N※N

Controversial Bill Could Revoke Citizenship for 'Illegal Entry'

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2026/02/2 .. -could-revoke-citizenship-for-illegal-entry.html
  Published in House and Home on Friday, February 20th 2026 at 16:11 GMT by Fox News
      Locales: Minnesota, UNITED STATES

Washington D.C. - February 20, 2026 - A sharply debated bill proposed by House Republicans, spearheaded by Representative Tom Emmer, is igniting controversy across the political and legal spectrum. Dubbed the "Denying Radical Leftist Sanctuary Policies Act," the legislation aims to amend existing immigration law to allow for the revocation of citizenship from individuals found to have participated in what the bill terms "illegal entry" into the United States. The bill, introduced Thursday, proposes a significant expansion of the government's power to denaturalize citizens, sparking concerns about its constitutionality, breadth, and potential impact on vulnerable populations.

The core of the bill centers around amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. Currently, denaturalization - the process of stripping someone of their citizenship - is reserved for instances of proven fraud in the naturalization process or acts demonstrating disloyalty to the United States. The new bill would broaden the grounds for denaturalization to include actions taken during the process of unauthorized entry, specifically citing assistance in entering the country or providing harbor to those who have entered illegally. Emmer, in a released statement, argues the bill is a necessary measure to bolster border security and enforce existing immigration laws, sending a strong deterrent signal to those facilitating unauthorized immigration.

However, legal scholars are sounding alarms. Stephen Patashnik, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the proposed legislation as an unprecedented expansion of governmental power. "Denaturalization should be a rare and carefully considered action," Patashnik explains. "This bill dramatically lowers the threshold, potentially placing millions of naturalized citizens at risk of losing their citizenship for acts committed out of desperation, coercion, or simply assisting family members. The implications are far-reaching and deeply concerning."

The bill's language is a major source of contention. Critics point to its vagueness as a significant flaw, arguing that the definition of "participation in illegal entry" is open to wide interpretation. This ambiguity raises the specter of the law being applied to a diverse group of individuals, including those who may be victims of human trafficking, refugees fleeing persecution, or simply individuals offering humanitarian aid to family members. The ACLU, through attorney Elara Rodriguez, has condemned the bill as a "blatant attempt to scapegoat immigrants and instill fear within communities." Rodriguez asserts the bill is both unconstitutional and ineffective, failing to address the underlying issues that drive migration.

The timing of the bill's introduction is also under scrutiny, with Democrats accusing Republicans of using immigration as a politically charged tactic in the lead-up to the 2026 elections. Critics suggest the bill is designed to appeal to a specific segment of the electorate rather than offer a genuine solution to the complexities of the immigration system. This accusation aligns with broader concerns about the increasing polarization of immigration debates and the use of divisive rhetoric.

The potential ramifications of the bill extend beyond legal challenges. Immigration advocates fear a chilling effect on immigrant communities, discouraging naturalization applications and fostering an environment of distrust. Furthermore, the bill could exacerbate the already strained relationship between law enforcement and immigrant communities, potentially hindering cooperation in investigations and jeopardizing public safety. The financial costs associated with implementing and defending the bill in court are also expected to be substantial.

The House of Representatives is anticipated to vote on the bill within the coming weeks. While Republican leadership appears united in their support, the bill faces strong opposition from Democrats and a growing chorus of legal experts and civil rights organizations. Should the bill pass the House, it will then move to the Senate, where it is expected to encounter further resistance. The Senate's stance will be crucial in determining the bill's ultimate fate and the future of citizenship rights for naturalized Americans. The debate surrounding the "Denying Radical Leftist Sanctuary Policies Act" underscores the deep divisions within the United States regarding immigration policy and raises fundamental questions about the principles of citizenship and due process.