Patel: Make it Easier to Denaturalize Those Who Want to Harm America
“…we need a collaborative effort from the legislative branch to make sure criminals in this country are jettisoned from this country, especially if they violate the rights of the Constitution and American safety.”
FBI Director Kash Patel appeared on Sean Hannity’s show to tout the agency’s successes in 2025 under President Donald Trump.
But Patel stressed there’s always room to improve, especially when it comes to naturalized citizens who want to harm America and face sentences for terrorism.
Mohamed Jalloh, a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone, opened fire on an ROTC class at Old Dominion last week, murdering the instructor and injuring others.
The former National Guardsman had been convicted in 2017 of supporting ISIS and expressed a desire to conduct “an attack similar to the November 2009 attack at Ft. Hood, Texas.”
But last week’s tremendous tragedy where a member of our military was killed in Norfolk by an individual, who has been investigated for terrorism, is a stark reminder of what we must do.
That individual was convicted and sentenced for terrorism before, and no one bothered to denaturalize him and remove him from the country.
But Sean, here’s what most Americans don’t know. In the Trump Justice Department in the first administration, that individual, we sought a sentence of 240 months. The judge in that case downward departed and gave him nearly half of that time. Had the judge given the sentence that the Trump administration wanted, that individual would still be in prison and not have conducted that terror attack.
But it goes to the more important point. We need stronger legislation to remove individuals from this country who want to do us harm. The FBI is always going to be standing on the watch, but we need a collaborative effort from the legislative branch to make sure criminals in this country are jettisoned from this country, especially if they violate the rights of the Constitution and American safety.
It seems the U.S. will only revoke your citizenship if you mess up during the naturalization process:
- A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally
- B. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation: Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation or Membership/Affiliation with Certain Organizations
- C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization
That’s…it.
No crime, even federal crimes or terrorism, leads to denaturalization.
Even if the government invokes any of those criteria, it has to go through a court. The government cannot just revoke citizenship.
The DOJ must initiate a civil or criminal court proceeding.
The Supreme Court even narrowed the scope:
In 2017, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision in Maslenjak v. United States that only an illegal act that played a role in an individual’s acquisition of U.S. citizenship could lead to criminal denaturalization, narrowing the scope under which an individual may be denaturalized under 18 U.S.C. § 1425. In Maslenjak, the government under the Obama and Trump administrations sued to revoke Diana Maslenjak’s U.S. citizenship for making false statements regarding her husband’s membership in a Bosnian Serb militia in the 1990s. The Supreme Court ruled that if an applicant made a false statement during the citizenship process, the statement must have played some role in the individual obtaining citizenship in order to warrant the revocation of citizenship. The court stated that “small omissions and minor lies” that did not influence the award of citizenship do not necessitate denaturalization. Yet, it remains to be seen how courts will determine whether a false statement played a role in an individual obtaining citizenship.
[Featured image via YouTube]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Once again our Democrat enemies will fight this too.
Anyone who values the constitution will fight it, unless what he’s proposing is an amendment.
There is nothing in the Constitution that is at issue here, nor would there be any amendment necessary.
The court’s ruling noted above was based on the text of the federal law.
As Patel correctly points out, this can be fixed by amending the law or passing a new one.
I can see specifying a list of crimes as automatically denaturalizing a naturalized citizen. The list should be short and the crimes severe.
I’m also thinking that there should be some wordage covering when the person arrived here. It’s a lot different considering denaturalizing someone who arrived when they were 18 than someone else who arrived when they were 2 and knows no other country.
No difference at all b/c the point of the denaturalization is in response to a specific set of criteria. IOW if the shoe fits then they gotta wear it. It shouldn’t matter if they’ve been naturalized for five decades or five months. nor if they came here at age 20 or 20 months. What should matter is whether the criteria apply or not. If they do then they gotta go.
The other issue is when the pathway to effect removal becomes so narrow as to be unusable as a practical matter then folks will stop attempting to use that path and find a different route to the destination of ending that particular person’s ability to reside in the USA.
As I have pointed out here repeatedly, US citizenship once validly obtained, can never be revoked, for any reason whatsoever. It doesn’t matter what a person has done, before or after naturalization, so long as the naturalization itself was valid.
“Denaturalization” is a very misleading name, because by its own terms it doesn’t revoke a naturalization at all. What it does is prove that there was never a valid naturalization in the first place.
It’s exactly the same as when someone claims to be a citizen by birth, and the government proves that they were actually born somewhere else; we don’t call that “debirthing”! By proving that they were born in Canada or wherever, the government establishes that they were never a citizen in the first place, and thus there’s nothing to revoke. The same is true with “denaturalization”.
Either a person has been naturalized or they haven’t. If they haven’t, then they’re not a citizen and never were one. If they have then the constitution says they are a citizen the only power on earth can take that away from them is completely voluntary and sincere renunciation.
If Patel doesn’t like this, his only recourse is to propose a constitutional amendment, and it is impossible to pass one of those without broad bipartisan support. No one party can possibly muster all the votes required.
so while I agree that you cant take away something that never existed
the point would be,,,,,,
is that it did exist,,at some level
and that level was considered a reality..even if in the long(er) run it turns out it was never real
( by what you are ,,and I am agreeing with,,stating)
How Can U.S. Citizenship Be Legally Removed?
Once you get U.S. citizenship, you typically retain it for life. However, there are certain rare situations in which a citizen may lose their citizenship. Denaturalization involves involuntarily having your citizenship taken away. Renunciation involves voluntarily giving up your citizenship.
Denaturalization
https://www.justia.com/immigration/naturalization-citizenship/losing-your-citizenship/
I’m wondering if you would be in favor of such an amendment. I would be concerned about whether it could be worded properly.
Then call it anti naturalization if it makes you happy. But send them packing either way.
A conviction for a crime will lead to the revocation (at least temporarily) of a person’s liberty. It can also result in the loss of property (in fines and penalties), and even in the loss of life (rather permanent). A person who applies for citizenship is applying for a boon. Naturalization itself is not a right, because application for naturalization can be rejected. There is no right to the boon. And, if acquired, if citizenship becomes a right, it can be withdrawn as any other right may be withdrawn as punishment upon conviction for a crime. There’s really no good reason why citizenship should remain inviolate when the state can impose a death penalty upon conviction certain crimes. If the state can take your life from you, why shouldn’t it be able to take your citizenship away? (Indeed, the penalty for treason is death. Even a natural born citizen can be put to death for treason. Isn’t the death penalty in this situation a form of withdrawal or cancellation of a person’s citizenship? When someone is convicted of treason and hanged, does anyone say, “At least they didn’t take away his citizenship”?)
“small omissions and minor lies”
So, it all depends on how important the meaning of “is” is?
And this is why the “rule of law” doesn’t apply, anymore. It’s also why you (SCOTUS) have no moral authority remaining.
Of course it does. It always does. No one can be convicted of perjury or fraud for an immaterial lie. There is no law and can be no law against immaterial lies. Not everything is everyone’s business. Only lies that affect a decision matter.
No, it didn’t. What it held was always the case. As the criteria you cited clearly state, the concealment or misrepresentation must be of a material fact. Just as lying under oath about an immaterial fact is not perjury, doing so in the process of naturalization is not fraud, and therefore cannot invalidate the naturalization.
In any perjury trial, one of the things the government must establish is that the lie was material. Same thing here. If you are asked a question and the true answer would result in your application being rejected, then if it is discovered that you lied about it that means the naturalization was invalid. But if your application would have been accepted even if you told the truth, then your lie is immaterial and doesn’t affect the validity of the naturalization.
It amazes me that this is a surprise to anyone. The constitution says anyone who is born here or who is naturalized, is a citizen. End of story. Nothing can change that, except voluntary renunciation. Thus the only way someone can be declared not to be a citizen is if they were neither born here nor naturalized. So you have to prove one or the other of those things.
It’s important to note that this only applies if the naturalization was granted in the first place “on the basis of honorable service”. In other words, alien enlists in the US forces and is granted provisional citizenship by promising to serve honorably; if he gives five years of honorable service, or is discharged honorably before that, he keeps it, otherwise he doesn’t because that was the basis in the first place.
just tell the dems that
*denaturalized* means
the person is transing
and besides guys…look at his smiling face
you think that the media could even find that kind of ear-to-ear grin from a bad guy!!?!??!
Leave a Comment