Should Natural Born US Citizens have more rights than "Naturalized" US Citizens? Why or Why Not?

[Anonymous]

An honest discussion...should Natural Born US Citizens have more rights than "Naturalized" US Citizens? Why or Why Not?

This spawns from Trump's goal to strip Naturalized US Citizens from their US Citizenship for criminal offenses.

I'm a Naturalized Citizen myself and it's not just Trump wanting to do this...countries in Europe are all going down the same route.

https://baltimorechronicle.com/world/2025/04/27/europe-expands-citizenship-revocation-for-crimes-and-terrorism/

I'm a dual citizen of the US and a European country. I honestly do think that if a naturalized citizen does a horrific crime either in the US or the country I am from...that stripping the criminal of that citizenship should be on the table. Stripping them of citizenship does not necessarily mean deporting them. Just back to "green card" status - not eligible to vote...make them start all over to gain citizenship - work for it -- meaning no criminal activity for say 1 year in order to be eligible for citizenship. I don't think this is all that crazy.

The only crazy thing is the huge bureaucratic nightmare that it would entail. The principle behind it is sound, but the huge administrative cost this would entail is what IMHO would outweigh the benefit. Lack of cost benefit analysis.

Then there's the sound argument about addressing criminals who are natural born citizens - they get special treatment? It is indeed a slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

No. I swear MAGAs are the dumbest people. Did you sleep through school? Have an IQ of 2?

We have jails for criminals. Felons are not afforded the right to vote. It is extremely difficult for an ex con to get a job. This already applies to all citizens regardless of how they became citizens.

[Anonymous]

We already do. There are very, very limited ways in which a natural born citizen can lose their citizenship involuntarily. Easier to denaturalize someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. I swear MAGAs are the dumbest people. Did you sleep through school? Have an IQ of 2?

We have jails for criminals. Felons are not afforded the right to vote. It is extremely difficult for an ex con to get a job. This already applies to all citizens regardless of how they became citizens.

Felon right to vote varies by state. I believe Florida actually rescinded the felon voting ban, which allowed Trump to vote. Although for other felons it may be an effective ban because they will look for any clue regarding outstanding fines or reparations or other technically unfulfilled obligations (typically, a felon has to have satisfied ALL obligations, not just imprisonment).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An honest discussion...should Natural Born US Citizens have more rights than "Naturalized" US Citizens? Why or Why Not?

This spawns from Trump's goal to strip Naturalized US Citizens from their US Citizenship for criminal offenses.

I'm a Naturalized Citizen myself and it's not just Trump wanting to do this...countries in Europe are all going down the same route.

https://baltimorechronicle.com/world/2025/04/27/europe-expands-citizenship-revocation-for-crimes-and-terrorism/

I'm a dual citizen of the US and a European country. I honestly do think that if a naturalized citizen does a horrific crime either in the US or the country I am from...that stripping the criminal of that citizenship should be on the table. Stripping them of citizenship does not necessarily mean deporting them. Just back to "green card" status - not eligible to vote...make them start all over to gain citizenship - work for it -- meaning no criminal activity for say 1 year in order to be eligible for citizenship. I don't think this is all that crazy.

The only crazy thing is the huge bureaucratic nightmare that it would entail. The principle behind it is sound, but the huge administrative cost this would entail is what IMHO would outweigh the benefit. Lack of cost benefit analysis.

DOJ has frequently carried out civil denaturalization for crimes including sex offenses, moving large amounts of money out of the US fraudulently, connections to terrorism, and of course fraud in immigration and naturalization.

Then there's the sound argument about addressing criminals who are natural born citizens - they get special treatment? It is indeed a slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An honest discussion...should Natural Born US Citizens have more rights than "Naturalized" US Citizens? Why or Why Not?

This spawns from Trump's goal to strip Naturalized US Citizens from their US Citizenship for criminal offenses.

I'm a Naturalized Citizen myself and it's not just Trump wanting to do this...countries in Europe are all going down the same route.

https://baltimorechronicle.com/world/2025/04/27/europe-expands-citizenship-revocation-for-crimes-and-terrorism/

I'm a dual citizen of the US and a European country. I honestly do think that if a naturalized citizen does a horrific crime either in the US or the country I am from...that stripping the criminal of that citizenship should be on the table. Stripping them of citizenship does not necessarily mean deporting them. Just back to "green card" status - not eligible to vote...make them start all over to gain citizenship - work for it -- meaning no criminal activity for say 1 year in order to be eligible for citizenship. I don't think this is all that crazy.

The only crazy thing is the huge bureaucratic nightmare that it would entail. The principle behind it is sound, but the huge administrative cost this would entail is what IMHO would outweigh the benefit. Lack of cost benefit analysis.

Then there's the sound argument about addressing criminals who are natural born citizens - they get special treatment? It is indeed a slippery slope.

My reply ended up buried in the quote earlier
DOJ has frequently carried out civil denaturalization for crimes including sex offenses, moving large amounts of money out of the US fraudulently, connections to terrorism, and of course fraud in immigration and naturalization.

[Anonymous]

We have stripped natural born citizens of their citizenship, largely for terrorism issues. Right now, the left is claiming we can't do it to naturalized citizens but isnt including natural born citizens in the argument.

I think this is a very difficult issue and that revocation should be reserved for terrorism or support for terrorism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have stripped natural born citizens of their citizenship, largely for terrorism issues. Right now, the left is claiming we can't do it to naturalized citizens but isnt including natural born citizens in the argument.

I think this is a very difficult issue and that revocation should be reserved for terrorism or support for terrorism.

Every day, I see POS propagandists trying to link the simple act of expressing opposition to what is widely seen as a genocide with “support for terrorism”.

Now we want to leave it up to our own corrupted State department to define what “support for terrorism” actually is, and enable them to revoke citizenship of natural born citizens as they see fit?

What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have stripped natural born citizens of their citizenship, largely for terrorism issues. Right now, the left is claiming we can't do it to naturalized citizens but isnt including natural born citizens in the argument.

I think this is a very difficult issue and that revocation should be reserved for terrorism or support for terrorism.

I do not believe that this is correct. Citizenship by birth is granted by the Constitution and there is no procedure to remove that citiznship. Death penalty makes citizenship moot, so there's that.

If you can cite an instance of a natural born citizen having their citizenship revoked, I'm all ears.

[Anonymous]

They already have fewer rights. They can never be president, and there are already ways they can be denaturalized on the books. However, I think expanding those wars is a huge mistake.

[Anonymous]

Trump supporter here:

No, I don’t believe natural born US Citizens should have any additional rights beyond naturalized US Citizens, other than certain requirements outlined in the Constitution with regard to holding Presidential office.


I generally believe naturalized US Citizens actually know more about our republic than many natural born US Citizens because they’ve had to learn about the US, rather than simply being born here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have stripped natural born citizens of their citizenship, largely for terrorism issues. Right now, the left is claiming we can't do it to naturalized citizens but isnt including natural born citizens in the argument.

I think this is a very difficult issue and that revocation should be reserved for terrorism or support for terrorism.

I do not believe that this is correct. Citizenship by birth is granted by the Constitution and there is no procedure to remove that citiznship. Death penalty makes citizenship moot, so there's that.

If you can cite an instance of a natural born citizen having their citizenship revoked, I'm all ears.

8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

includes not just treason:

(3)entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A)accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

Seems like anyone who has gone to serve in the IDF as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer is SUPPOSED to lost their citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have stripped natural born citizens of their citizenship, largely for terrorism issues. Right now, the left is claiming we can't do it to naturalized citizens but isnt including natural born citizens in the argument.

I think this is a very difficult issue and that revocation should be reserved for terrorism or support for terrorism.

I do not believe that this is correct. Citizenship by birth is granted by the Constitution and there is no procedure to remove that citiznship. Death penalty makes citizenship moot, so there's that.

If you can cite an instance of a natural born citizen having their citizenship revoked, I'm all ears.

+1

It's MAGA drivel

We're stuck with the "natural born" regardless of what Trump is trying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have stripped natural born citizens of their citizenship, largely for terrorism issues. Right now, the left is claiming we can't do it to naturalized citizens but isnt including natural born citizens in the argument.

I think this is a very difficult issue and that revocation should be reserved for terrorism or support for terrorism.

I do not believe that this is correct. Citizenship by birth is granted by the Constitution and there is no procedure to remove that citiznship. Death penalty makes citizenship moot, so there's that.

If you can cite an instance of a natural born citizen having their citizenship revoked, I'm all ears.

8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

includes not just treason:

(3)entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A)accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

Seems like anyone who has gone to serve in the IDF as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer is SUPPOSED to lost their citizenship.

This is very very specific and not at the whim of the Secretary of State as some would like

[Anonymous]

This is well documented.

People from any country and culture are more loyal and knowledgeable about their homeland when they went to all of their schooling there and even more so, when their parents and grandparents did. Not to mention, then they also have 1-3 generations of paying taxes, doing traditions, and undergoing education in said country or region.

That will always result in more understanding, affinity and knowledge than someone who moved to a foreign country as an adult or even teen, and with parents who never lived in said country ever for growing up, k-12, or a long time.