this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025

250 points (99.2% liked)

Politics

815 readers

285 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body. More info

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

250

Trump’s justice department issues directive to strip naturalized Americans of citizenship for criminal offenses (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Trump administration has codified its efforts to strip some Americans of their US citizenship in a recently published justice department memo that directs attorneys to prioritize denaturalization for naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes.

The memo, published on 11 June, calls on attorneys in the department to institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”.

At the center of the move are the estimated 25 million US citizens who immigrated to the country after being born abroad, according to data from 2023 – and it lists 10 different priority categories for denaturalization.

According to the memo, those subjected to civil proceedings are not entitled to an attorney like they are in criminal cases. And the government has a lighter burden of proof in civil cases than they do in criminal ones.

Edit: According to the Miami Herald, it depends on where you live:

The Supreme Court’s ruling means the judges’ injunctions blocking Trump’s executive order only affect the jurisdictions where immigrant groups filed their lawsuits — leaving the rest of the country, including Florida, subject to the president’s citizenship order. The turn of events is likely to lead to more federal lawsuits, including a class action case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire on Friday.

Source:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Elaborate on how to read an article? I don't know what to tell you. You click the link, reject the cookies, and proceed to read the text.

The memo, published on 11 June, calls on attorneys in the department to institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”.

The memo claims such efforts will focus on those who are involved “in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses … [and] naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the US”.

On 13 June, a judge ordered the revocation of the citizenship of Elliott Duke. Duke is a US military veteran originally from the UK who was convicted for distributing child sexual abuse material and had not disclosed the crime during the naturalization process.

Immigration attorneys are concerned that denaturalization cases via civil litigation strip some rights from the individual, including rights to an attorney as well as lowering the threshold of proof, and speeding up the denaturalization process.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Oh I thought you meant I didn't know how to read the memo the president released that had more detail. If you read that, it goes into the other ways to lose citizenship.

I assume, just like the president, you don't read the shit he signs.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works -4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Clearly you failed at that too then. If you had read it. You wouldn't be confused nor would you think pressing charges that does not result in conviction due to lack of evidence would be sufficient grounds.

Cases against individuals who pose a potential danger to national security, including those with a nexus to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export from the United States of sensitive goods, technology, or information raising national security concerns;

Cases against individuals who engaged in torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations;

Cases against individuals who further or furthered the unlawful enterprise of criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels;

Cases against individuals who committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process;

Cases against individuals who committed human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes;

Cases against individuals who engaged in various forms of financial fraud against the United States (including Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan fraud and Medicaid/Medicare fraud);

Cases against individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations;

Cases against individuals who acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations, not otherwise addressed by another priority category;

Cases referred by a United States Attorney’s Office or in connection with pending criminal charges, if those charges do not fit within one of the other priorities; and

Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You slow witted dipshit.

Cases against individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations.

Consistent with these directives, the Civil Division will use all available resources to pursue affirmative litigation combatting unlawful discriminatory practices in the private sector. In particular, the Civil Division is authorized to bring suit under the False Claims Act for treble damages and penalties against any person who knowingly submits or causes the submission of false claims to the government.

Stick to sucking off another country's nazi president somewhere else. Or just switch through your accounts jerking yourself off.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works -3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Reading must be difficult for you.

knowingly submits or causes the submission of false claims

As in, they can prove you knew it wasn't true.

I don't like Trump. But your example of someone pressing charges against sexual harassment/assault, and not being able to reach a conviction, is very different, from pressing charges that you KNEW wasn't true.

I'm not even going to touch number 7 since you obviously don't understand what constitutes fraud.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Women find it near impossible to prove discrimination and sexual abuse in the workplace as it is. You really think it's gonna be hard for a bunch of old men to wantonly decide that a woman "knew she was lying when she made those claims".

Do yourself a favor and read the transcripts and articles from the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and some of the despicable things that were said about Anita Hill and everything that was done to discredit her and accuse her of lying.

Hell, you don't even need to go that far back. Just look at how many ways people called Christine Blasey Ford a liar. She put herself through hell and still to this day lives in fear for her life because of toxic evil right wingers. And all for nothing as Kavenaigh now sits happily on the supreme court handing Trump win after win against the American people and shitting all over the constitution.

And just how many women were silenced before one was able to bring Harvey Weinstein to justice??

You need to open your eyes and realize the world you live in. Trump's justice department will use whatever they can to deport as many immigrants as possible. They have shown without any shadow of doubt that they care nothing for the legal status of those immigrants.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

And how many of those were convicted of filing false claims?

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You really are quite stupid.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, you make a dumb argument and prove yourself wrong. But I'm the stupid one.

You came in here, read the title and nothing more. Posed a scenario and asked if you had understood it correctly.

When you are then informed that you did not understand it correctly, you proceed to be upset with me because you couldn't be bothered to read the article you commented on.

Of course Trump is trying to deport as many immigrants as he can. Isn't that his entire campaign for the last 12 years? I don't think anyone is particularly surprised. I have no doubt that Trump will pursue any avenue he can to achieve his goal. That still doesn't change that you did not understand the article, or the memo correctly if you think filing a charge that is unable to reach conviction is enough grounds to deport according to the memo. You have every right to worry about it. But that's not what the memo says.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Bro if you sucked him off any harder, he will fill you with orange cum.

Watching this administration work, what has shown you that they will not target people?

Deporting people at their hearings? Chasing down farm workers or people going to their religious place of worship? He did it all

Lets not forget he was found liable for defamation and sexual abuse. Even the judge knew he raped her.

Rape is the hardest case to prove. Forget the personal abuse the accuser deals with or the stigma from people like you. Then to have to overcome someone just saying " it was rough sex" and "she never stopped me or she didn't say no."

Fuck completely off, you pus filled anal lesion.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You really are an angry little fella. I already told you I don't like Trump. He's a clown in a suit. But your pathetic attempts at insult isn't going to make your argument any stronger.

Stigma from people like me? You got nothing better than baseless accusations and assumptions?

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's ok. You believe the racist rapist are correct and justify their actions. So you have no one that loves you. I get it, have you tried Jesus Christ? He might love you.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 hours ago

Not at all. I've tried telling you that multiple times by now but you clearly don't want to accept reality.

For someone that despises Trump so much, you sure do behave a lot like him. Unable to hold civil conversations, lashing out with insults, refusing to listen, and return with baseless accusations to derail the topic.