There is no lawful way to "deport" U.S. citizens. And although citizenship can be revoked, any attempt by the government would run into significant statutory, constitutional, and practical obstacles.
At least two U.S. citizens have been deported, albeit under circumstances where (1) a traitor avoided the death penalty—it was commuted after having been affirmed by the Supreme Court: Tomoya Kawakita, and (2) Yaser Esam Hamdi, born in the USA to Saudi parents and captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Whether either counts as “deportation” in law is almost beside the point. Wikipedia claims Kawskita was “deported” but my recollection is that he received a presidential pardon on condition of anonymity ”self deporting”.
Hamdi agreed to renounce his citizenship as part of the agreement that led to his release from U.S. custody (so he was no longer a citizen by the time he was removed from the country). Whether his renunciation would have held up in court as "voluntary" given the circumstances is something I pondered a long time ago (https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2005/11/coercive_expatr.html), but it was never litigated.
If the Trump admin decided to go after the citizenship of large numbers of people, and they weren't brazen enough to just do something flagrantly illegal, this is how they'd approach it, right? Charge people with serious crimes, then include a "voluntary" denaturalization or expatriation in the plea bargain?
That’s what Trump administrator says. They don’t have much credibility. The child was receiving treatment for stage 4 cancer. Hard to believe a child or the child’s mother would give that up.
A NY Times piece on this story (1) says that the mother's lawyer said "the boy had no access to his medications or his doctors while he was in custody with his 7-year-old sister and mother." That's satanic.
Children are not legally competent to make this decision. (This should be obvious at ages 2, 4 and 7.) They are entitled by law to have a hearing before a judge and a legal advocate to represent their interests at the hearing. Maybe ultimately it's best for a particular child to remain with their deported mother, but that's what the judge decides after hearing, not the mother being deported or the government trying to deport them.
One of the children in question is 2 years old. Are you seriously going to argue that a two-year-old is capable of making a life choice of this magnitude?
"Of course" makes for a very weak argument. We don't yet know if the mothers wanted to take their children with them. There is evidence that they didn't, but the Trump administration says they did.
I should add that several Puerto Ricans have been deported to various countries, often their identity documents being ignored. Admittedly PR is not a member of the Interstate Driver License Compact but their licenses are labeled in both Spanish and English.
Do you have any information on previous uses of the alien and sedition act to prosecute folks? I know of the following- From 1956 to 1961, Doris Walker successfully defended William and Sylvia Powell, who faced the death penalty, against Korean War sedition charges. The US government charged that articles Powell had written reporting and criticizing US biological weapons use in Korea were false and written with intent to hinder the war effort. When a mistrial ended the sedition case, the government charged the Powells with treason. Attorney General Robert Kennedy dismissed the case in 1961. Is this relevant to the current situation?
You'd have to establish that they intended to voluntarily surrender their American citizenship via their actions on Jan. 6. Given that they were trying to seize control of the United States, I'm not sure how you'd argue that they were actually intending to permanently sever themselves *from* the United States.
It may be hard to denaturalize a US citizen and even harder to expatriate one. But what is a "US citizen" these days? According to the administration, you not only have to have been born in this country, you have to be able to prove that your mother was born here, too. I can prove I was born in New Jersey in 1957. I believe my mother was born in Tennessee in 1928. So I've always been told. But can I prove she was born there? Do I have a copy of her birth certificate? She died a decade ago. So the answer to both questions is no. Unable to prove I'm a citizen as the term is currently defined, can I therefore be deported? It seems to me the answer must be yes, at least according to Trump and Co. Without the kind of documentation most people don't have, everyone is at risk of deportation.
Strictly speaking, Trump's executive order of January 20 on birthright citizenship (1) "shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order", not that I trust the Trump and his cronies to be true to their word.
So prospective only, in other words? I guess that helps me and lots of others. Not so sure it helps Trump deal with what he thinks is his immigration problem, though, and so it makes me wonder why he even bothered. In any event, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed the prospective aspect.
I do wonder this, though: how can the administration's interpretation of the Constitution be prospective? Surely, if it means what they say it means, then it has always meant that, correct? In which case, I'm still in trouble!
Good question. I have no legal expertise, but maybe the Trump administration believed that they couldn't expatriate citizens born here before the executive order given that the law granted them citizenship when they were born.
the problem with the EO's "prospective" argument is that either the wording of the 14th says what we all say it does, or it doesn't. There isn't any way for it to stop saying what we all think 30 days from now. This isn't the same as an ex post facto law: it is the Extremes deciding what the words "have always meant."
In which case, pretty much anyone whose parent or grandparent or ancestor who was born before full naturalization is a non citizen, unless they married into a nice WASP-Forever family.
So if neither my great grandfather nor great grandmother (both from Ireland in the mid 19th Century) was a citizen when my grandfather was born, gramps wasn't a citizen and since he married into a fairly recent immigrant family, neither was my Dad. Luckily for me, my Mom's family got here in 1636.
Good point. As I said in another comment, I have no legal expertise, so I'm not trying to make any definitive statements on this issue.
I suppose it's conceivable that the Supreme Court, if the question reaches them, could rule that birthright citizenship applies if at least one of the child's parents in a citizen or a legal immigrant, but not otherwise, as one example. As for many American's, my grandparents were also immigrants (legal ones as far as I know), so under that ruling the Trump administration could not declare me a non-citizen.
It's also theoretically possible that even if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump's definition (which I doubt will happen), the administration would only apply the executive order "prospectively", though trusting them to do that would be foolish in my opinion.
All in all, the situation isn't clear to me, but my main point is that it doesn't seem that a change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would necessarily make most Americans non-citizens. To be clear, I would find the latter scenario absolutely outrageous, as I'm sure most Americans would.
Of course it is outrageous. Actually under this interpretation is is possible that trump himself if not a citizen. I don’t know the dates of the births vs the naturalizations. But trump’s lack of logic has resulted in a whole lot of outrageousness. How they actually ARGUE the validity of this EO shows that.
The argument that there is no “born” citizenship hinges on the second part of the clause: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The idea is that those born to non citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Jurisdiction basically means “has the power to legally make you do things.” So by this reading, if someone is born in the US but NOT subject to the its jurisdiction, then the US can’t prosecute them or sue them or make court orders barring them from anything. (The exception is clearly aimed at children of those with diplomatic immunity). A whole horde of criminals destined to go scot-free.
The whole idea that you have to have parents with a certain status to be a citizen is made up of thin air. Nothing in the constitution addresses it. It is more absent than the word “abortion.”
To be a bit more precise, those who oppose birthright citizenship argue that there are different kinds of jurisdiction, and that the historical evidence supports their contention that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to apply to children of illegal immigrants, because (the opponents claim) the government has only a limited jurisdiction over the child's parents, as compared to the full jurisdiction it has over citizens. The article below by John Eastman gets into the details.
I certainly don't agree with that argument - I'm simply pointing out that there is an argument out there that's based on a somewhat nuanced point. But Trump's executive order is clearly unlawful since it's contrary to the standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Uh, jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with who you swear allegiance to. The 14 Amendment can equally be interpreted as CLARIFYING what the Civil Rights Act of 1866 meant. That “not subject to a foreign power” describes the person born, not their parents. Has a newborn declared allegiance to anyone? The 14th Amendment took out that language
Many Americans are dual citizens (I imagine having an Irish passport is particularly common). You make it clear that merely having two citizenships is not an alienating act. But I wonder whether the Administration could exploit someone’s dual citizenship to expose them to costly legal harassment.
At risk in practice under a malicious U.S. government, but not in theory since, as Steve Vladeck wrote, the individual would have had to intended to relinquish his or her United States nationality.
And yet deportation of citizens has begun. The orange shitstain is doing whatever he wants, and nothing is stopping them. Clearly, our oh so haunted laws don't mean a damned thing. Wake the fuck up already.
Another Supreme Count advocate who had multiple appearances before the Count was William Wirt, the Attorney General under Presidents James Monroe and John Qunicy Adams. According to a recently published book, The Interbellum Constitution, Mr. Wirt argued 170 cases before the Supreme Count in a legal career that began in 1792 and ended with this death in 1834
At least two U.S. citizens have been deported, albeit under circumstances where (1) a traitor avoided the death penalty—it was commuted after having been affirmed by the Supreme Court: Tomoya Kawakita, and (2) Yaser Esam Hamdi, born in the USA to Saudi parents and captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Whether either counts as “deportation” in law is almost beside the point. Wikipedia claims Kawskita was “deported” but my recollection is that he received a presidential pardon on condition of anonymity ”self deporting”.
Hamdi agreed to renounce his citizenship as part of the agreement that led to his release from U.S. custody (so he was no longer a citizen by the time he was removed from the country). Whether his renunciation would have held up in court as "voluntary" given the circumstances is something I pondered a long time ago (https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2005/11/coercive_expatr.html), but it was never litigated.
If the Trump admin decided to go after the citizenship of large numbers of people, and they weren't brazen enough to just do something flagrantly illegal, this is how they'd approach it, right? Charge people with serious crimes, then include a "voluntary" denaturalization or expatriation in the plea bargain?
Overestimating how much effort they'd put, I think.
My bet is that options 5 and 6 become relevant much sooner than anyone would like and that nobody will worry about due process ahead of time.
Ship someone to El Salvador by error? Can't bring them back, but if they sign one piece of paper then they can leave the prison.
Still in the US? State of war and AG approval are not exactly barriers to this administration, and advising detainees of their rights is not a habit.
I can’t believe the garbage in our judiciary. The Truth is Trump admin didn’t deport children. They chose to go with their mother, an illegal.
That’s what Trump administrator says. They don’t have much credibility. The child was receiving treatment for stage 4 cancer. Hard to believe a child or the child’s mother would give that up.
Right. And I heard the father wanted his children to stay with him in the U.S. but the goons wouldn't allow it.
A NY Times piece on this story (1) says that the mother's lawyer said "the boy had no access to his medications or his doctors while he was in custody with his 7-year-old sister and mother." That's satanic.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/04/28/us/trump-news#us-citizen-children-deported-honduras-trump
So horrific and sad.
Children are not legally competent to make this decision. (This should be obvious at ages 2, 4 and 7.) They are entitled by law to have a hearing before a judge and a legal advocate to represent their interests at the hearing. Maybe ultimately it's best for a particular child to remain with their deported mother, but that's what the judge decides after hearing, not the mother being deported or the government trying to deport them.
One of the children in question is 2 years old. Are you seriously going to argue that a two-year-old is capable of making a life choice of this magnitude?
That’s ridiculous. The illegal is the parent and of course she wanted her children to go with her.
"Of course" makes for a very weak argument. We don't yet know if the mothers wanted to take their children with them. There is evidence that they didn't, but the Trump administration says they did.
"the illegal"
helluva thing to call a human being.
By the way, stop sending notifications to me on my phone. I have no idea how you got my information.
Susan, all you need to do is go into your list of subscriptions and unsubscribe.
Check your substack account -edit your demographics and notifications.
I should add that several Puerto Ricans have been deported to various countries, often their identity documents being ignored. Admittedly PR is not a member of the Interstate Driver License Compact but their licenses are labeled in both Spanish and English.
Thank you Thom
Do you have any information on previous uses of the alien and sedition act to prosecute folks? I know of the following- From 1956 to 1961, Doris Walker successfully defended William and Sylvia Powell, who faced the death penalty, against Korean War sedition charges. The US government charged that articles Powell had written reporting and criticizing US biological weapons use in Korea were false and written with intent to hinder the war effort. When a mistrial ended the sedition case, the government charged the Powells with treason. Attorney General Robert Kennedy dismissed the case in 1961. Is this relevant to the current situation?
Per class (1) above, do you risk losing your US citizenship if you move to a foreign country and are naturalized or become a citizen there?
https://open.substack.com/pub/randoliberal/p/judge-xinis-has-a-few-questions-to?r=u47dz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
heh - thought you might get a smile out of this post
always good for a rewatch.
The 7th class of people subject to loss of citizenship reminds me of the Jan. 6 convicts.
You'd have to establish that they intended to voluntarily surrender their American citizenship via their actions on Jan. 6. Given that they were trying to seize control of the United States, I'm not sure how you'd argue that they were actually intending to permanently sever themselves *from* the United States.
It may be hard to denaturalize a US citizen and even harder to expatriate one. But what is a "US citizen" these days? According to the administration, you not only have to have been born in this country, you have to be able to prove that your mother was born here, too. I can prove I was born in New Jersey in 1957. I believe my mother was born in Tennessee in 1928. So I've always been told. But can I prove she was born there? Do I have a copy of her birth certificate? She died a decade ago. So the answer to both questions is no. Unable to prove I'm a citizen as the term is currently defined, can I therefore be deported? It seems to me the answer must be yes, at least according to Trump and Co. Without the kind of documentation most people don't have, everyone is at risk of deportation.
Strictly speaking, Trump's executive order of January 20 on birthright citizenship (1) "shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order", not that I trust the Trump and his cronies to be true to their word.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
So prospective only, in other words? I guess that helps me and lots of others. Not so sure it helps Trump deal with what he thinks is his immigration problem, though, and so it makes me wonder why he even bothered. In any event, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed the prospective aspect.
I suppose the Trump administration's motive was that it would stem the flow of "anchor babies".
I do wonder this, though: how can the administration's interpretation of the Constitution be prospective? Surely, if it means what they say it means, then it has always meant that, correct? In which case, I'm still in trouble!
Good question. I have no legal expertise, but maybe the Trump administration believed that they couldn't expatriate citizens born here before the executive order given that the law granted them citizenship when they were born.
the problem with the EO's "prospective" argument is that either the wording of the 14th says what we all say it does, or it doesn't. There isn't any way for it to stop saying what we all think 30 days from now. This isn't the same as an ex post facto law: it is the Extremes deciding what the words "have always meant."
In which case, pretty much anyone whose parent or grandparent or ancestor who was born before full naturalization is a non citizen, unless they married into a nice WASP-Forever family.
So if neither my great grandfather nor great grandmother (both from Ireland in the mid 19th Century) was a citizen when my grandfather was born, gramps wasn't a citizen and since he married into a fairly recent immigrant family, neither was my Dad. Luckily for me, my Mom's family got here in 1636.
Good point. As I said in another comment, I have no legal expertise, so I'm not trying to make any definitive statements on this issue.
I suppose it's conceivable that the Supreme Court, if the question reaches them, could rule that birthright citizenship applies if at least one of the child's parents in a citizen or a legal immigrant, but not otherwise, as one example. As for many American's, my grandparents were also immigrants (legal ones as far as I know), so under that ruling the Trump administration could not declare me a non-citizen.
It's also theoretically possible that even if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump's definition (which I doubt will happen), the administration would only apply the executive order "prospectively", though trusting them to do that would be foolish in my opinion.
All in all, the situation isn't clear to me, but my main point is that it doesn't seem that a change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would necessarily make most Americans non-citizens. To be clear, I would find the latter scenario absolutely outrageous, as I'm sure most Americans would.
Of course it is outrageous. Actually under this interpretation is is possible that trump himself if not a citizen. I don’t know the dates of the births vs the naturalizations. But trump’s lack of logic has resulted in a whole lot of outrageousness. How they actually ARGUE the validity of this EO shows that.
The argument that there is no “born” citizenship hinges on the second part of the clause: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The idea is that those born to non citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Jurisdiction basically means “has the power to legally make you do things.” So by this reading, if someone is born in the US but NOT subject to the its jurisdiction, then the US can’t prosecute them or sue them or make court orders barring them from anything. (The exception is clearly aimed at children of those with diplomatic immunity). A whole horde of criminals destined to go scot-free.
The whole idea that you have to have parents with a certain status to be a citizen is made up of thin air. Nothing in the constitution addresses it. It is more absent than the word “abortion.”
To be a bit more precise, those who oppose birthright citizenship argue that there are different kinds of jurisdiction, and that the historical evidence supports their contention that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to apply to children of illegal immigrants, because (the opponents claim) the government has only a limited jurisdiction over the child's parents, as compared to the full jurisdiction it has over citizens. The article below by John Eastman gets into the details.
I certainly don't agree with that argument - I'm simply pointing out that there is an argument out there that's based on a somewhat nuanced point. But Trump's executive order is clearly unlawful since it's contrary to the standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[1] https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-2/birthright-citizenship-game-on/
Uh, jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with who you swear allegiance to. The 14 Amendment can equally be interpreted as CLARIFYING what the Civil Rights Act of 1866 meant. That “not subject to a foreign power” describes the person born, not their parents. Has a newborn declared allegiance to anyone? The 14th Amendment took out that language
Many Americans are dual citizens (I imagine having an Irish passport is particularly common). You make it clear that merely having two citizenships is not an alienating act. But I wonder whether the Administration could exploit someone’s dual citizenship to expose them to costly legal harassment.
I read the very first paragraph of the statute to say that pledging allegiance is sufficient to initiate revocation proceedings.
So if you get that Irish passport after your American passport, you’re at risk.
At risk in practice under a malicious U.S. government, but not in theory since, as Steve Vladeck wrote, the individual would have had to intended to relinquish his or her United States nationality.
Rendition is the right word for many of these lawless removals.
Unfortunately, so is "disappear."
Another entry in "stuff they don't teach you in law school, because, well, who the hell would ever try to pull this crap?"
What is being discussed regarding “derivative claims” for a child born to a US citizen outside of the country?
And yet deportation of citizens has begun. The orange shitstain is doing whatever he wants, and nothing is stopping them. Clearly, our oh so haunted laws don't mean a damned thing. Wake the fuck up already.
*vaunted
Vaunted, and now haunted by Trump.
Michael Grealy
Another Supreme Count advocate who had multiple appearances before the Count was William Wirt, the Attorney General under Presidents James Monroe and John Qunicy Adams. According to a recently published book, The Interbellum Constitution, Mr. Wirt argued 170 cases before the Supreme Count in a legal career that began in 1792 and ended with this death in 1834