Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration

Opinion

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration
passport booklet on top of white paper
Photo by Nicole Geri on Unsplash

It’s another day as an immigrant in Trump’s America. The latest group under threat: U.S. citizens.

Recently, the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice had identified 384 more cases for denaturalization, the process of revoking citizenship. This comes months after President Trump instructed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to produce 200 denaturalization referrals per month. For context, denaturalization was rare: there were a total of 305 cases between 1990 and 2017. During Trump’s first term, 168 cases were filed over just four years.


The push to “prioritize denaturalization” threatens the security of Americans and undermines citizenship as a legal status. The Trump administration has made it clear that assimilation, service to one’s country, or even an American seal on your passport offers no guarantees. This erosion of immigration protections is not abstract. While much of the discourse has been focused on “illegal” immigrants, week by week, official policies are undercutting legal pathways to live in the U.S.

In a memo published January 1st, USCIS placed a hold on processing applications for people from 39 countries deemed "high-risk.” Last year, over 1 million people had their temporary protected status (TPS) revoked. TPS is not a path to citizenship, but authorizes people to live and work in the U.S. whose home country is too dangerous to return to. Those who were granted TPS undergo background checks and careful review of their status for renewal. Still, there are ongoing efforts to terminate TPS eligibility for more countries.

Not only are the bureaucratic processes for living and working in this country becoming narrower and more punitive, but citizenship itself is being redefined. This year, the Supreme Court will decide if President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional.

Denaturalization would affect people like me who were born in another country and became naturalized citizens. I remember sitting with my parents in front of a judge on the day it happened. As a kid, the gravity of that moment didn’t really dawn on me. I didn’t feel American, even if I would soon have the passport to prove it.

My family immigrated to the U.S. when I was a toddler. Despite my pursuit of Americanness, my otherness had clear giveaways: my name, my skin color, the contents of my brown paper bag lunch. But on trips back to India, I was teased for being too American: my accent, the way I dressed, how I styled my hair.

Stories like this are common among “third culture” kids: those raised in a culture different from their parents’. We internalize the idea that if we adapt, integrate, and perform as Americans, we will be accepted. We're taught that belonging is conditional. This is a hard lesson to learn as a child, and it is painful to revisit as an adult.

Experts have commented that Trump’s goal of 200 denaturalization cases per month is an unlikely scenario, as it only applies to fraudulent applications or other specific circumstances. This provides little reassurance when the administration’s definition of fraud can be contorted to fit its agenda. Ultimately, the message of this directive is clear: even if you came to the U.S. “the right way,” it can all be taken away.

These policies will also deter would-be immigrants. By the end of President Trump’s second term, his policies are projected to reduce legal immigration by 50%, and the consequences can't be overstated. Almost a fifth of our civilian labor force is foreign-born. We make up 24% of entrepreneurs, 26% of construction workers, and 26% of physicians (myself included). We subsidize the cost of our healthcare system and pay more in taxes per capita than the average U.S.-born citizen. Between 1994-2023, immigrants created a fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion. The value of immigrants is immeasurable, but their economic impact may be the only argument that resonates with this administration.

When citizenship can be questioned or revoked, there is no assurance that a US passport will make us American enough.

Tushara Surapaneni, MD, is a board-certified emergency medicine physician and Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.


Read More

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep Reading Show less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep Reading Show less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep Reading Show less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep Reading Show less