The Northern Virginia doctor knows at least that much about his situation. He knows he is no longer considered a citizen of the United States — the place where he was born, went to school and has practiced medicine for more than 30 years — and that he also belongs to no other place.
A letter from a State Department official informed him that he should not have been granted citizenship at the time of his birth because his father was a diplomat with the Embassy of Iran. The letter directed Sobhani to a website where he could apply for lawful permanent residence.
How do you grant someone citizenship by mistake? And how can you justify taking it away after over 30 years? This is some real bullshit.
The 14th amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…
Sobhani’s father had diplomatic immunity when Sobhani was born, meaning that he and his family were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,so Sobhani did not become a citizen by being born there. Unfortunately, there’s no equivalent of adverse possession for citizenship, so he must be naturalized to be a citizen. There probably should be, but these cases are rare.
Thank you for the actual explanation. That actually makes sense in a very technically correct way. Hopefully they can at least fast track his naturalization.
Your ignorance is showing
Your right wing is naked
You can’t say shit like that without an explanation.
Looking at their comment history, they were probably just mad I didn’t say anything specifically anti US in that specific comment.
Haha. I guess not. I just thought the US’s anti immigrant policies were common knowledge by now but maybe not (or maybe it just wasn’t clear what I was saying from the context).
There’s absolutely no way in hell anyone gets their naturalization fast tracked (that’s nearly insulting levels of ignorance, imo)
You can have your opinion or state true facts. But it’s condescending to call people ignorant or saying that they’re being at an insulting level of ignorance. If you explain your point instead of calling names, you may entice people to learn and understand, and we all win. Otherwise, well… you can guess.
Fair enough though. Again, I thought it was common knowledge by now - what with all the kids in cages and whatnot.
It’s always surprising how much faith people continue to have in our demonstrably horrible institutions.
Edit: I should also clarify, I’ve never seen ignorance as a bad word. It’s literally the default state for all the information we’ve yet to learn.
Now that makes me wonder if taking the human out of the process made this happen. The passport process has been going online, I wonder if humans overrode the decision before because it was the right thing to do.
More like nobody noticed because they weren’t required to investigate his citizenship each time he applied. Some other process made that happen.
Not that rare, this is a very similar situation to what the DREAM Act was trying to resolve. As of last year, there were more than 500,000 people who qualified.
Most of the people the DREAM act was intended to help are not legally stateless, though I’ll grant the human impact is similar.
That is different. DACA’a are born outside the US and have been brought in illegally (without proper documentation). If you entered legally you are not eligible for DACA - and have to leave when you are a non-immigrant turning 21 years of age.
I know it’s technically different, but in both cases you have a person who has lived in the US for most of their life, and is for all intents and purposes an American, but who is not, due to a technicality, a citizen. It is extremely similar.
His wife that had the kid, wasn’t a diplomat.
Was she American, though?
Don’t get me wrong. I think this whole thing is fucked up. But I’m curious
If an illegal immigrant has a kid on us soil they are a us citizen. I don’t get why someone on US soil legally having a kid in the US should be different.
I think it has to do with how the laws are written or interpreted. Say, U.S. law doesn’t say anything specifically about birthright citizenship related to undocumented immigrants (nothing like “you illegal? Yo kids illegal, yo”), so those babies are otherwise technically American. Whereas the law probably says (I haven’t checked) “you a diplomat? Yo kids ain’t 'merican.”)
I’m actually very curious about this. Say someone’s a diplomat, but marries a citizen of the country they work as a diplomat in. Does their spouse now receive diplomatic immunity in their own country?
So technically he was voting in US elections while not being US citizen, likely multiple times, so, technically he should go to jail. But it would be insane if it happens, and it is insane what they doing to him now.
No, he was a US citizen at the time. They’ve revoked his citizenship now because they said it shouldn’t have been granted, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t ever a citizen. It means he was before, but is not now.
I wonder how that works for his social security number and all of his social security and general retirement funds he’s been paying into.
The article addresses this same issue
The factual elements of crimes usually have an associated mental state, called mens rea (Latin for ‘guilty mind’) in law. For example, intentionally taking something that isn’t yours is theft, but accidentally taking something that isn’t yours (perhaps because the thing looks just like your thing) is not theft. Unintentional acts can still be crimes; recklessly killing someone is manslaughter in most jurisdictions.
The mens rea given in the Federal voter fraud statute is “knowingly and willfully”, which is obviously not the case here.
He can be deported for voting (pretending to be a US citizen).
No, he wasn’t “pretending” to be a citizen, he was a citizen. They’ve just now decided his citizenship was granted in error, and so he now is no longer a citizen.
The article said there were some passport issues going on in the system. The “government” is a group of people doing their jobs, there are always going to be shitty people and shitty decisions. There might be something we don’t know about, but my guess is a shitty person made a shitty decision.
This is the world Republicans want.
61 years*
To be fair, 61yrs is over 30yrs.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
They are taking it away after 60 years. The US has no civil registry. You would obtain a birth certificate from the hospital where you were born and with that you could file for a passport.
I hope he is a dual citizen, and he’s not left stateless.
The first sentence of the article is:
Siavash Sobhani is stateless.
And even if they only read the article title this should have been clear.
It’s paygated so you can’t exactly blame them…
Yeah silly me using the summary written by op.
I just did the reload and quickly hit the X to stop loading trick to prevent the paygate from loading in, letting me read the whole article.
Or just use reader mode in firefox
Good thing the US doesn’t recognise international law since actively making people stateless is one of the big “do not do” things in that law
He should be refunded for 30 years of back taxes.
Paying taxes has nothing to do with citizenship, but with residency. You can be a non-resident (for many years) for immigration purposes, but you are a resident for tax purposes after about one year in the US. Even illegal immigrants often pay taxes on earnings, using an Individual Taxpayer ID # (ITIN). It is true that the US is one of the few countries in the world that mandates its citizens and Legal Permanent Residents, no matter where they live, no matter where they earn, to file taxes. A number of those will have to pay additional taxes on that income to the IRS. Taxes taken to a foreign tax authority can be subtracted.
fuck yeah
I think the us is the only country tying taxes to citizenship instead of where you live or work
Or at least it’s the only one that’s relevant for European authorities since that’s the only country everyone gets asked about while paying taxes
All persons living or working on US soil are taxed regardless of citizenship.
The US is also the only country to tax its expats, so it’s kind of both.
Sounds fair /s
Got to pay for the war machine!
This is vaguely tangential but some of my best friends were illegal aliens raised entirely within the US. They’re as American as any other American, but know how to use cumin. Moreover, the US has already invested millions for their education from childhood to adulthood- they’re all skilled, educated individuals and a boon to the US. It makes no sense to send off a US citizen for the sake of bureaucracy. To phrase this another way, eat the entirety of my ass, Nixon.
You’re right.
However, the law should be applied equally and evenly. (But we all know that’s bullshit if you’re rich and white or poor and a minority)
We simply should not just allow people to do this without some form of penance, but deportation shouldn’t be on the table for someone who has spent a literal lifetime here being a decent citizen like most everyone else.
IOW - oh, you slipped through the cracks without ever being caught? Good for you! Here’s a citizenship.
This shouldn’t be the answer.
If it’s the PITA of jumping through all the hoops as an actual immigrant and taking the citizenship test should be sufficient, it’s what they would have had to do anyway.
EDIT: Y’all need to read my responses before commenting. I and NOT against giving people in this situation citizenship if they found out they were here illegally through not fault of their own. I am NOT suggesting they be charged with some kind of crime. I am NOT suggesting they be deported. Fill out the paperwork to become a citizen, maybe take the test at worst. That should be a sufficient PITA for most people. I am also very much for immigration reform to get rid of the leeches an vultures that siphon money off people to “help” them get to the US, whether it be immigration attorneys or Coyotes running them across the border. There should be a legal “guest worker” program so that migrants a) get some kind of legal recognition and protection, b) pay into services they use in the US, and c) get protections for fair wages and benefits, and d) go after the employers that exploit illegal labor with harsh conditions, underpayment, lies, and basically treat them as a disposable workforce.
We good?
If US bureaucracy made a mistake and kept that mistake going for some 60 years, they should own it. Especially since this MD comes from Iran, it is not that he can get back to file for a passport there. The secret police could even have an open file on the parents. There is also a chance his father was officially not working in/for the Embassy, and Iran will treat him as a US citizen. After 60 years most of the relevant documentation will be lost and most people involved are either dead or suffering from memory loss. The US should give this man US citizenship ASAP.
I’m not arguing about the Dr. I’m discussing the person who had friends here who discovered they were here illegally through no fault of their own. However, I agree that the Dr. should not be deported.
However, the law should be applied equally and evenly.
This assumes the law is good and correct. It is not and it is not.
There’s a fairly simple fix, as you allude to. Making immigration a less intentionally abrasive, broken process and offering citizenship would fix most issues going forward. Running the process without the portions tacked on by overtly racist administrations reduces costs, increases efficiency, and produces a functional system. Definitely test them, but stop shooting yourself in the foot while, before, and after doing it.
Making immigration a less intentionally abrasive, broken process
I’m all for this. Getting rid of all the vultures preying on people to extract hope and money from them in the process. Guest worker programs, whatever. And going after the employers that exploit illegal labor and threat them like disposable labor.
oh, you slipped through the cracks without ever being caught? Good for you! Here’s a citizenship.
We do that in other areas of law. Notable examples include common law marriage, statutory limitations on prosecution and adverse possession of property.
In common law marriage, a couple who lives together and publicly claims to be married can gain the legal benefits of marriage without a formal ceremony or documentation. It’s fairly uncommon now, and most US states no longer allow it, but a few do, as do other jurisdictions around the world.
In statutory limits on prosecution, there is a time limit for beginning a prosecution for most crimes. It usually doesn’t apply if someone is actively fleeing from prosecution, but does apply if the crime is not discovered or the offender is not identified.
In adverse possession of property, someone who claims to be the owner of property and publicly exercises ownership rights over the property for an extended period of time (usually decades) without legal challenge is the legal owner even if someone can later prove they shouldn’t be.
Look, I’m not arguing against citizenship for people who have lived their lives here and through no fault of their own found out they were illegally here. There’s no need to keep rationalizing or trying to convince me that they should be citizens, I don’t disagree. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to have them take a citizenship test, or, at least file the paperwork needed to become a citizen. Do the thin that you should’ve done. You’re not being charged with anything. Yeah, there’s a statute of limitations on lots of things, but it gets muddy when it comes to immigration. There are parts of immigration law that do not obey the 5 year federal statute of limitations that would normally apply, but IANAL and don’t know what they are.
The original point wasnt that they should magically be granted citizen ship for slipping through the cracks, but rather but rather that there should be a legal process or criteria for granting citizen ship in these situations. Maybe some basic criteria could be living, working (if able), and paying taxes for 10 years and no felonies. I’m sure there are reasons to grant exceptions and there probably need to be some additional limitations, but that could be the basic idea.
You get citizenship based on being born in the US - jus solis - which this man was, until the State Department decided differently. The other way to become US citizen is by requesting it . That is possibe after five (in case of marriage three) years of living in the USA as a Legal Permanent Resident.
There already is a process to get citizenship, and I think that should be used. I do agree that a more expedited version would be best in situations like you say.
Fill out the paperwork to become a citizen
Seems that you’re under the impression that it’s easy or even POSSIBLE for everyone who wants to do it. It’s not.
I mean, even making people in this situation go through the same hoops as regular immigrants is not applying the same amount of inconvenience to everyone, because you’d still be applying a bunch of inconvenience to all the immigrants that don’t apply to people who simply were born here (something which, I might add, people have absolutely no control over and so has no bearing on any reasonable notion of what they have and have not earned. Why do we have to inconvenience anyone in this manner?
Personally, I think we should abolish the entire distinction of citizen/noncitizen. Limit border checkpoints to stations requiring one tell us who one is so that we know who’s here, let anyone move here as long as they agree to pay their taxes and be bound by our laws, and have the government treat anyone living here the same as they treat citizens now.
This conversation is pointless. I suggest realistic and relatively minimal procedure to become a citizen (fill out the paperwork) and everyone’s “Nah, nah, nah…that’s too much”. Then I suggest that the other option is to just give them citizenship like a prize for going undetected (because in the end, there are people who will fit that bill, whether it be a statute of limitations or a lifetime of ignorance) and everyone’s like “Nah, Nah, we don’t mean that…”
So nobody has a clue what they want to do except react negatively to my suggestions of non-punitive application for citizenship and immigration reform.
Y’all are useless. Picking apart suggestions but offering nothing. I’m done here.
Reminded me of a story of a Border Patrol agent who dutifully served the government for 20 years, plus some military service on top of it. After they found out he was illegal, through no direct fault of his, they tossed him out, even after he cruelly tossed immigrants himself. No mercy for anyone under any circumstance is the unspoken motto of INS, even as they deport citizens or veterans.
Agent story:
Deported veterans:
Why is it that we don’t have automatic citizenship for anybody who becomes a veteran?
The US is more xenophobic than the fascist caricature in Starship Troopers. Would you like to learn more?
You are correct that the US is more xenophobic than the government depicted in StarShip Troopers. That being said the US isn’t the government on display in either the movie or book, it is the Terran Federation. The Terran Federation also isn’t fascist. It is a secular militaristic limited democracy. Every single person who wishes to become a citizen may do so through voluntary service. Unlike our current military recruitment which limits based on country of origin, physical ability, and other qualifiers anyone can join. Stephan Hawkings would have been turned down for service in America, while the Terran Federation would have found a place for him. There are also harsher judicial punishments for those who gain citizenship if they break the law than non-citizens so that citizenships is a privilege and a duty. This hierarchy diminishes the strength of oligarchy, because money has no bearing on voting. Only those who display and demonstrate their true public service affect how the federation operates. Many people who read the book come away thinking that Heinlein was some fascist militarist, but they overlook his criticism of the hypothetical system of government he proposes in the book. He was a Navy officer before being a writer and his righting reflects his admiration for his families long history of public service. There are thinly veiled critiques of the military throughout that my go unnoticed by non-veterans. The psychological manipulation of Rico is definitely something that Heinlein hammers. The movie recast the Phillipino Rico for the hyper Caucasian Casper Van Dien, so while the movie was trying to critique the book if fell flatly on its face white washing the diversity on display in the book, it also more than the book enhances the glory of blind militarism, while is not the type of militarism from the book. All in all both the movie and book’s Terran Federation are forms of government that are better than the shadow fascist oligarchical governments that we enjoy across multiple countries in 2023.
So, the Terran Federation from starship troopers is Extremely fascist, it basically covers all the bases of ur-fascism.
The “failed government structure” was Democracy as it let the weak willed get in the way of a “proper” society, literally a repeat of the weak men bad times strongmen good times bullshit.
As for your portrayal of being anti-oligarchical, the government they propose is by definition an oligarchy.
And let’s not even get into shit like only
members of the partyfranchised individuals can be teachers.basically, you have fallen for the blurring of the media between the book and movie, because Heinlein WAS a fascist in real life
I’ve only really spent 2 minutes looking at the man’s wikipedia page to check for any obvious clues but I couldn’t find any.
Sauce for him being a fascist please? Because that’s a pretty heavy accusation to throw at someone, living or dead.
He saw a Reddit comment once. Heinlein was a militarist liberal, mostly due to his service in the US Navy fighting, you know, actual fascists.
Probably would be considered a neoliberal at the end of his life, as like anyone his views changed over time. He even ran for office as a Democrat in the Reagan years.
a few nice quotes:
anti-intelectual
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
nationalism/body Politics:
It is a bad sign when the people of a country stop identifying themselves with the country and start identifying with a group. A racial group. Or a religion. Or a language. Anything, as long as it isn’t the whole population.
Appeal to tradition:
A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.
maybe some contempt of the weak and pacifism is trafficking with the enemy (a two-fer!):
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue-and thoroughly immoral-doctrine that, ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom.
maybe some (not inherently racialized) Ubermench philosophy along with some selective populism?:
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
tho, I quite like the Appeal to some aristocratic ruling class of your betters:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.
or hey, maybe some straight-up anti-democratic rhetoric:
Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
Obsessions with plots:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creeds into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
Machosim:
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
a bit more rejection of modernism:
There are two ways of forming an opinion. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are junked when they do not fit theory.
oh let’s not forget this gem, that comes from his book advocating for a gun based Social Darwinism Eugenics (yes the argument was that smart people would survive and thus out produce the “stupid”):
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
or this one:
The greatest fallacy of democracy is that everyone’s opinion is worth the same.
do you want more, they are surprisingly easy to find from a guy who authored a book advocating for a “strong” indoctrinated military oligarchy to replace the Democracy dragged down by the “weak”
I won’t argue on definitions of topics I am not an expert in. If you feel the Terran Federation meets your broad definition of fascism peace be with you. The only point of contention I’ll offer is that you are flatty wrong about Heinlein being fascist. If he were alive and you called him that to his face, he’d look down on you in confusion probably combing his mind over his years of service fighting actual fascists which gave you freedom to confusingly missaply it to him.
it’s not a broad definition, Umberto Eco’s definition is anything but broad.
Secondly, what does his personal opinion matter? him being an American fascist instead of a German fascist, isn’t an argument that he isn’t fascist. The Soviets were some of the greatest contributors to fighting the Nazis, that didn’t make them any less fascist.
In short, you could type up an entire wall of text, defending a fascist as not fascist, but don’t even have an actual definition of Fascism, unironically having you fall into “the cult of action for action’s sake”.
I recommend, if you have such strong feelings, to look a bit outside your comfort zone (like actually trying to understand Fascism)
Because that’s a fascist thing. Technically we’re not supposed to have a standing army but MiC gonna MiC.
Technically we’re not supposed to have a standing army
Uh… What?
The US was not intended to have a standing army, the framers talked at length about it and George Washington had to actually sorta use his fame to circumvent everyone and make a standing army.
This American told the story from that article in an episode.
What he discovered, he said, is this: His older brother, who was born in Kansas when their father was a military student, had a congenital condition that required surgery. To extend the family’s stay in the country for that surgery, their father obtained a temporary job at the Iranian Embassy and worked there in October and November 1961. A birth certificate shows Sobhani was born at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center that November.
So, not even a scenario where his father was a meaningful actual diplomat or anything, but he worked as a temp for two months at the Embassy and his son was born during that period.
That makes this even more BS.
He was on a diplomatic visa though is what the state department noted.
Edit: should’ve only been an A2 visa and not diplomatic immunity.
The irony of strict immigration laws being pushed by right wing politics would mean a hard working resident, contributing to community for all his life, will get deported on next arrest and get no recognition from the US because misrepresenting yourself as a US citizen is almost an automatic bar on citizen application in current courts.
Deported to where though, he has no citizenship.
Trump would set up something similar to what Australia has with Nauru, or the UK was trying to set up with Rwanda. You find some place that’s a legal purgatory, ship them there and keep them there forever.
They’ve floated using Guantanamo Bay for that purpose.
The article got that part wrong. His father was an Iranian citizen. Iran has similar citizenship laws as the US: he is an Iranian citizen by birth, even if he has never claimed Iranian citizenship.
The exception would be if both his parents defected to the US before his birth. He wouldn’t be an Iranian citizen if his parents had renounced their Iranian citizenship before he was born. But if that were the case, he would have been entitled to US citizenship for having been born within the US.
If he were to be deported (he won’t be. INS only deports poor people who can’t afford lawyers), it would be to Iran.
The exception would be if both his parents defected to the US before his birth. He wouldn’t be an Iranian citizen if his parents had renounced their Iranian citizenship before he was born. But if that were the case, he would have been entitled to US citizenship for having been born within the US.
The article says that he was born while his father had a job at the Iranian embassy. So I doubt he was a defector.
Any place with a similar skin tone.
In this particular situation they mention Iran.
What’s ironic about that?
I don’t agree with most right wing politics, but I don’t understand your comment.
It’s like saying that it’s ironic that an exemplary contributor to society could get a ticket if they speed while driving.
Edit 2:
Ah, I see it now. You’re specifically saying that he’ll be denied citizenship when he applies for it, because he has, unknowingly, misrepresented himself as a U.S. citizen. That’s not irony. That’s fucked up. And sort of a catch-22.
You may discard my previous edit below.
Edit:
Why the downvotes? I mean, I’m pro-immigration, bros. But the law is clear: you claim you’re a U.S. citizen when you aren’t, you can (potentially) get in trouble. I got naturalized, and I’ve received voting packages a couple of times when I wasn’t a citizen. That shit freaked me out and I immediately had to contact the relevant offices and very explicitly tell them that they made a mistake because I was not a citizen. I didn’t want any immigration officer checking my files later and say “aha! You got voting packages a couple of times! Did you try to claim you’re a U.S. citizen? You did, right? Citizenship denied!”
So, regardless of what you think about it, that’s a law (“Do not claim you’re a citizen if you aren’t.”) My question wasn’t about that. My question was, why was OP claiming that it is ironic that a person who falsely claims is a U.S. citizen could get in trouble. So, instead of downvoting, can you answer my very genuine question?
So if I understand you correctly, being a good citizen by paying taxes and contributing to your community is less significant than a clerical error on some paperwork filed more than half a century ago. May you’re right, that’s not ironic. But you and I have very different values for what it takes to be a good citizen. Your speed ticket straw-man argument is irrelevant.
Edit: I understood now, and I added an “Edit 2” to my original comment to clarify.
No, you misunderstood me on the values thing. You seemed to be pro-immigration and so am I. And I disagree with you on the strawman argument. It was an analogy for illustration.
I was just solely commenting on the irony part, and you agreed with me. The sentence, regardless of content is not ironic. I wanted OP to clarify in case I was missing something. That is all.
They took away his citizenship 61 years later?! I’m afraid to Google the statute of limitations on murder (I don’t wanna end up on a list) but pretty sure you could kill a person and not be held responsible 61 years later. It’s amazing there’s not something similar with citizenship.
If I learned anything on the middle-school playground it’s that “there isn’t any statue of imitation on murder!”
Murder stay murder.
I’d really love to know if Michelangelo carved a “Statue of Imitation.”
When I was in middle school, I had read that Mississippi not only had a statute of limitations on murder, it was extremely short like only 5-10 years.
My school fucking sucked.
We all know this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6hGVdc1kRU
There is no statute of limitations on murder, but I’d say your point still stands. There should be a statute of limitations on shit like this.
The Trump Administration has launched a denaturalization operation—a project to strip a large
number of Americans of their citizenship. Denaturalization is a drastic measure that should only
be taken in the most extreme circumstances. But the administration is dramatically expanding
denaturalization, using questionable standards and proceedings. As with many other
components of its agenda, the Trump administration is discarding longstanding legal norms and
protections by adding U.S citizens to its list of targeted individuals, and thereby sending the
message that no one is safe in the United States of America.
These efforts to strip citizenship from Americans are systemic and chilling. They have made
U.S. citizens fearful that mistakes made years ago on their past applications could be used to
target them, take away their citizenship, and destroy their lives. The Trump administration’s
denaturalization efforts have made lawful permanent residents scared to pursue citizenship and
fully engage civically. What was once a celebratory moment recognizing an immigrant’s
integration into American life now comes with an undercurrent of fear and suspicion. The Trump
administration yet again uses draconian and constitutionally questionable tactics in pursuit of its
nationalist vision of who belongs in the United States.The current administration HAS had over 3 years to correct this atrocity, though. What’s keeping them?
How long has the administration known about this case? It sounds like the guy is just finding out himself.
Is there even a legal process for the administration to un-revoke his citizenship? Maybe the only legal means to reverse this is for him to sue and the courts to overturn it?
How long has the administration known about this case? It sounds like the guy is just finding out himself.
His specific case is newly discovered, but it was caused by a disgusting 2018 Trump administration policy, so they’ve effectively been able to know that such a thing was bound to happen since long before they even took office and had the power to at least TRY to do something about it since they took office
Is there even a legal process for the administration to un-revoke his citizenship?
Yes, but it’s usually going to involve either the horribly broken appeals court system or the even worse immigration court system. Maybe even both, in which case he’ll have been dead from old age for a decade by the time its through.
OR the state department could rescind the policy change retroactively, annulling the retroactive annulment of his citizenship retroactively.
Try saying that last part quickly 5 times 😄
It’ is in the huge mount of things to fix, there are so fucking many. Do you remember how bad it was?
I’m not saying the number of things to fix isn’t enormous, but surely this one should be important enough to reach the top of the pile some time during the first THREE YEARS.
Then again, there’s still concentration camps on the southern border and it’s still very nearly impossible for anyone to be allowed to seek asylum, let alone succeed, so maybe they don’t mind that part of the previous regime as much as they pretended to before the election 🤷
You do remember covid, yeah? Politics is a shitty business, you have to make concessions here or there to keep doing an overall good job. Biden is not perfect, not even close. But he’s done way better than trump and I don’t see the “moderates” voting for anyone than an old white man. He has also done 1000x better than I thought he would.
I see lots of intentional feet-dragging, to keep centrists appeased while solidifying their image as GOPv2, not realizing more people would vote if they had faith in them at all. I vote, but that is the dynamic that is happening.
How bad was it?
is it though?
Stripping CITIZENSHIP from people is the most bizarre and fucked up thing one could do.
It makes active citizens insecure, and puts a strong barrier between citizenship by being born to two Americans and citizenship by naturalization, making the latter essentially second-class.
The government should only be able to strip your citizenship if you commit literal treason.
Even then I’m actually opposed to it. As far as I’m concerned the only way to lose it should be to fill out the paperwork that says you don’t want it anymore.
Stripping CITIZENSHIP from people is the most bizarre and fucked up thing one could do.
I mean, I know you’re writing in hiperbole, but I can think of more bizarre and fucked up things than that.
Dang, can’t even read the article at all without a stupid paywall showing up.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In the past few years, there have been many passport-renewal nightmare stories, with processing delays forcing people to beg, lose sleep and miss once-in-a-lifetime trips.
Taken together, those records show how the Georgetown Medical School graduate went from living a stable life in the D.C. region to standing on uncertain ground and asking questions that do not have clear answers.
His language is gentler than what many people would use if they suddenly lost the freedoms, protections and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship — all because of a paperwork mistake that was made when they were too young to read.
To extend the family’s stay in the country for that surgery, their father obtained a temporary job at the Iranian Embassy and worked there in October and November 1961.
“I can only hope that the impact I’ve made in caring for our community of Virginians, your constituents, for the past 30 years will hold some weight in swaying your decision to intervene on my behalf,” he wrote.
He has no idea if he will have a passport in time to attend his son’s wedding in Portugal next year or if he will get to make those retirement scouting trips with his wife anytime soon.
The original article contains 1,280 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This summary makes no sense.
