Mon Jun 30 18:50:00 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the text, followed by its rewrite as a news article:
**Summary:**
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is intensifying its efforts to denaturalize naturalized U.S. citizens who have committed certain crimes, according to a recent memo. This move expands the scope of denaturalization, potentially impacting millions of naturalized citizens. Critics raise concerns about due process and the potential impact on families, especially children. While supporters argue it protects the nation from criminals and terrorists, experts worry about the vagueness of the criteria and the potential for misuse, potentially creating a second class of citizens. The denaturalization of an Army veteran convicted of child sexual abuse material possession is one of the first examples of this initiative.
**News Article:**
**DOJ Prioritizes Stripping Citizenship from Naturalized Americans, Sparks Controversy**
**Washington, D.C.** – The Department of Justice (DOJ) is aggressively pursuing the denaturalization of naturalized U.S. citizens who have committed certain crimes, raising concerns about due process and the potential for discriminatory enforcement. A June memo directs DOJ attorneys to prioritize these cases, granting district attorneys broader discretion in pursuing denaturalization.
The policy targets the nearly 25 million naturalized citizens in the U.S., focusing on those who have committed crimes such as national security violations, fraud against the government (e.g., PPP loan fraud, Medicaid/Medicare fraud), or fraud against individuals. Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate stated that denaturalization is now among the Civil Division’s top enforcement priorities.
The move is drawing fire from immigration law experts who question its constitutionality and potential impact on families. Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, highlights the lack of legal representation for individuals facing denaturalization in civil proceedings, along with a lower burden of proof for the government.
“It is kind of, in a way, trying to create a second class of U.S. citizens — where one set of Americans is safe and those not born in the country are still at risk of losing their hard-fought citizenship,” said Sameera Hafiz, policy director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Supporters, like Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation, defend the policy as a necessary measure to protect the nation from criminals and terrorists. He argues that those who abuse the privilege of citizenship should have it revoked.
The policy is not without precedent; denaturalization was used during the McCarthy era and expanded during the Obama administration. However, critics worry about the broad discretion granted to the government in selecting targets, potentially leading to the denaturalization of individuals for minor infractions.
One recent example is the denaturalization of Elliott Duke, a U.S. Army veteran from the U.K. convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material. Duke’s case raises concerns about individuals becoming stateless.
The DOJ has declined to comment on the specific concerns raised about due process or the potential impact on children of denaturalized parents. Experts warn that the policy could create a “slippery slope” where citizenship becomes less secure for naturalized Americans.
First Piper 