SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
citizenship
'Where Were You Born?' ICE Conducting Show-Me-Your-Papers Stops in Minnesota Neighborhoods
"I was scared. I was devastated," said a Somali-American citizen who was accosted by ICE as part of what the agent called a "citizen check." No such thing exists in American law.
Jan 13, 2026
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents deployed to Minnesota are pulling many nonwhite residents aside and asking them to prove their citizenship, according to several reports and multiple videos posted to social media this week amid the Trump administration's surge of immigration agents to Minneapolis.
There is no federal law requiring US citizens to carry proof of their citizenship, and immigration agents are barred from carrying out indiscriminate searches unless they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is in the country without authorization.
And yet, one video, posted on Sunday by a Somali resident of Minneapolis, a US citizen named Nimco Omar, shows a group of agents accosting her and asking her to show her identification as part of what they said was a "citizen check."
Omar said she was on a walk when masked agents who "looked like soldiers" approached her and began questioning her.
The video shows one of the agents asking Omar, "Do you have an ID on you, ma'am?"
She replied: "I don't need an ID to walk around in my city. This is my city."
"OK, do you have some ID, then, please?" the officer asked. "If not, we're going to put you in the vehicle, and we're going to ID you."
Omar responded: "I am a US citizen. I don't need to carry around an ID in my home. This is my home."
After being repeatedly asked, "Where were you born?" Omar replied simply, "Minneapolis is my home."
The agent then told her: "We're doing an immigration check. We're doing a citizen check."
Another agent then pulled out his cellphone and, without asking, appeared to snap a picture of Omar, likely to run through a facial recognition application that ICE has used to verify the status of people it detains—including citizens.
Omar continued to hold her ground, telling the agents: "I’m a US citizen. I don’t have to identify myself. I belong here—and it doesn’t matter where I was born.” After failing to get an answer, the agents then walked away.
"I was scared. I was devastated. I never imagined that something like this could happen to me in the United States," Omar wrote in a social media post documenting the encounter. "As a community member who grew up here, who built a life here, and who calls Minnesota home, I want to be clear: This is not acceptable. This is not something we should ever normalize. This is not what the United States of America is supposed to look like."
The scene was just the latest report of immigration agents conducting what Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said was "unlawful racial profiling by DHS agents" in a lawsuit against the agency filed Monday by the state of Minnesota. Illinois filed a similar but separate suit Monday.
"We're doing a citizen check."
Since last week, when ICE agent Jonathan Ross was filmed fatally shooting 37-year-old Renee Good in a Minneapolis neighborhood—which Vice President JD Vance said in a press conference occurred during "door-to-door" sweeps by ICE in search of undocumented migrants—several other similar cases have been documented in which immigration agents have approached nonwhite US citizens demanding they prove their citizenship.
In another case, on the same day of Good's shooting, a Somali Uber driver was pulled over outside the Minneapolis airport and asked to prove his citizenship. One of the agents told the driver he did not believe the driver's claim to be a citizen because "I can hear you don’t have the same accent as me," and asked the man where he was born repeatedly.
It mirrored another case from December in which another Somali man, a US citizen identified only as Mubashir, was tackled to the ground by immigration agents who refused to accept his government-issued Real ID as proof of citizenship.
Outcry over that case prompted Gregory Bovino, the commander at large of the US Border Patrol, who has taken part in several stops and raids as part of the Trump administration's operation in Minneapolis, to falsely claim that US citizens "must carry immigration documents" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
About 83% of Somalis living in the US are citizens, according to census data. However, Minneapolis' large Somali population—which has an even higher rate of US citizenship—has been used as a justification by President Donald Trump to flood the city with immigration agents. In recent months, the president has referred to Somalis as “garbage” and called for them all to be deported from the country.
But Somalis have not been the only targets of arbitrary "citizenship" checks in recent days.
Another video, filmed on the day of Good's shooting, showed agents pinning a Hispanic Target employee, 17-year-old Jonathan Aguilar Garcia, to the ground, along with another employee, after asking him whether he was a US citizen. Even after shouting multiple times that he was a citizen and showing his government ID, Garcia was reportedly taken to an undisclosed location for hours with no notice given to his family about where he was or when he'd return.
In another case, detailed in the Minnesota lawsuit, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents "approached a team of four Minneapolis Public Works employees, working in Minneapolis and wearing city uniforms and badges. The agents asked the three nonwhite city employees for identification and questioned each of them about their citizenship and place of birth. The agents did not ask to see any identification or ask any questions of the fourth employee, who was white."
Four members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, who were homeless and living under a bridge, were also reportedly detained last week and have still not yet been located. The tribe's president has directed members to declare their tribal affiliation when encountering immigration officers, which makes them US citizens and therefore not subject to immigration enforcement.
"DHS said they were 'highly targeted' and go after 'the worst of the worst,'" said the Democrats on the House Committee on Homeland Security in a post on social media responding to agents' questioning of Omar. "In reality, DHS is indiscriminately profiling Black and brown American citizens.
They urged readers: "Protect yourself and your neighbors and film everything."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Renee Good's Murder: A Rorschach Test About Defiance, Vulnerability, and Community
At the heart of this test lie two irreconcilable viewpoints: those who align themselves with armed agents and the task of protecting America from the “enemy within,” and those who embrace compassion for others. Between those with the guns, and those with the whistles.
Jan 12, 2026
On January 7, Renee Nicole Good was murdered by Jonathan Ross, an “experienced” Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent with more than 10 years with the agency.
This tragic event was recorded from multiple angles. This includes a video recorded by Ross himself during the confrontation. If you ask me, these videos, alongside detailed frame-by-frame breakdowns produced by the media, clearly show that Good had no intention to hit Ross. She had no malice toward him. She literally says, “That’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you.”
Ross was not in any danger. He didn’t need to shoot, let alone shoot three times. It was not self-defense. He murdered Good—or, as he saw her, a “fucking bitch.”
Yet, many conservatives saw things completely differently. At a press hearing on January 8, Vice President JD Vance remarked, "Everybody who has been repeating the lie that this was some innocent woman who was out for a drive in Minneapolis when a law enforcement officer shot at her, you should be ashamed of yourselves, every single one of you.” This viewpoint was shared by Republicans in Congress, like Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) and Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), conservative commentators like Jesse Watters and Steven Crowder, and, of course, the world’s most chronically online billionaire Elon Musk.
We have no obligation to follow unjust laws. Our duty, as those who believe in democracy and freedom, is to challenge authoritarianism and injustice anytime and anywhere.
It may be tempting to argue that these people are all simply lying. However, that response overlooks that it’s not just political commentators and politicians—across social media, people are seeing what Vance and others claim.
Here it is important to remember that perception is not neutral. The world we see is very much shaped by our beliefs, values, and our commitments. This doesn’t mean that everything is relative. For instance, it’s clear that Ross fired after he was no longer in the path of Good’s car. But, while some like Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem are blatantly lying, others really are seeing something different here. The question then is: why? What is the basis for these discrepancies? And what does it tell us about where we’re at as a society?
The murder of Renee Nicole Good is a political Rorschach test. At the heart of this test lie two irreconcilable viewpoints: those who align themselves with armed agents and the task of protecting America from the “enemy within,” and those who embrace compassion for others and support their diverse communities. Between those with the guns, and those with the whistles. Between those who think that what happened to Good could never happen to them, and those who see in Good’s death their own vulnerability.
These opposing viewpoints reflect deep divides regarding how Americans think about defiance, vulnerability, and community.
A Test of Defiance
For those who immediately see Good as “a domestic terrorist,” the issue is not about criminality. ICE agents are not police officers. They can only lawfully detain citizens under very narrow circumstances, such as if they interfere with an arrest or assault an agent. None of these conditions applied to Good. She was, by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) own standards, outside the scope of their limited authority.
The issue is not about criminality, malice, or citizenship. It’s about defiance. This sentiment is captured in an op-ed written by the conservative New York Post Editorial Board. They place “full blame” for Good’s death on the Democrats for “cheering law-breaking protesters, calling for resistance to ICE as if it weren’t a duly constituted law enforcement agency.” They emphasize that, “anyone who doesn’t like how the law is enforced is free to work to elect different leaders, and to advocate for different laws. If you absolutely must object, then employ genuine, orderly civil disobedience and go peacefully off to jail afterward.”
For the board, those of us critical of ICE, DHS, and the Trump administration have two options: obey, or protest and go to jail. Though ideally, in their view, everyone should simply allow ICE agents to do their work unimpededly. As they write, “If the civilians had just left the law enforcers alone, Renee Nicole Good would still be alive.” Without explicitly saying so, the board blames Good for her death.
Central to this view are two key assumptions: first, “law-breaking protesters” are always in the wrong; and second, that legality alone makes law enforcement legitimate. The board is wrong on both fronts. We have no obligation to follow unjust laws. Our duty, as those who believe in democracy and freedom, is to challenge authoritarianism and injustice anytime and anywhere. The government is no exception.
We should also all be mindful that immigration enforcement officers have a long history of putting themselves in danger to justify violence. For instance, a 2013 review of US Border Patrol by the nonprofit Police Executive Research Forum found that agents “have intentionally and unnecessarily stepped in front of moving cars to justify using deadly force against vehicle occupants.”
A Test of Vulnerability
This is a test about vulnerability. Dan McLaughlin, a fellow at the conservative National Review Institute, argues that Good “had to actively try to make herself a target for an ICE agent. That was her choice, not ICE’s.”
Many of Ross’ supporters see the situation similarly—ICE poses no immediate threat to citizens. If an ICE agent gives a citizen an order, they have no reason to refuse. They implicitly trust that ICE will respect their status as Americans. On this view, Good put herself in danger; she made herself vulnerable to police violence. Thus, she is at fault.
Yet, as has been widely reported, ICE have surveilled, approached, assaulted, arrested, and detained US citizens. For Muslims, people of color and immigrants alike, citizenship offers no protections. Some of us don’t have the privilege to forget about the ways in which we are different.
When I see video from that day, I see Good being murdered. I see a version of America that betrays its most cherished ideals. I see community resilience and the attempts by armed officers to silence it.
Even if an act of injustice does not directly impact us, that’s not a reason to do nothing. Yet this is precisely what some believe. Conservative commentator Matt Walsh, for instance, posts: “This lesbian agitator gave her life to protect Somali scammers who couldn’t give less of a shit about her. The most disgraceful and humiliating end a person could possibly meet.”
Walsh’s comment is both homophobic and racist. It also demonstrates something very true about the nature of bigotry. The homophobe is always a racist; the racist is always a sexist; the sexist is always a xenophobe. Bigotry is inherently irrational and irrationality knows no bounds. As a woman in a same-sex marriage, Good likely understood this. As a Christian, she acknowledged her duty to help others in need.
A Test of Community
Finally, this is a test about belonging and community. For some, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), ICE agents “are under unprecedented siege by radical leftist open border activists. This video […] shows you the danger our ICE agents are under.” But I would argue that it’s the exact opposite. American communities are under siege by federal agents empowered by an administration openly hostile to its own citizens.
When I see video from that day, I see Good being murdered. I see a version of America that betrays its most cherished ideals. I see community resilience and the attempts by armed officers to silence it.
But, in the aftermath, I see hope in the form of nationwide anti-ICE protests. I see a public that will not be gaslit by lies and falsehoods from those in power. I see that, despite the best efforts of the Trump administration, we haven’t yet lost what makes America great.
Keep ReadingShow Less
For People of Color, Citizenship Offers No Protection Against ICE’s Techno Terrorism
The only thing that definitively clears suspicion for ICE is biometric identification. The presumption is that people may lie, documents may be forged, but biometric scans are objective and certain. People are guilty until an algorithm proves them innocent.
Dec 20, 2025
On December 9, Mubashir, a Minneapolis man who has chosen to only disclose his first name, was wrongly arrested by Immigration and Custom Enforcement for the crime of stepping “outside as a Somali American.” During his lunch break, masked men tackled him onto the ground, dragged him across the road, choked, and restrained him. Mubashir insisted that he was a US citizen. He repeatedly offered to show the men his digital passport, as well as to provide his name and date of birth to prove his citizenship. The agents refused.
Instead, they forced him to undergo a facial recognition scan to prove his identity. After several failed attempts to scan his face, he was arrested and taken to a detainment center. Mubashir was held for several hours without medical assistance or water, until eventually he was given the opportunity to present his passport. He was released after being subjected to fingerprint scanning.
Mubashir’s case is horrifying, but it’s becoming a common occurrence in President Donald Trump’s America. In April, Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez was arrested, detained. and threatened with deportation after “biometrics indicated he was not a citizen.” This, despite his insistence that he was a US-born citizen and offering his Real ID as proof. Lopez-Gomez was eventually released once his story gained national news coverage.
Another example: two ICE agents stopped Jesus Gutiérrez after he exited a Chicago gym. He didn’t have any identification on him, but he told officers he was a US citizen. Agents took a facial scan using the app Mobile Fortify to determine his legal status. While Gutiérrez wasn’t arrested, the experience left him traumatized.
Somehow, for the Trump administration, a voter ID is enough to prove one’s citizenship at the ballot box, but a Real ID is not enough proof if masked men randomly assault and question you about your legal status on the street.
In each of these cases, a person of color is stopped without probable cause or justification, forced to undergo biometric scans, and has their freedom left to the discretion of an algorithm.
These technologies function to silence those whose rights are being violated. Mubashir, Lopez-Gomez, and Gutiérrez all insisted that they were citizens—they all told the truth. However, for those agents, their words, even their state and federal documentation, were insufficient. Under ICE’s technologically driven terrorism, the only thing that definitively clears suspicion is biometric identification. The presumption is that people may lie, documents may be forged, but biometric scans are objective and certain. People are guilty until an algorithm proves them innocent.
However, biometric scanners are far from precision tools. Several of the problems with these technologies are spelled out in the Biometric Technology Report jointly submitted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). According to the report, factors such as “facial features, expressions, obstructions, exposure, and image quality” can all influence the results of biometric scanners. Moreover, a “key challenge” for facial recognition algorithms is that they are more likely to err “when comparing images of two people who look comparatively similar,” such as family members. These algorithms also “yield consistently higher false positive match rates when applied to racial minorities.” This is the algorithmic bias problem.
DHS, as a co-author of the report, is clearly aware of these problems. Yet, they still choose to prioritize these algorithms when confronting people they merely suspect of being undocumented—a feature that is impossible to tell simply by looking at a person.
This choice, however, is strategic. DHS and ICE are using these algorithms to help minimize their own responsibility. If Mubashir is arrested, it’s because the biometric scan was inconclusive. If Lopez-Gomez is detained, it’s because the algorithm says so. If Gutiérrez is released, it’s because the algorithm cleared him. The responsibility for the arrests, threats, and psychological harms these people experience has now been offshored onto an algorithm that cannot be held accountable.
After all, if the algorithm incorrectly identifies you as being undocumented, who do you appeal to? Even if the system is wrong, it’s now the voice of the accused against a voiceless algorithm. Unless an actual person is finally willing to listen to you, your words and documents won’t matter. Unless the press—an institution that is constantly under attack by the Trump administration—raises the alarm on your behalf, you may find yourself detained for weeks.
Even if someone speaks out after they’re released, DHS simply denies any wrongdoing. Despite more than 170 confirmed cases of US citizens being kidnapped by ICE agents, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem still claims that “we have never once detained or deported an American citizen. We have not held them or charged them. When we find their identity, then that is when they are released.”
What’s interesting here is this notion that “their identity” must be found, as if it’s some grand mystery that requires an entire array of surveillance and identification technologies. As if this problem hasn’t already been solved by the invention of identification documents. Somehow, for the Trump administration, a voter ID is enough to prove one’s citizenship at the ballot box, but a Real ID is not enough proof if masked men randomly assault and question you about your legal status on the street.
DHS claims that biometrics “help enable operational missions, both to support national security and public safety, and deliver benefits and services with greater efficiency and accuracy.” The reality is that these technologies widen the scope of who is vulnerable to ICE’s secret police. So long as the algorithm legitimizes the agent’s racial profiling, anyone can become a legitimate target of state violence. This violence has already been judicially legitimized by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s absurd ruling that immigration agents can deliberately target people on the basis of race, language, employment, or location.
The threat of biometric and surveillance technologies is only growing larger. DHS is still heavily investing in more invasive technologies that target undocumented immigrants and citizens alike. This will be a different struggle, but there are things we can do right now. First, we need to support independent news organizations that work to keep the public informed. The extent to which we know about many of these technologies is due entirely to the incredible work being done by journalists.
Second, we need to build tools and networks to support each other. This includes developing our own technologies to warn people about ICE raids, such as the website “People over Papers” and the “ICEBlock” app. Recording and posting pictures of ICE’s cruelty to popular social media sites is also incredibly important. The people who recorded Mubashir’s illegal arrest helped his story become national news.
Third, we need to put more pressure on Democrats to curb this violence. Democratic candidates running in 2026 are already integrating calls to “Abolish ICE” into their platforms. There is also movement at the state and federal level to stop ICE kidnappings. This includes bills like California’s SB 805 and SB 627 and Illinois’ HB1312, as well as HR 4456 and HR 4843. Even the recent House Homeland Security Committee saw Democrats holding Noem responsible for ICE’s abuses. These are positive steps, but more work is still needed.
While the road will be daunting, together, we can keep each other safe.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight-Up Nazi Stuff': Trump Admin Plans to Strip More Naturalized Americans of Citizenship
"Requiring monthly quotas that are 10 times higher than the total annual number of denaturalizations in recent years," said one former immigration official, "turns a serious and rare tool into a blunt instrument and fuels unnecessary fear and uncertainty."
Dec 18, 2025
Policy experts were skeptical Wednesday that the Trump administration could legally or practically carry out its threat to strip more naturalized Americans of their citizenship. Still, they warned that new guidance issued by the White House to immigration officials would ramp up "fear and terror" in immigrant communities and could portend the targeting of naturalized citizens who President Donald Trump views as adversaries.
The guidance was issued Tuesday to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field offices, with officers directed to supply the Department of Justice (DOJ) with "100-200 denaturalization cases per month” in the 2026 fiscal year.
The denaturalization process is "deliberately hard" for the federal government, noted American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and stripping people of the citizenship is a rare step only taken in cases of fraud when they applied to be a citizen or in other narrow circumstances.
As such, between 2017-25, there have been just over 120 denaturalization cases filed with the Office of Immigration Litigation at the DOJ.
Under the first Trump administration, denaturalization cases peaked at 90 in one year in 2018, and the directive issued Tuesday signaled the White House is aiming for a far bigger escalation as it also continues its mass deportation operation and blocks people from seeking asylum as they are permitted to under international law.
Reichlin-Melnick called the directive for a denaturalization quota "vicious and cruel," and pointed out that the president is asking USCIS and the DOJ to take on an onerous task.
"These cases are hard to file and win, and require a lot of DOJ resources, and the DOJ is stretched thin already. So we’ll see; I have serious doubts about their ability to do this," said Reichlin-Melnick.
USCIS refers cases to the DOJ, which must prove in a federal court that it has "unequivocal evidence" that someone obtained their citizenship illegally or fraudulently.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that citizenship and naturalization are too precious and fundamental to our democracy for the government to take it away on their whim. Instead of wasting resources digging through Americans’ files, USCIS should do its job of processing applications, as Congress mandated,” Amanda Baran, a former senior USCIS official who served during the Biden administration, told the New York Times.
Naturalized Americans account for 26 million people in the US, with 800,000 people sworn in last year. In most cases, a person who loses their citizenship status is classified as a legal permanent resident.
Trump has repeatedly called to denaturalize Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and to deport her over her criticism of his policies, and has made the same threat against New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist.
In those threatened cases, wrote Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, earlier this month, "it appears that crime isn’t so much a motivation as disloyalty."
"Stripping citizens of their citizenship in the name of making the electorate more 'American' is arguably one of the most un-American acts imaginable," wrote Waldman. "We are a nation of immigrants and also a nation of laws. The courts must continue to ensure that those laws protect naturalized citizens from being punished for speaking out."
Three other Brennan Center experts also recently wrote about the history of denaturalization efforts in the US, including during the "Red Scare" of the 1950s:
Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin led witch hunts, with denaturalization often used as a tool against accused communists or sympathizers. Among those targets was Harry Bridges, an Australian-born, nationally known labor leader accused of being a communist, who faced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign to revoke his citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, not once, but twice.
"This is straight-up Nazi stuff and I’m calling on my fellow Jewish Americans who know where this can lead to be in the vanguard against it," said Dylan Willams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, also noting that the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee has endorsed Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who has called for the denaturalization and expulsion of Muslim Americans and immigrants.
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS official, told the Times that Trump's quota for denaturalization cases "risks politicizing citizenship revocation" as it has been in the past.
“And requiring monthly quotas that are 10 times higher than the total annual number of denaturalizations in recent years," she said, "turns a serious and rare tool into a blunt instrument and fuels unnecessary fear and uncertainty for the millions of naturalized Americans.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dreamers, Birthright, and Belonging: What Does It Mean To Be An American?
You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be American enough to belong.
Dec 14, 2025
On December 4, Senators Dick Durbin and Lisa Murkowski reintroduced the bipartisan Dream Act to Congress—24 years after it was first introduced. If passed, it would create a pathway for citizenship for people who were brought to the US as children and meet certain requirements.
The Dream Act, whether now or in 2001, is a commonsense measure. Even if one believes that undocumented immigrants have committed a crime, their children are innocent. To meet the eligibility requirements, they must have proficiency in English; be knowledgeable of US history; not have committed any serious crimes; and have either served in the military, worked, or gained an education. These are not the “illegal alien gang members” that President Donald Trump insists must be deported.
Trump himself acknowledges this. In a 2024 interview with Kristen Welker, he said, “In many cases, they become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases, they have small businesses, some cases they might have large businesses. And we’re going to have to do something with them.” When Welker asked him to clarify whether he wants “them to be able to stay,” he replied, “I do.”
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. The Dream Act will fail again. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has already tried to strip 525,000 DACA recipients of their benefits this year. DHS Assistant Press Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has even urged recipients to self-deport, noting that they “are not automatically protected from deportations.”
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide.
In fact, Trump is one Supreme Court decision away from creating a new class of Dreamer.
On December 5, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. His executive order would deny citizenship to children born in the US of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.
Those children, despite being born here, will effectively become neo-Dreamers. Another group of people whom the US government would be failing to recognize and protect. The major difference between Dreamers and these neo-Dreamers would be the basis of their belonging—the reason why, despite everything, they are Americans.
The Dreamers are American by virtue of having lived and built a life here. Their identity, values, and communities are tied to the US. As Marie Gonzalez-Deel explains, “No matter what, I will always consider the United States of America my home. I love this country. Only in America would a person like me have the opportunity to tell my story to people like you. Many may argue that because I have a Costa Rican birth certificate, I am Costa Rican and should be sent back to that country. If I am sent back there, sure I'd be with my Mom and Dad, but I'd be torn away from loved ones that are my family here, and from everything I have known since I was a child.” The Dreamers are American by action and deed.
For the neo-Dreamers, the justification would rest largely on the legality and constitutionality of their birthright claim. The neo-Dreamers would be American by right.
The Dreamers and neo-Dreamers represent two different ways of conceptualizing what it means to be an American. Yet, for the Trump administration, neither is sufficient. You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be an American. But then, who is?
Trump claims that he’s “America First.” But who exactly is he putting first? Whether it's defunding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, letting Obamacare subsidies expire, limiting states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence, conducting military-style raids in American cities, rolling back Environmental Protection Agency air quality protections, recommending controversial vaccine schedules, imposing tariffs that raise prices for everyone, eliminating the SAVE student loan repayment plan, or dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, his policies overwhelmingly harm US citizens and immigrants alike.
In Trump’s America, only the Trump family and the ultra wealthy benefit. So perhaps instead of focusing on him, we should start thinking about what we, as Americans, think about who we are and what we represent. I’ll start: To me, Americans have contributed to the US and allowed the US to shape their lives and sense of self. By contributing, I don’t simply mean in the economic sense. Cultural and interpersonal contributions are just as if not more significant. We are more than laborers. The value we add to our communities cannot be reduced to GDP or market value.
By shaping their lives and sense of self, I don’t simply mean assimilation or acculturation. Being with others is always a two-way street. Each of us enriches the lives of others, and our lives are enriched in turn. We grow together.
A community, at its core, is a collective achievement. Citizens and immigrants, in many diverse ways, work together to maintain and nourish that achievement. We build together. Whatever problems we face, we solve them together. And yes, sometimes, we stumble and lose our way together. Progress is not a straight line. But we must never lose sight of who we are and what we represent.
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide. It’s our country, we decide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Denaturalization Rhetoric Violates the Laws and Spirit of America
Stripping citizens of their citizenship in the name of making the electorate more “American” is arguably one of the most un-American acts imaginable.
Dec 05, 2025
You might think that when you are a US citizen, you cannot have that status taken away. You would be wrong, it turns out. And behind that fact is a long and often ugly history.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump said that he would “absolutely” denaturalize American citizens if he could. It comes after a wave of harsh rhetoric directed toward immigrants after the tragic shooting of two National Guard members last week.
Yes, the words that the president says have been discounted. But there’s policy behind the rhetorical provocation.
Denaturalization is the process of stripping citizenship from someone who obtained it illegally, such as by not meeting the requirements or by committing fraud or lying during the application process. At first, government interpreted that standard loosely, leading to years of abuse.
As my colleagues Faiza Patel, Margy O’Herron, and Kendall Verhovek explain:
More than 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship between 1907 and 1967 based on political affiliations, race, and gender, according to denaturalization scholar Patrick Weil. President Woodrow Wilson’s administration began denaturalizing German- and Asian-born citizens during World War I, along with anarchists and people who spoke out against the war. During World War II, a push for denaturalization of naturalized citizens from Germany, Italy, and Japan intensified. A primary target included members of the pro-Nazi German-American Bund for disloyalty and insufficient attachment to the principles of the Constitution.
After the war, the Second Red Scare took hold of a country fearful of domestic communism amid its emergence abroad. Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin led witch hunts, with denaturalization often used as a tool against accused communists or sympathizers. Among those targets was Harry Bridges, an Australian-born, nationally known labor leader accused of being a communist, who faced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign to revoke his citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, not once, but twice.
As Weil puts it, a process that was intended to redress fraud and illegality in the naturalization process became used to “expel from the body politic ‘un-American’ citizens.” But even during wartime, the Supreme Court responded, limiting its use.
Throughout the 20th century, the court issued several rulings setting a high bar for denaturalization. In 1943, the court struck down a move to denaturalize Russian-born William Schneiderman over ties to the Communist Party, requiring a “heavy burden” for rescinding citizenship. And in 1946, the court warned against the use of denaturalization as a “ready instrument for political persecutions.” It’s why in recent decades, denaturalization attempts have been appropriately rare... until now.
Over the summer, Trump directed Justice Department lawyers to “maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings.” At the time, a spokesperson said that “denaturalization proceedings will only be pursued as permitted by law and supported by evidence against individuals who illegally procured or misrepresented facts in the naturalization process.” Trump’s parameters seem to be much broader. In his Thanksgiving Truth Social post, he said he would “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.”
Among his targets? Trump has repeatedly suggested that he is open to denaturalizing New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). When asked about Elon Musk, he told the press, “We’ll have to take a look.” It appears that crime isn’t so much a motivation as disloyalty; the law isn’t so much a motivation as impulse.
But we shouldn’t mistake impulse for foolishness.
It’s all part of a broader effort to target the rights of immigrants and redefine who is an American. That started on Inauguration Day with the effort to eliminate birthright citizenship, a right that is explicitly in the Constitution. And it’s part of efforts to reverse what top administration officials have called a conspiracy to alter the makeup of the electorate. In an interview, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, accused previous administrations of admitting immigrants to “make them all citizens and then spread them out to try to change demographics elsewhere in the country.” And on the campaign trail last year, Trump adviser Stephen Miller declared, “America is for Americans and Americans only.”
Stripping citizens of their citizenship in the name of making the electorate more “American” is arguably one of the most un-American acts imaginable. More than a century ago, the Supreme Court held that naturalized citizens are on the same footing as those born in the country, and for decades, the Supreme Court has made clear that stripping citizens of their citizenship due to their views or expressions “would run counter to our traditions.”
We are a nation of immigrants and also a nation of laws. The courts must continue to ensure that those laws protect naturalized citizens from being punished for speaking out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citizenship Is No Protection Against Trump's Deportation Machine
It seems that those who do not fit the racial profile of a "true" American, even if they are citizens of this country, are also considered "enemy within," judging by the way they trample on their rights during indiscriminate detentions.
Oct 10, 2025
Not even US citizens are safe from this administration's deportation machine, which considers it "reasonable" to detain a person based on their physical appearance, where they work, or where they are at the moment of a raid.
It is a policy that justifies the use of racial profiling against those who do not fit the concept of what it means to be "American." If you look Hispanic, they can question your immigration status even if you are a third-generation American.
The president has reiterated in recent days that he is fighting the "enemy within,” and this seems to be directed not only at his political opponents, individuals and organizations that do not share his ideology, or immigrants whom he labels as criminals. It seems that those who do not fit the racial profile of a "true" American, even if they are citizens of this country, are also considered "enemy within," judging by the way they trample on their rights during indiscriminate detentions.
They also persecute entire cities that Democrats lead and that this administration argues are "out of control" either because they are home to immigrants or because of their crime rates, which, incidentally, are lower than the crime rates in many Republican cities that his government does not even mention.
"I feel like there's nothing I can do to stop immigration agents from arresting me whenever they want. I just want to work in peace. The Constitution protects my ability to do that."
Thus, they use the narrative of the "enemy within" to justify the use of the National Guard and the military to conduct police work in clear violation of laws that restrict and limit the military's interaction with the civilian population due to the danger it may pose.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, "the Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law. This nearly 150-year-old law embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty. However, recent events have revealed dangerous gaps in the law's coverage that Congress must address."
It is these "dangerous gaps" that President Donald Trump is trying to exploit to" normalize" the military presence in American cities, especially if African American Democrats lead them and they have high percentages of Hispanics, African Americans, and immigrants in their populations.
What's more, these cities can be used to train the military, according to Trump.
"I told Pete (Hegseth, Secretary of War) we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military, National Guard but military, because we’re going into Chicago very soon,” Trump said recently. In fact, the Texas National Guard has already arrived in Chicago ahead of the anticipated deployment.
America's Voice highlighted some 15 cases of citizens who have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), some violently, despite having identification.
Cases such as that of Leonardo García Venegas, a US citizen who has just filed a lawsuit against ICE for detaining him not once but twice in Baldwin, Alabama. The agents argued that Venegas' REAL ID was fake.
"I feel like there's nothing I can do to stop immigration agents from arresting me whenever they want. I just want to work in peace. The Constitution protects my ability to do that," García Venegas said through his lawyers.
Cary López Alvarado, born in Los Angeles, California, was pushed and detained by ICE despite being pregnant.
George Retes, a US citizen and war veteran from Camarillo, California, was detained for three days without the right to make calls or seek legal representation during an ICE operation at a farm where he works as a security guard. "It would have taken them two minutes to check my papers and confirm that I was a citizen. Instead, they arrested me because I was there," Retes said. He told Telemundo that no one, “whether undocumented, a citizen, or a veteran,” deserves to be treated the way they did him just because of his physical appearance.
Retes sued the federal government and is represented by the Institute for Justice. “John Adams famously said that we are a nation of laws, not of men. That is not true if federal agents can, with impunity, strip Americans like George of their rights,” said Marie Miller, an attorney with the Institute.
The fact is that even citizens are not immune to Trump's anti-immigrant crusade, which has little to do with security and much to do with trampling on rights and protections in his quest to control who is a true American.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Attacks on Citizenship Reveal a Deeper Problem with ‘Citizenship’ Itself
We must reimagine a world where freedom and equality are guaranteed to all, no matter their status.
Aug 14, 2025
There are two main paths to citizenship in the United States: birthright, which is guaranteed to those born on US soil or to citizen parents, and naturalization, a process applied for after immigrating.
The Trump administration is attempting to upend these long-held and widely accepted rules, arguing for an end to birthright citizenship, which is constitutionally protected, while attacking the naturalization status of populations across the country.
These attacks on citizenship come amid a substantial investment in immigration crackdowns. The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” allocates an unprecedented $178 billion toward immigration enforcement, a figure higher than the military budgets of entire nations and a price tag 13 times greater than Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) already booming budget.
And we know exactly what this expansion will be used for.
America’s immigration system must honor human rights for everyone, especially those at the margins.
In just the first few months of the Trump administration, ICE agents donning masks and unmarked clothing have surveilled, interrogated, and kidnapped individuals off the streets en masse. Arbitrary arrest quotas fill overcrowded, inhumane, and unsanitary detention centers. And despite claims that only “criminals” are being targeted, people of all backgrounds—including students, politicians, children, and U.S.-born citizens—are being arrested and abused, stripped of their dignity and humanity.
Trump is undoubtedly culpable for these abuses. But he did not invent the playbook. He simply adapted the rules long built into this country’s citizenship policies—both the implicit and explicit ones.
US citizenship has always been negotiated between those the state deemed worthy and unworthy. Race and gender have long restricted individuals from obtaining citizenship and the privileges granted with it. The 14th Amendment, the guarantor of jus soli, transformed the status and rights of all those to come—myself included. I would not be a US citizen without this code.
But documents and formalities cannot erase the existence of an informal, second-class citizenry that continues to pervade American society.
Native Americans, Indigenous peoples native to these lands, were denied this framework of legality and excluded from guaranteed citizenship for generations. Systems of oppression, domination, and exclusion allowed white bodies to be favored over Black and brown ones—even when they held and waved that landmark document, demanding their civil liberties be guaranteed and protected. Those born in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico and Guam continue to lack meaningful electoral rights and, in American Samoa’s case, even citizenship itself.
An examination of the difficult and lengthy naturalization process reveals further discrepancies. Volume 12 Part F states that individuals must possess “good moral character” to become naturalized, a measure that is both vague and arbitrary. Any conduct or act that deviates from a community’s moral standard is grounds for both denial of citizenship and denaturalization if citizenship is already obtained.
But how is morality defined? Immoral behavior is outlined by the state—murder, aggravated felonies, genocide, and torture are some examples listed. But aggravated felonies also include failing to appear in court. So when we see ICE arresting immigrants at court hearings and scaring others from appearing out of fear of arrest, suddenly the intent behind these actions becomes clear.
In this system, any action or inaction becomes punishable—including the “crime” of being an immigrant. Notably, this “moral character” clause has existed since the Naturalization Act of 1790—a reminder that these pursuits are not a recent political development but built into our founding documents.
Now, the Justice Department is expanding its criteria for denaturalization, using the definitions established by Congress centuries ago. A recent Justice Department memo orders those accused of involvement with terrorist, gang, or cartel groups to be targeted for deportation or even stripped of their citizenship, an indicator of their “immoral character.”
But the administration’s definition of “terrorism” and “criminal involvement” is both flawed and targeted. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, accused of being a member of MS-13, an international criminal gang, was wrongfully deported and imprisoned in El Salvador without due process—a move that was actually illegal, given that a court order barred his deportation to El Salvador on account of the gang threats and violence he faced there.
In another example, Rümeysa Öztürk, a PhD student at Tufts, cowrote an op-ed criticizing the university’s response to resolutions passed by its student body about Israel’s violations of international law. She was subsequently kidnapped and detained in an ICE prison for months.
These are simply two instances of a series of repeated offenses committed by the US government. In an effort to apprehend and throw out immigrants en masse, the state criminalizes individuals for free speech and seeking asylum.
Elsewhere, the right to vote is denied to citizens the US deems unworthy of representation. Essential rights and civil liberties are being stripped from legal residents, mitigating access to the freedoms that have defined America for centuries. More and more individuals are sorted into different tiers of citizenship, soon leaving few with the guarantee of liberty and justice promised to all.
For all its extremism and cruelty, the Trump administration is simply using the tools already available to them. Citizenship requirements contain too many loopholes that are easily exploited. So for progressives, opposing restrictive immigration policies is not enough. We must move beyond an idea of “citizenship” that only guarantees rights according to an individual’s status and reimagine a world that respects the freedom and equality of all people no matter their status.
If “morality” is a requirement for entry, then anything can be redefined as “immoral.” Economic metrics of inclusion fail for the same reason. Nations should not prioritize people solely based on what they can provide to employers. The argument that “immigrants help our economy” only emphasizes the need for individuals with economic value.
America’s immigration system must honor human rights for everyone, especially those at the margins. Those seeking asylum, refuge, education, or simply a better life should not be denied access to civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.
Aren’t these the true American values?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump 2.0’s Mass Denaturalizations Will Make the US Less Diverse and Less Free
Although denaturalization rates have declined over the past several decades, there is ample historical precedent for the revival U.S. President Donald Trump is planning.
Aug 06, 2025
There are nearly 25 million naturalized citizens in the United States, accounting for 7% of the total population. Each and every one of them should be laser-focused on the Trump administration’s plans to denaturalize and deport as many of them as possible.
Denaturalization is the process by which the federal government revokes the citizenship of persons born outside of the country who became citizens by meeting the standards set by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which include swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States, and demonstrating “good moral character.”
Although denaturalization rates have declined over the past several decades, there is ample historical precedent for the revival U.S. President Donald Trump is planning. Between 1906 and 1967—when the Supreme Court stepped in to tighten the legal requirements—more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. Many were left-wing activists who were singled out during the two Red Scares of the 20th century. A common method to denaturalize them was to accuse them of fraud in taking their oaths of allegiance. In 1919, in perhaps the most famous case of all, the government deported Emma Goldman to Russia under the Anarchist Exclusion Act after revoking her naturalized citizenship. In the 1950s, the government tried but failed to denaturalize labor leader Harry Bridges.
On June 11, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate wrote a memorandum that lists denaturalization as one of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) top legal objectives to further Trump’s political goals. The memo was directed to the DOJ’s Civil Division, the department’s largest litigating component, which represents the United States and its executive agencies, members of Congress, cabinet officers, and other federal employees in thousands of legal matters each year. It instructed the division’s attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” focusing on 10 broad categories of enforcement actions:
1. Cases against individuals who pose a potential danger to national security, including those with a nexus to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export from the United States of sensitive goods, technology, or information raising national security concerns;
2. Cases against individuals who engaged in torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations;
3. Cases against individuals who further or furthered the unlawful enterprise of criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels;
4. Cases against individuals who committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process;
5. Cases against individuals who committed human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes;
6. Cases against individuals who engaged in various forms of financial fraud against the United States (including Paycheck Protection Program [“PPP”] loan fraud and Medicaid or Medicare fraud);
7. Cases against individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations;
8. Cases against individuals who acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations, not otherwise addressed by another priority category;
9. Cases referred by a United States Attorney’s Office or in connection with pending criminal charges, if those charges do not fit within one of the other priorities; and
10. Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.
The first nine categories are generally consistent with the government’s existing powers, reflecting Trump’s penchant for exploiting the loopholes and weak links in current law whenever feasible. The 10th category, however, is a wildcard that could expand those powers exponentially and lead to a Red Scare encore.
And as dark and dangerous as that possibility sounds, it may be perfectly legal.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Pursuant to this authority, Congress passed the first naturalization act in 1790, and ratified additional acts well into the late 19th century. But it was not until the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1906 that Congress federalized naturalization procedures. The act incorporated earlier race-based legislation that limited naturalization to white people and those with African origins. It also created the Bureau of Immigration Services, the precursor of the present-day U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, which promulgated uniform application forms, and began the process of moving naturalization jurisdiction to the federal courts. (Prior to 1906, immigrants were able to apply for citizenship before any court of record, including state and municipal courts. In 1990, Congress shifted jurisdiction from the federal courts to the executive branch, where it remains to this day, although naturalization ceremonies are still conducted by federal district court judges.)
The Naturalization Act of 1906 was also the first federal law that provided for denaturalization, centered on individuals who had obtained citizenship by fraud, were racially ineligible, and lacked “good moral character.” The act was amended on several occasions, most notably in 1952 by the McCarthy-era McCarran-Walter Act, which added provisions for denaturalization based on activities deemed subversive or connected to communist or communist-front organizations.
Even if Trump’s threats against O’Donnell, Musk, and Mamdani are basically performative, thousands of less affluent naturalized citizens will likely be caught up in the coming denaturalization dragnet.
Today’s denaturalization procedures are set forth in two sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1451 authorizes the Department of Justice to institute civil proceedings, alleging that citizenship was “illegally procured” or obtained “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” The section also mandates denaturalization for individuals who refuse to testify before a congressional committee concerning their alleged subversive activities in cases where they have been convicted of contempt for such refusals.
Section 1425 of Title 8 authorizes criminal prosecutions, making it a felony punishable by 25 years in prison to knowingly procure, “contrary to law, the naturalization of any person.” A conviction results in automatic denaturalization.
Once denaturalized under either section, a person returns to their immigration status before becoming a citizen, rendering them vulnerable to deportation.
It’s easy to see why Trump and his advisers have opted to emphasize civil denaturalization proceedings over criminal prosecutions. In civil cases, there is no right to a jury trial or court appointed counsel, and there is no statute of limitations. The standard of proof is also lower. According to the Supreme Court’s precedent decisions, to prevail, the government must present “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that the targeted individual obtained citizenship illegally or willfully misrepresented a material fact during the naturalization process. That is a rigorous test, but one far lower than the “beyond a reasonable” doubt standard for criminal prosecutions.
The first Trump administration attempted to make denaturalization a priority, launching an initiative dubbed “Second Look,” which built upon a similar Obama administration program called “Operation Janus” to identify alleged terrorists and fraudsters who had naturalized. In the end, however, Trump 1.0 filed a mere 102 denaturalization cases, amounting to an annual rate higher than the 16 cases per year filed under former President Barack Obama, and eclipsing the total of 24 cases filed under former President Joe Biden, but still miniscule. This time around, Trump 2.0 is pledging to bring the resources of the entire DOJ civil division behind the effort, reviving the specter of mass denaturalization.
The Shumate memo had largely flown under the media’s radar until Trump started talking in early July about deporting former best bro Elon Musk and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, and stripping comedian and longtime celebrity nemesis Rosie O’Donnell of her citizenship.
O’Donnell, who is seeking dual citizenship in Ireland, appears safe from Trump’s clutches as she was born in Commack, New York, and enjoys birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Even Trump’s January executive order attacking birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants would leave her unscathed.
Musk and Mamdani are another story, as both are naturalized citizens. Musk, born in South Africa, naturalized in 2002. Mamdani, born in Uganda to Indian parents, naturalized in 1998. Musk allegedly worked illegally in the U.S. in violation of his student visa after leaving Stanford University in 1995. Mamdani has been accused of posting comments on X quoting rap lyrics suggesting support for Hamas.
Even if Trump’s threats against O’Donnell, Musk, and Mamdani are basically performative, thousands of less affluent naturalized citizens will likely be caught up in the coming denaturalization dragnet. Millions more who are not targeted will be intimidated from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and full political engagement. The net result will be a society less diverse and less free for the vast majority, exactly what Donald Trump and his cohorts want.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Testing the Limits of Our Democracy—Will We Hold Firm?
The way we all react to these tests—from the disappearing of U.S. citizens to the threatening of judges—will determine Trump’s and the GOP’s next steps. So, what do we do?
Jul 15, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to strip Rosie O’Donnell of her citizenship is a “test.”
Kids do it all the time. Throw a tantrum in the store demanding cookies and if the parents don’t remove them from the store right away, every visit will see the tantrums escalate. Testing the boundaries. When the test succeeds, the boundaries get moved and a new boundary gets tested, on and on until finally the child’s behavior is so egregious he’s stopped. Or he always gets away with everything and grows up to be Donald Trump.
We learn this early.
We’ve seen a series of these tests coming from the Trump administration, following the very specific and consistently repeated pattern that history tells us played out in the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet, Putin, Orbán, Erdoğon, el Sisi, and pretty much every other person who took over a democracy and then, step-by-step turned it into a dictatorship.
Trump started testing racism as a political weapon when he came down the elevator at Trump Tower and spoke about “Mexican murderers and rapists” in front of what media reports said was a crowd he’d hired for $50 per person from a company that provides extras to movie and TV production companies.
While his initial goal was reportedly to get NBC to renew “Apprentice” and pay him more than Gwen Stefani, his racism test work out shockingly well; suddenly he was a serious contender for the party that had inherited the KKK vote when Democrats abandoned the South with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 1960s.
If he can do it to Rosie—if there isn’t furious pushback (and so far, there isn’t) against this latest test—he can do it to me or you.
Another test was whether the exaggerations, distortions, and outright lies that he and his family had used to hustle real estate could work in politics.
He quickly discovered that GOP base voters—after decades of having uncritically (slavishly, even) swallowed lies about trickle-down economics, “evil union bosses,” and the “importance of small government”—were more than happy to embrace or ignore, as the occasion demanded, his prevarications.
From there, Trump tested exactly how gullible his most fervent supporters—and the media that fed them a daily diet of very profitable outrage and hate—would buy into a lie so audacious, so in defiance of both the law and common sense, so outside the bounds of normal patriotism, that they could be whipped into a murderous frenzy and kill three police officers while trying to overthrow the government of the United States of America.
The nation and our press reacted as if he’d failed that test, but when he was able to cow enough senators to avoid being convicted in his impeachment trial, he knew he’d won.
Now he’s again testing how far he can go.
George Retes is a 25-year-old Hispanic natural-born American citizen and disabled Army veteran working as a security guard at a legal marijuana operation in California. When it was raided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), he got in his car and tried to drive away to avoid getting in the middle of what he saw as trouble.
Masked agents chased him down, smashed the window of his car and pepper-sprayed him in the face, dragged him out of his car, and disappeared him.
Testing.
Will Democrats make a stink? Will the media make it more than a one-day story? Will any Republicans break rank and stand against his excesses? Was it even mentioned on any of the Sunday shows? How far can he go next time?
So far, Trump thinks he’s winning these tests. The outrages are coming so fast and furious that it’s becoming impossible to keep track of them, just like in Germany in 1933 and Chile in 1973.
Retes wasn’t the only U.S. citizen who’s been arrested or detained by ICE; they’ve gone after a mayor, a member of Congress, and even assaulted a United States senator.
A 71-year-old grandmother was assaulted and handcuffed by masked agents. Axios documents others; as the CNN headline on the story about other U.S. citizens being snatched notes: “‘We Are Not Safe in America Today:’ These American Citizens Say They Were Detained by ICE.”
Testing.
After years of hysteria on the billionaire-owned sewer of Fox “News” about our nation’s first Black president deploying “FEMA Camps” to detain white conservatives, Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded hundreds of others in Las Vegas, ranting that Federal Emergency Management Agency Camps set up after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were “a dry run for law enforcement and military to start kickin’ down doors and... confiscating guns.”
He murdered those innocent concertgoers, he said, to “wake up the American public and get them to arm themselves,” saying, “Sometimes sacrifices have to be made.”
Now those detention facilities conservatives feared has come into being, as Republicans in Congress just funded concentration camps like “Alligator Auschwitz” in multiple states across America.
Visiting congress members claim inmates are packed over 30 to a cage, with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) reporting her horror when she was shown that “they get their drinking water, and they brush their teeth, where they poop, in the same unit.”
Testing.
We recently learned via CBS News from a whistleblower and now-released texts that Trump’s former lawyer and now-nominee for a lifetime federal judgeship, Emil Bove, then working in the Justice Department, advised the administration officials to tell federal courts “fuck you” when they ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvadoran hellhole concentration camp.
But now—as it was in South Korea when their president tried to end democracy there last year and people poured into the streets and forced the government to act—it’s apparently going to be pretty much exclusively up to us.
For months, the administration appears to have followed his obviously unconstitutional and illegal advice. Republicans want him on the federal bench anyway.
Testing.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia—who Trump official Erez Reuveni said had been deported “in error”—described how he was treated in that El Salvadoran concentration camp, telling his attorneys and the court that he’d been repeatedly beaten, then forced to kneel from 9:00 pm to 6:00 am “with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion.”
He had committed no crime and was deported in open violation of a federal judge who demanded the plane either not take off or return before landing in El Salvador. The Trump administration simply and contemptibly ignored the court’s order.
Testing.
In a White House visit, Trump told the El Salvadoran president, Nayib Bukele (who refers to himself as “the world’s coolest dictator”), that he wants to send American citizens to that country’s torture centers.
“The homegrowns are next, the homegrowns,” Trump said as the two men laughed. “You’ve got to build about five more places.”
Testing.
Meanwhile, ICE detention facilities are also holding U.S. citizens like Andrea Velez, 32, who was snatched by masked agents during a raid in Los Angeles. As LA’s ABC News affiliate Channel 7 reported:
Velez, a marketing designer and Cal Poly Pomona graduate, was arrested Tuesday morning after her family dropped her off at work. According to her attorneys, Velez's sister and mother saw her being approached and grabbed by masked men with guns, so they called the Los Angeles Police Department to report a kidnapping.
Police responded to the scene near Ninth and Spring streets and realized the kidnapping call was actually a federal immigration-enforcement operation.
She’s out of the detention facility now, but on $5000 bond; ICE apparently has plans for her future.
Testing.
And now Trump is telling us he wants to strip a natural-born U.S. citizen comedienne—who’s made jokes about him that pissed him off—of her U.S. citizenship, “Because,” he says, “of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship.”
If he can do it to Rosie—if there isn’t furious pushback (and so far, there isn’t) against this latest test—he can do it to me or you.
Hitler gained the chancellorship of Germany in January 1933; by July of that same year, a mere six months later, he’d revoked the citizenship of thousands for the crimes of being “socialists,” “communists,” Jews, or journalists and commentators who’d written or spoken ill of him. Trump appears to be just a bit behind him on that timeline.
Testing.
Trump wants NPR and PBS defunded as soon as possible, having issued an Executive Order to that effect, and has ordered his Federal Communications Commission to launch investigations that could strip major TV networks of their broadcast licenses if they continue to report on him and his activities in ways that offend him. He shut down the Voice Of America, ending America’s promotion of democracy across the world. He kicked The Associated Press out of the White House press pool.
Testing.
Trump has declared large strips of land along the southern border to be federalized territory and put the American military in charge of policing the area, in clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That law prohibits the military from performing any sort of police function against civilians.
Testing.
When students spoke out on campus against Trump ally and longtime Kushner family friend Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s murderous assault of Gaza and support for settlers stealing West Bank land from Palestinians, armed and masked federal agents began arresting those students, imprisoning them for their First Amendment-protected speech.
Then Trump went after their universities, bringing several to heel just as Orbán has in Hungary and Putin has in Russia.
Testing.
Yesterday, six Republicans on the Supreme Court said that Trump could wholesale mass- fire employees of the Department of Education, essentially shutting down an agency created and funded by Congress in defiance of the constitutional requirement that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, flaming in extreme alarm at her colleagues:
This decision] hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out... The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.
Or maybe the six Republican justices on the court are just scared? After all, judges across the country are being threatened, having pizzas delivered to their homes in the middle of the night by way of saying, “We know where you live.” This after U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ son, Daniel Anderl, was fatally shot at their New Jersey home by a gunman disguised as a pizza delivery driver. Her husband was also shot, but survived.
A few months ago, after one of Trump’s rants against judges who rule against him, Judge Salas told the press:
Hundreds of pizzas have been delivered to judges all over this country in the last few months. And in the last few weeks—judges’ children. And now Daniel’s name was being weaponized to bring fear to judges and their children. You’re saying to those judges—“You want to end up like Judge Salas? You want to end up like Judge Salas’ son?”
Testing.
What’s next? Will we see Americans who’ve spoken poorly of Trump on social media arrested like both Orbán and Putin do?
Will more students end up on the ground or in jail?
Will more judges be charged with the crime of running their own courtrooms in ways Trump and ICE dislike?
More mayors arrested?
More Democratic Senators taken to the ground and handcuffed?
Will Americans start being disappeared in numbers that can’t be ignored? Deported to El Salvador and South Sudan?
Will journalists be destroyed by massive libel suits or imprisoned for what they write?
Will more judges bend to Trump’s will because they’re either terrified or, like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, have apparently become radicalized by Fox “News” or other right-wing propaganda outlets?
The way we all react to these tests will determine Trump’s and the GOP’s next steps. So, what do we do?
Former President Barack Obama says Democrats need to “toughen up.” While true, it would have been nice to hear “tough” words of outrage, warning, and leadership from him and former Vice President Kamala Harris over the past six months. And former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
But now—as it was in South Korea when their president tried to end democracy there last year and people poured into the streets and forced the government to act—it’s apparently going to be pretty much exclusively up to us.
See you on July 17—this Thursday—for some “good trouble.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy