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

 Medical Vial Vaccine on Shelf Table

Peptides like BPC-157, MOTS-c and Semax are surging in popularity despite limited human evidence. Here’s why FDA regulation, research and safety matter.

skaman306/Getty Images

Millions Using Unapproved Peptides as FDA Debates Regulation

Peptides, the short chains of amino acids that help regulate biological functions, have become the latest obsession in health, fitness, and longevity.

Online clinics and wellness influencers promote them as ways to heal injuries, reduce inflammation, improve metabolism, sharpen thinking, and slow aging.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less