have coherent arguments, or that you even know how to think or understand the meaning of the concepts you rely upon.

  • vek||

    Here's the thing: Going to the absolute most extreme position on every subject is not always a wise idea... Sometimes middle ground is reasonable.

    Anybody who thinks that a first world country can continue to be a first world country with ACTUAL open borders is an idiot. The entire rest of the world is uneducated and doesn't have the skill set to bring the value required to maintain a first world nation. Therefore if you bring in the insane numbers of people who would move here with real open borders it will be impossible to stay first world. Period.

    I don't want to live in a third world country. Therefore I'm fine with not be absolutist on this subject. Being utilitarian on MAJOR issues is not a bad thing. There is a MASSIVE amount of difference between saaay legalizing crack, which may have some downsides along with its upsides, and destroying the standard of living of the entire country.

  • ||

    As conclusively evidenced upon the face of the matter and upon the written record EVERY Obedient of Islam (every Muslim) that takes the oath of citizen ship or oath of office does so perpetrating a criminal fraud VOIDing the exchanged consideration given. No such exchange if lawful. Every such exchange by the muslim is criminal.

  • marshaul||

    oath of citizen ship

    What is the oath of the citizen ship, anyway? Never become drunk on grog?

    Seriously though, you claim facts not in evidence.

  • vek||

    The fact that lying doesn't automatically disqualify people is insane.

    These guys may not be hardcore criminals... But there is nothing stopping a serial rapist from lying about their name either! This is why accuracy must be maintained.

  • wisdom||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online