DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship

One thing if crimes etc before becoming a citizen, another if it is post-citizenship crime etc:

The Justice Department is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.

Department leadership is directing its attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes — and giving district attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue this tactic, according to a June 11 memo published online. The move is aimed at U.S. citizens who were not born in the country; according to data from 2023, close to 25 million immigrants were naturalized citizens.

At least one person has already been denaturalized in recent weeks. On June 13, a judge ordered the revocation of the citizenship of Elliott Duke, who uses they/them pronouns. Duke is an American military veteran originally from the U.K. who was convicted for distributing child sexual abuse material — something they later admitted they were doing prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.

Denaturalization is a tactic that was heavily used during the McCarthy era of the late 1940’s and the early 1950’s and one that was expanded during the Obama administration and grew further during President Trump’s first term. It’s meant to strip citizenship from those who may have lied about their criminal convictions or membership in illegal groups like the Nazi party, or communists during McCarthyism, on their citizenship applications.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate wrote in the memo that pursuing denaturalization will be among the agency’s top five enforcement priorities for the civil rights division.

“The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” he said.

The focus on denaturalization is just the latest step by the Trump administration to reshape the nation’s immigration system across all levels of government, turning it into a major focus across multiple federal agencies. That has come with redefining who is let into the United States or has the right to be an American. Since his return to office, the president has sought to end birthright citizenship and scale back refugee programs.

But immigration law experts expressed serious concerns about the effort’s constitutionality, and how this could impact families of naturalized citizens.

Source: DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship

Petition asking PM to revoke Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship garners support

Although this has a good feel, largely virtue signalling as no grounds for revocation. Avoiding Musk companies such as Tesla, Starlink makes more sense. Twitter/X harder one given that it still has usefulness in sharing information and opinions among both serious persons and the Trump/Musk followers.

That being said, I signed:

Thousands of people have electronically signed a parliamentary petition calling for revocation of Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship over his role in the Trump administration, which is pointedly threatening Canada’s sovereignty.

The petition, making its way through the House of Commons process, was initiated by Qualia Reed, a Nanaimo, B.C., author.

New Democrat MP Charlie Angus, an outspoken critic of Musk, is sponsoring the petition, which had more than 34,000 signatures from across Canada as of Saturday evening.

Musk is a native of South Africa but he has Canadian citizenship through his Regina-born mother.

The petition says Musk, a billionaire businessman and adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, has engaged in activities that go against the national interest of Canada.

Trump has threatened to impose widespread tariffs on Canadian products and has openly mused about Canada becoming the 51st state, drawing the ire of millions of Canadians.

The petition asks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to revoke Musk’s citizenship and Canadian passport.

An electronic petition must have 500 or more signatures to receive certification for presentation to the House of Commons, opening the door to a formal government response.

The House is Commons is slated to resume sitting March 24, but many expect a general election to be called before MPs return.

Source: Petition asking PM to revoke Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship garners support

Kuwait revokes citizenship of more than 10,000 people with dual nationality

Of note (mainly from neighbouring countries):

Kuwait’s Central Agency for Remedying Illegal Residents’ Status (CARIRS) has revoked the citizenship of more than 10,000 people with dual nationality between 2011 and last month, the KUNA news agency has reported.

According to the agency, the step is the result of a full decade of Kuwaiti efforts to address the dual nationality file, and comes as a culmination of a campaign that began last year to confront those who obtain Kuwaiti citizenship illegally. Almost 1,000 such people have been detected to date. Kuwait does not recognise dual nationality and children with dual nationality have two years after reaching the age of 18 to decide whether to retain Kuwaiti nationality or keep their other nationality.

The Director of the Situation Amendment Department in CARIRS, General Muhammad Al-Wahib, told KUNA that 6,054 residents’ status had been changed to Saudi nationality; 1,188 to Iraqi nationality; 868 to Syrian nationality; 131 to Iranian nationality; 53 to Jordanian nationality; and 1,962 to other nationalities.

Al-Wahib pointed out that these statistics include individuals who have parents or relatives who own documents from different nationalities and do not include those who have other relatives with proven nationality.

He called on those wishing to amend their status to visit CARIRS in the Eastern Region, to settle their residencies and regularise their status according to the residency laws in force in Kuwait.

The Gulf state has in recent years intensified efforts to amend the status of those residing illegally in the country.

Source: Kuwait revokes citizenship of more than 10,000 people with dual nationality

Government could revoke citizenship of terror suspect, immigration minister says

Always good to start with a timeline to determine what actions are possible. If Eldidi did misrepresent himself when apply for citizenship, then revocation is possible:

…Mr. Miller, speaking to reporters in Nova Scotia Wednesday, described himself a “disgusted as any Canadian” about the case.

He said he has asked his deputy minister to probe the timeline of Mr. Eldidi’s immigration to Canada including when they obtained permanent residency and citizenship. “Who knew what, when and how?,” Mr. Miller said.

“I hope to be able to provide answers in relatively in a relatively short timeline about what happened.”

He said Canadians “deserve answers” on the file.

“I’m also going to take the next step, which is to start the preliminary work, with the evidence at hand, to look at whether the individual in question’s citizenship should be revoked,” Mr. Miller said….

Source: Government could revoke citizenship of terror suspect, immigration minister says

Colby Cosh: Is a Canadian a Canadian if he first tortured prisoners for ISIS?

Overly simplistic characterization. One of the problems with the previous government’s legislation on post-citizenship revocation was that it allowed for “offloading” of responsibilities to other countries. The best example to date has been the UK government’s revocation of Jack Letts (“Jihadi Jack”), who was born and raised in the UK with minimal to no time in Canada.

However, as his mother is Canadian, his parents are understandably pressing Canada to take on his case. But correctly speaking, his radicalization occurred in the UK and the UK should not have “offloaded” responsibility to Canada. The Canadian government, to its credit, has not responded substantively to the various persons lobbying on his behalf.

Revocation for misrepresentation at the application stage is fully appropriate, including judicial review rather than leaving it only to the Minister. But post-citizenship, countries should assume their responsibilities which the UK has shamefully not done:

…The new government preserved the state’s pre-2015 right to cancel citizenship for “false representation or fraud” in an application, but it added a proviso for appeal by right to the Federal Court. This means that today’s immigration minister initiates the process for revocation, if he can find evidence of falsehood, but that he is no longer the ultimate decision-maker.

Miller knows all this, whether or not he is hoping you remember it. Nobody’s real concern about the latest accused Toronto terrorists is that the elder of them may have filled out a citizenship application form incorrectly, which is itself a purely speculative possibility. The minister is using the shreds of revocation powers left by (and to) his own government to give the general impression that a terrorist might lose citizenship only for terrorism. But this is a possibility that our prime minister explicitly rejected, and whose rejection he campaigned successfully on. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, even if he fought for ISIS not long before becoming a Canadian. Right?

Source: Colby Cosh: Is a Canadian a Canadian if he first tortured prisoners for ISIS?

Opinion: Jack Letts and other Canadians held in Syria deserve proper justice

Not convinced, given the difficulty, if not impossibility, of successful prosecution in Canada. And Letts never had a meaningful connection to Canada and his parents, understandably, only approached when his UK citizenship, where he had lived virtually his entire life, revoked his UK citizenship, effectively dumping him on Canada:

When we met Canadian citizen Jack Letts in a prison in Northeast Syria last August, he asked if we thought he would still be there in 10 years. At that point he had been locked up in harrowing conditions without charge or trial for more than six years.

The letters, photos and books we were able to bring to him from his mother, who lives in Ottawa, were Jack’s first news of his family in years. Our visit was the first confirmation for his family in two years that he was even alive. He has no access to a lawyer. And he is not receiving any support from Canadian officials, as the Canadian government refuses to carry out consular visits in the region.

We paused before answering, not wanting to crush his sprits or give false hope. We told him it was unlikely he would still be in detention in 10 years, but that there was no prospect of short-term release. We told him we hoped he might be back in Canada in a year.

“Back in Canada,” of course, does not necessarily mean out of detention. If there is credible evidence that Jack has committed terrorism-related or other crimes, he would rightly be charged under Canadian law. Jack told us that he would willingly face any such allegation, as long as it involved a fair procedure. That, clearly, is not on offer in Northeast Syria.

We were cautiously optimistic because of a pending appeal application before the Supreme Court of Canada in a legal challenge brought by Jack and three other Canadian men unlawfully detained in Northeast Syria. Little did we know, however, that three months later the Supreme Court would inexplicably deny leave to hear that appeal, a deep disappointment. The court does not give reasons for leave decisions.

We have now passed the halfway point in what we hope will not prove to be misguided optimism of justice within a year. However, six months on, there is no sign that the Canadian government is readying to repatriate Jack.

Jack Letts is not alone. There are at least eight other Canadian men unlawfully imprisoned in Northeast Syria. We also know of one Canadian woman, 13 Canadian children and three non-Canadian women who are mothers of some of those children, who are held in a dangerous and overcrowded detention camp in the region, also with no end in sight.

And those Canadians are not alone. There are more than 50,000 prisoners, more than half of them children, unlawfully detained across Northeast Syria. Most are Syrian or Iraqi, but in all there are 60 different nationalities in the camps and prisons. Some have very likely been responsible for terrible abuses during the years that ISIL controlled that region, while others were themselves victims of or opponents to ISIL. All are denied any justice.

We met with one other Canadian male prisoner, all of the women, and six of the children while we were on the ground in August. The human rights violations they are enduring are extensive, and the Canadian government’s failure to take steps to protect them is a disgrace.

Last week, an exceptional application was filed with the Supreme Court, asking for reconsideration of the decision not to hear an appeal. Given the ongoing intransigence of the government, turning to the court, no matter how extraordinary the request, seems the only option. Past progress with repatriation has generally only happened under threat of possible court action.

That application has been brought because the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, and the risks to these Canadians grow even more alarming. That is due in part to shifting political and military circumstances in the Middle East since the Oct. 7th Hamas attack in Israel and the humanitarian catastrophe unleashed by more than five months of unrelenting bombardment of Gaza by the Israeli military.

No doubt taking advantage of international focus being diverted to the Gaza crisis, the Turkish military has ramped up its deadly drone attacks in Northeast Syria. ISIL activity also appears to be increasing. And now there is talk that the U.S. military, whose presence in Northeast Syria has provided a minimal degree of stability, may be preparing to withdraw its troops. Notably, the U.S. government repeatedly calls on Canada and other countries to repatriate their nationals.

Things were bad enough when we were in Northeast Syria in August. The situation has only worsened since and seems slated to become more dire. What is needed is not protracted litigation. What is needed is a political decision to bring all Canadians home from there, to hold them accountable in our legal system if warranted. It is time for human rights to prevail.

Kim Pate is an Independent Senator for Ontario. Alex Neve is a Senior Fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. Scott Heatherington is a retired Canadian ambassador and diplomat. Hadayt Nazami is an immigration and human rights lawyer in Toronto. They travelled to Northeast Syria as a civil society humanitarian delegation last August.

Source: Opinion: Jack Letts and other Canadians held in Syria deserve proper justice

Removing Shamima Begum’s citizenship is a cruel, politically-motivated policy has done nothing to keep us safe

Revocation, without considering statelessness or “ownership” of problematic citizens, is indeed more politically motivated than justified.

As the case of “Jihadi Jack” illustrates, it also allows countries to export their problems to other countries in cases of dual citizens.

That ministers are prepared to do this to British kids shocks me every time I go there.

It is also where Shamima Begum has been imprisoned without charge or trial for the past five years.

Former Home Secretary Sajid Javid deprived her of British citizenship when she was 19 years old and mourning a third child, and she has been stuck there, stripped of all her rights, ever since.

Yesterday a group of United Nations legal experts weighed in on her case. “There is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation,” they said.

Last month, Britain’s own Court of Appeal referred to “the likelihood that she was a child victim of others who wished to exploit her for sexual or extremist reasons”.

It is well-documented that ISIS targeted vulnerable British girls and young women and that UK institutions failed in their duty to protect them.

Remember, Shamima was 15 years old and studying for her mock GCSEs when she was groomed. The idea that she should be sent into exile for the rest of her life because she was targeted by a trafficking gang runs contrary to good sense and basic humanity.

Former Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption has made the point that depriving Ms Begum of UK citizenship leaves her stateless. The United Nations legal experts agreed.

The Government’s claim that she could be a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never visited and that has publicly stated it will not accept her, reveals a racist, two-tier citizenship regime.

Britain is alone among G20 nations in stripping citizenship in bulk. Only Bahrain and Nicaragua have deprived more people of citizenship in the last two decades.

This cruel, politically-motivated policy has done nothing to keep us safe – in fact security experts agree that the detention camps are ticking timebomb. That’s why every one of our allies is repatriating families from North East Syria.

Maya Foa is the Director of Reprieve

Source: Removing Shamima Begum’s citizenship is a cruel, politically-motivated policy has done nothing to keep us safe

Mito: Canada needs to end repatriation of Islamic fighters

Understandable perspective of a Yezidi survivor. But revocation is problematic as countries will export their problems to other countries, as the UK revocation of Jack Letts, a former UK citizen who spent his life in the UK before becoming “Jihadi Jack,” became the subject of efforts by his parents to use his Canadian citizenship by descent to allow him to return to Canada.
I hope the courts are sensible in affirming the limits to repatriation:
As a Yezidi survivor of the 2014 genocide committed by the Islamic State (IS), I have serious concerns regarding public safety as Canada repatriates former IS terrorists. Since the IS’s defeat in Syria in 2019, the Canadian government has been grappling with cases involving Canadians who left to join the group. Some of these citizens have been repatriated, while others remain in IS camps under the control of Kurdish forces in Syria.
In 2015, the Conservative Party of Canada passed Bill C-24, a law allowing Canada to revoke the citizenship of Canadians who joined the IS. Some legal scholars oppose such laws, likening the revocation of citizenship to historical practices of exile and banishment. Countries, including Australia and the U.K., that have implemented similar laws have encountered legal challenges, as these laws can either render a person “stateless” (without any citizenship) or establish disparate treatment between individuals with dual citizenship and those with only one.
As a solution, the Liberals revoked the portion of Bill C-24 that allowed the stripping of citizenship from dual citizens who joined a terrorist organization. Without the power to strip citizenship, the government has opted not to repatriate Canadian citizens held captive by Kurds in IS camps. Government lawyers claim it would be “unprecedented and unprincipled” to assist these detained suspects and assert that “there is no legal obligation, under the Charter, statute or international law for Canada to provide consular assistance, including the repatriation of its citizens.”
However, a lawsuit has led the Federal Court to order the government to repatriate at least four men accused of being IS fighters. These individuals, who allegedly participated in crimes against humanity, knowingly left Canada to join IS. However, due to their use of false names and a pervasive lack of evidence, it remains doubtful that they will face justice in Canada or at the International Criminal Court if they return home for trial. The CBC quotes a former CSIS analyst as saying he “doubts any of the adults returning would face justice for any crimes they may have committed,” because “the witnesses aren’t here, the evidence isn’t here.”
Repatriating former IS members without prosecution is an injustice to Yezidis and all others who survived their crimes against humanity. The only path left for justice is for the government to reimplement Bill C-24 in full, allowing Canada to strip the citizenship of suspected IS members, leaving them in the prison camps where they belong. Further to that, Canada should pass a new law that does not require a legal conviction but rather a hearing in something equivalent to a closed tribunal. A legal process has too high a burden of proof in a war zone, such as the conflict in Syria and northern Iraq.
The situation Canada faces, whether to bring IS fighters back home, is not just about politics; it’s about real people who have suffered unimaginably. Canada must find a way to bring justice to survivors like the Yezidis and to protect its citizens. Putting Bill C-24 back into action and creating a special court-like system could help ensure IS members are held accountable without legally complicating things, given our government’s limited evidence against these fighters.

As someone who has experienced IS cruelty first-hand, I ask Canada to make careful and strong choices. We must ensure that those who cause suffering cannot just walk away, and we must remember and honour all the people who were hurt or lost.It is a tough path, but it’s the right thing to do.

Saif Mito is a Mount Royal University student in Calgary and a Yezidi survivor.

Source: Opinion: Canada needs to end repatriation of Islamic fighters

Ottawa declassifies more details from Rodal report on Nazi war criminals in Canada

Of note:

As justice minister in the late 1960s, Pierre Trudeau opposed revoking the citizenship of a naturalized Canadian suspected of murdering 5,128 Jews in Latvia during the Second World War, over concerns about legality and social cohesion, long-redacted memos released on Thursday show.

…The previously redacted sections of Ms. Rodal’s report explore, among other cases, the case of F, from Latvia, a suspected firing-squad captain. He had been convicted in absentia by the Soviet Union. A 1965 memo by the legal division of External Affairs observed that the Soviet Union had requested his extradition to embarrass the Canadian government, but that at the same time, Canada had no reason to doubt the truth of the accusations. If true, the memo says, F was “an ardent Nazi lackey, not only cooperating actively with the occupying German forces but actually serving their Jewish and Gypsy extermination squads.” The memo said Canada had denied requests for extradition in at least four cases.

When the Canadian Jewish Congress asked in 1966 for a re-examination of the legal possibilities for action, a meeting across government departments was held. Two ideas for addressing war criminals were rejected: the revocation of citizenship for failing to disclose details of their past, and therefore not being of “good character” as required in citizenship applications; and retroactive legislation to allow for trials in Canada. There was a caveat: If a major war criminal such as Martin Bormann, who was once suspected of being in Canada, turned up, retroactive laws might be considered.

Mr. Trudeau later wrote, in a memo to Paul Martin Sr., who was secretary of state for external affairs, that nothing in Canadian law suggests a citizenship application is “in the nature of a confessional, requiring the applicant to disclose all prior conduct.”

On the subject of F, the alleged firing squad captain, Mr. Trudeau added that while anxiety in the Jewish community was understandable, “it would be most ill-advised for the government to undertake this venture, which would involve publicly accusing a Canadian citizen of having committed crimes in Latvia in respect of which he has been convicted, in absentia, in Russia.” Such a move, Mr. Trudeau said in a separate memo, could suggest widespread revocations of citizenship ahead.

…..Mr. Matas said Mr. Trudeau has since been proven wrong on his legal concerns, as the courts have allowed the revocation of citizenship for intentional non-disclosure.

Source: Ottawa declassifies more details from Rodal report on Nazi war criminals in Canada

Israel Must Not Revoke Their Citizenship – Haaretz Editorial

Of note. Hopefully one outcome of the war will be the replacement of the Netanyahu government and these extreme ministers:

On October 7, the Israeli Arab actress Maisa Abd Elhadi published two posts. In one, she captioned an image of Yaffa Adar, 85, being abducted by Hamas from her home in Kibbutz Nir Oz, with the text, “The lady is going on the adventure of her life.” The other showed a tractor breaking through the fence, captioned “Let’s go Berlin style.”

A few days later she was arrested, and last week she was charged with incitement to terrorism and expressing solidarity with a terror organization.

Interior Minister Moshe Arbel was not content with that, and called for the revocation of her citizenship. On Thursday, he approved the publication of a draft law he wrote with Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the architect of the government’s judicial coup, that would enable the revocation of citizenship or residency of a citizen or resident who incited to terrorism or expressed support for terror during wartime.

Levin and Arbel want to expand the list of acts for which citizenship can be revoked. According to their proposal, citizenship could be revoked from anyone who supported terrorism, incited to terrorism or sympathized with a terror organization “while a special situation had been declared in the home front, due to the aggravated severity attended to the commission of such acts at wartime.”

The list of acts included under this definition includes the publication of statements of praise, support or sympathy, waving a flag, displaying or publishing a symbol or displaying, playing or publishing of a slogan or anthem in order to express solidarity.

Arbel and Levin are arming Israel with a weapon that allows it to embark on a literal witch hunt, particularly after Arab citizens. A situation of war does not justify such hysterics. Revocation of citizenship is a draconian step (the practical upshot of which is deportation, or leaving a person stateless) that should not be used, let alone for offenses such as incitement or the expression of identification. We also must not lose the critical distinction between someone publishing a post and those committing or aiding a terror attack.

In addition, according to the bill the person authorized to revoke the citizenship of a person convicted of such offenses will be the interior minister, acting on the recommendation of an advisory committee and the concurrence of the justice minister. Judicial review, according to the draft law, will take place after the decision is made.

In other words, Arbel and Levin will be able to revoke citizenship without court involvement. This is unlimited power, worse than that envisioned by the coup. The government is not a punitive agency; that is the role of the courts. The government coup was stopped, but under the cover of war Levin has continued his fight to eliminate the separation of powers.

This bill could contribute to the silencing of entire groups within Israeli society at best and to political persecution, revocation of citizenship and mass expulsion at worst. Such power cannot be placed in the hands of the government, not even in wartime.

Source: Israel Must Not Revoke Their Citizenship – Haaretz Editorial – Haaretz