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

 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House, Washington, DC
A large white building with a fountain in front of it

We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power

On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.

If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in July.

Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

In mid-July testimony before Congress, Russell Vought boasted that, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he’d refashioned the agency’s approach to pursuing banks and other financial companies accused of exploiting Americans — the role Congress had created for the agency after the 2008 economic crash.

Vought had spent the first 18 months of the new Trump administration trying to dismantle the bureau, much as he and other appointees had done with the U.S. Agency for International Development. At CFPB, he’d ordered mass layoffs, tried to choke off the bureau’s funding and ended the lease on its headquarters, attempting to make good on his vow to put civil servants “in trauma.” But federal courts blocked Vought’s efforts to close the CFPB, with a judge at one point saying the administration had acted with “complete disregard” for Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less