Denaturalization Laws are Commonplace
The practice is not
A common refrain among nationalists, populists, and other varieties of right-wingers is the lament that once “these people” have arrived in a Western nation they are impossible to dislodge. Many well-meaning nationalists come to believe that immigrants become so quickly entrenched, naturalized and settled that there is no feasible way, legal or otherwise, to remove them from Western countries. That citizenship grants are permanent, and that even if nationalists took over the halls of state power it would be an uphill political battle to reform “the system” to allow for large-scale repatriation.
This could not be further from the truth, at least not in most Western nations.
Laws allowing for broad, specific, and sweeping denaturalization exist in most Western countries. In many countries, like Britain, these laws can be enforced by the executive branch of government, while in others, such as the United States, the courts make the rulings. Either way, denaturalization is a common feature of legal systems in most Western countries and a feature that nationalists could leverage to great effect as we continue winning political battles.
The United Kingdom:
The United Kingdom has one of the strongest denaturalization procedures among Western countries.
In the case of criminals and any other person with dual citizenship, legislation exists that currently enables the Home Secretary to denaturalize any dual national of the UK, or person able to attain another nationality – determining that an individual is legally subject to denaturalization is achieved by applying one or more of three criteria:
a) should it be considered that doing so is conducive to the public good;
b) if the person obtained their citizenship through fraud, false representation or concealment; or
c) if the persons has conducted himself or herself in a manner which is, quote: “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.
Criminals, spies, and foreign agents all clearly fall into categories A and B. Minority criminals and anti-British persons are both not conducive to the public good and pose a threat to the UK’s vital interest.
In addition, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 allows individuals to be deprived of British citizenship by the Home Secretary if denaturalizing the individual would prove conducive to the public good.
It is extremely easy for nationalists to make the case that environmental damage, urban sprawl, social service strain, crime, and other negative externalities of mass immigration and demographic change are severely hampering Britain and that large-scale denaturalization of recent immigrants and their children (who general quality for the citizenship of their ethnic homelands) is conducive to the public good.
The United States:
In the United States denaturalization is carried out by way of the federal court system. To quote the Department of Justice:
Denaturalization cases require the government to show that a defendant’s naturalization was “illegally procured” or “procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1451. Civil denaturalization cases have no statute of limitations, and the Department has successfully denaturalized numerous categories of individuals who have illegally obtained citizenship, including terrorists and other national security threats, war criminals, human rights violators, sex offenders, and other fraudsters.
Because of this broad language, and the range of possible offenses that can enable denaturalization, millions of non-Western immigrants to the country could be stripped of their citizenship. In fact, the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation has a 95% success rate in cases where it has sought to denaturalize individuals of their ill-gotten American citizenship.
There are other laws that could be more broadly interpreted to lead to more denaturalizations as well.
For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(2) of the US code interprets any individual as having relinquished their US citizenship if they are found to be "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof". And while courts have previously ruled against broadly interpreting this provision in the past, there is nothing stopping an administration from taking that oath before nationalist/populist friendly judges once in office.
In yet another example there is US code 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(7) which provides that any individual convicted of seditious conspiracy, rebellion, insurrection, treason, or similar crimes can be stripped of their US citizenship. A broader interpretation of this provision could see many non-Western immigrants who express profound hatred for Americans and their institutions, be stripped of their US citizenship.
White Papers is attempting to double our donor base this summer! Please Support our mission to take on more writers and policy experts:
Germany:
German laws are less broad. Section 25 of the Nationality Act provides that German citizens who apply for or acquire foreign citizenship must renounce their German nationality, though this law is likely to change in the near future.
Aside from this, only a short list of terrorism and related offenses can result in the denaturalization of non-Europeans who have acquired German citizenship.
Sweden:
Sweden is perhaps the most extreme counter-example to a nation like Britain. The Swedish constitution prohibits any deprivation of Swedish citizenship no matter the grounds. Terrorism, criminality, fraud etc are not considered. Once Swedish citizenship is acquired it may not be revoked by a state authority.
Resolving this issue would require a change to the Swedish constitution, which the current Swedish government has said it will review, though little action appears to have been taken on this front.
Ireland:
Then there are other countries, such as Ireland, which have limited yet broadly interpretable legislation for denaturalization. Much like Britain citizenship can be revoked by a minister of the government, and a court process is not necessary.
This means that a nationalist government, even one that does not have complete legislative control or control of the court system, could begin the process of repatriating non-Western immigrants from the country with relative ease.
Current Irish law allows for the relevant minister to denaturalize people who:
Commit fraud in their acquisition of Irish citizenship
Shows himself, through an overt act, to be disloyal to the Irish nation and or state
Has acquired citizenship of another state in a circumstance outside of marriage or civil partnership.
With this legislation, most of the non-Western immigrants in Ireland could be denaturalized and repatriated from the country in a short period of time.
France:
France is another country which has broad grounds for the revocation of citizenship for those foreigners who have acquired it.
Citizenship can be stripped from a French national if they are a citizen of a foreign state, behave like a citizen of this state, and have committed acts contrary to the interests of France.
Nearly 5% of the population of France has dual nationality as described in this section, including millions of Algerians, Moroccans, Africans, and Southern Europeans.
Still further, French nationality can be stripped from anyone convicted of:
A crime or a offense constituting a undermining the fundamental interests of the Nation
Acrime or an offense constituting a act of terrorism
Holding a public office and you have been convicted of a crime or an offense constituting a interference with public administration. For example, infringement of individual freedom, discrimination.
Not having complied with the obligations arising from the national service
Accomplishing acts for the benefit of a State foreigner, incompatible with being French
The downside to this particular provision is that it is limited to just 10 years so most pre-2010s immigrants would not be affected, though their children and descendants may be.
Conclusion:
Nationalists often seek systemic reform, and they should. Rewriting, revising, and revisiting constitutions, laws, and regulations is going to be a key part of reversing the downward spiral of the West, but it is far from the place to start.
Understanding how to utilize extant laws, and work around the failures of those laws where possible, will allow nationalists in many countries to make immediate, sweeping changes to the demographic situation in those countries without needing to waste political capital on legislation of constitutional reform right off the bat.
Many right-wing and populist parties do not discuss these solutions in part because they do not understand them, and often fall prey to the belief that damage can only be mitigated, and never reversed.
But reversing the damage, and doing so in a humane manner, should be the goal of any ardent nationalist.
Repatriation is the only solution for Western countries.
White Papers is attempting to double our donor base this summer! Please Support our mission to take on more writers and policy experts:
Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com
Buy us a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wppi
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi
Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750
You have only answered part of the question. The arteries of Western states are clogged with laws, of which few have read and fewer understand. It is not sufficient to point to a "law" as many do and say "here is the answer!. I can go to court and a judge will agree with me." Wrong. We need to ask, is the law incorporated in the practice of the legal community, enforced and what discretion is there to ignore it or interpret it away? Most are also familiar with the Sam Francis description of the anarcho-terrorist state in which laws are enforced or ignored politically. Clowns like the "freemen on the land" are constantly looking for "laws" and assume they are right, but can never process the problem of enforcement. Perhaps you are still correct, but let's look at the enforcement of these laws and see what conclusions we can draw.