this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
466 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29654 readers
2879 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

After The New York Times reported that the administration had identified 384 foreign-born Americans as targets for denaturalization, Fox News host Will Cain asked Vice President JD Vance in an interview, “Could the law lead you to a place where we’d see accountability in the form of denaturalization or deportation from people who come to this country, legally or illegally, and take advantage of America?” Vance responded that the administration would “absolutely” be looking at how to denaturalize citizens and claimed that under the Biden administration there was a “big blurring of the lines between illegal and legal immigration.”

According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, denaturalization has historically been rare. It is typically only used in cases in which there is proof that a person was naturalized when they were not eligible, for example if a person misrepresented or concealed information during the naturalization process that would disqualify them from U.S. citizenship.

But in June 2025, the Trump Department of Justice released a policy memo expanding the administration’s “priorities for denaturalization.” The memo not only outlines new categories of immigrants who could be prioritized for denaturalization, but specifically warns that “the Civil Division retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hard to see how even scotus would find a reason to betray an amendment of the constitution, which they don't have the authority to do. But they've done it for decades on other amendments so we will see. They think the republic is dead already, it's only us citizens that are still contesting it.

But with the scotus decision to disallow nationwide injunctions, there is nothing to stop the administration, or a future one, from rounding people up illegally and doing whatever with them.

I thought the ramifications of that decision would have been obvious but everyone is still oblivious, I'm sick of explaining it in detail.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Hard to see how even scotus would find a reason to betray an amendment of the constitution

Roberts and his fascist cronies have done it before. Consider what they've done to nullify the equal protection clause, the emoluments clause, and much of the 14th Amendment.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Even before, before most of us were born, the 4th amendment was in effect cancelled to a large degree. The 10th obviously has long long been dishonored with an ever more powerful federal government disallowed in the bill of rights, the 5th amendment with asset forfeitures without due process of law. I am forgetting something here too.

This court is just not pretending anymore, but this has been a half century in the making.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The reality is that if even one of the rights can be removed, then they were never rights to begin with, just temporary privelages.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

We are at the cusp of a 55 year long game to kill the republic. We had those rights, the republic is captured by gangsters in the employ of corporations and the super rich.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

Indeed and I should add, the 6th is in effect Dishonored as well, as a grand jury used to be a check on unwarranted prosecutions, but they have changed what a grand jury is and how it operates so it is now a tool of prosecutors. That's what happens when you let lawyers run a country.

Obviously we are just scraping the surface here arguably the 9th, the 14th, I think the 15th, I need to brush up on it all.