MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Margaret Murray, Associate Professor of Public Communication and Culture Studies, University of Michigan

The number of states banning smartphones in schools is growing.

New York is now the largest state in the U.S. to ban smartphones in public schools. Starting in fall 2025, students will not be allowed to use their phones during the school day, including during lunch, recess or in between classes. This bell-to-bell policy will impact almost 2.5 million students in grades K-12.

By banning smartphones in schools, New York is joining states across the country. The bans are happening in both traditionally liberal and conservative states.

Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and West Virginia all passed legislation in 2025 that requires schools to have policies that limit access to smartphones. The policies will go into effect in the 2025-2026 school year. This brings the total to 17 states, plus Washington, D.C., that have phone-free school legislation or executive orders.

I’m a professor who studies communication and culture, and while writing a book about parenting culture, I’ve noticed the narrative around smartphones and social media shifting over the past decade.

A turning tide

According to the Pew Research Center, 67% of American adults support banning smartphones during class time, although only 36% support banning them for the entire school day. Notably, a majority of Republican, Democratic and independent voters all support bans during class time.

More broadly, parent-led movements to limit children’s use of smartphones, social media and the internet have sprung up around the country. For example, the Phone-Free Schools Movement in Pennsylvania was launched in 2023, and Mothers Against Media Addiction started in New York in March 2024. These organizations, which empower parents to advocate in their local communities, follow in the footsteps of organizations such as Wait Until 8th in Texas and Screen Time Action Network at Fairplay in Massachusetts, which were formed in 2017.

The concerns of these parent-led organizations were reflected in the best-selling book “The Anxious Generation,” which paints a bleak picture of modern childhood as dominated by depression and anxiety brought on by smartphone addiction.

Phone-free schools are one of the four actions the book’s author, Jonathan Haidt, recommended to change course. The other three are no smartphones for children before high school, waiting until 16 for social media access, and allowing more childhood independence in the real world.

Haidt’s research team collaborated with The Harris Poll to survey Gen Z. They found that almost half of those age 18-27 wish social media had never been invented, and 21% wish smartphones had never been invented. About 40% of Gen Z respondents supported phone-free schools.

The Pew Research Center found that almost 40% of kids age 8-12 use social media, and almost 95% of kids age 13-17 use it, with nearly half of teens reporting that they use social media almost constantly.

Phone-free schools are also part of the larger trend of states and nations resisting Big Tech, the large technology companies that play a significant role in global commerce.

In May 2025, two U.S. senators introduced the Stop the Scroll Act, which would require mental health warnings on social media.

New laws that ban smartphones or social media for youth are being introduced across several Western nations. Australia has banned all social media for those under 16.

After a fatal stabbing at a middle school in eastern France on June 10, French President Emmanuel Macron announced the same day that he wants the European Union to set the minimum age for social media at 15. He argued that social media is a factor in teen violence. If the EU doesn’t act within a few months, Macron has pledged to enact a ban in France as soon as possible.

The impact on learning

Although this trend of restricting use of phones in school is new, more states may adopt smartphone bans in the future. Bell-to-bell bans are viewed as especially powerful in improving academic performance.

Some research has suggested that when children have access to a smartphone, even if they do not use it, they find it harder to focus in class. Initial research has found that academic performance improves after the bans go into effect.

Test scores fell across the U.S. during the pandemic lockdown and have not returned to prepandemic levels. Some states, such as Maine and Oregon, are almost a full year behind grade level in reading. Not a single state has recovered in both math and reading.

Statewide bans free local school districts from having to create their own technology bans, which can lead to heated debates. Although a majority of adults approve of banning smartphones in class, 24% oppose it for reasons such as wanting to be able to contact their kids throughout the day and wanting parents to set the boundaries.

However, 72% of high school teachers say that phones are a major distraction. Anecdotally, schools report that students like the bans after getting used to the change.

I signed the Wait Until 8th pledge mentioned in the article, promising not to give my kids a smartphone or social media until at least the end of 8th grade.

– ref. School smartphone bans reflect growing concern over youth mental health and academic performance – https://theconversation.com/school-smartphone-bans-reflect-growing-concern-over-youth-mental-health-and-academic-performance-259962

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Hatim Sharif, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio

Texas Hill Country is known for its landscapes, where shallow rivers wind among hills and through rugged valleys. That geography also makes it one of the deadliest places in the U.S. for flash flooding.

In the early hours of July 4, 2025, a flash flood swept through an area of Hill Country dotted with summer camps and small towns about 70 miles northwest of San Antonio. More than 120 people died in the flooding. The majority of them were in Kerr County, including more than two dozen girls and counselors at one summer camp, Camp Mystic. Dozens of people were still unaccounted for a week later.

The flooding began with a heavy downpour, with more than 10 inches of rain in some areas, that sent water sheeting off the hillsides and into creeks. The creeks poured into the Guadalupe River.

A river gauge at Hunt, Texas, near Camp Mystic, showed how quickly the river flooded: Around 3 a.m. on July 4, the Guadalupe River was rising about 1 foot every 5 minutes at the gauge, National Weather Service data shows. By 4:30 a.m., it had risen more than 20 feet. As the water moved downstream, it reached Kerrville, where the river rose even faster.

Flood expert Hatim Sharif, a hydrologist and civil engineer at the University of Texas at San Antonio, explains what makes this part of the country, known as Flash Flood Alley, so dangerous.

What makes Hill Country so prone to flooding?

Texas as a whole leads the nation in flood deaths, and by a wide margin. A colleague and I analyzed data from 1959 to 2019 and found 1,069 people had died in flooding in Texas over those six decades. The next highest total was in Louisiana, with 693.

Many of those flood deaths have been in Hill County. It’s part of an area known as Flash Flood Alley, a crescent of land that curves from near Dallas down to San Antonio and then westward.

The hills are steep, and the water moves quickly when it floods. This is a semi-arid area with soils that don’t soak up much water, so the water sheets off quickly and the shallow creeks can rise fast.

When those creeks converge on a river, they can create a surge of water that wipes out homes and washes away cars and, unfortunately, anyone in its path.

Hill Country has seen some devastating flash floods. In 1987, heavy rain in western Kerr County quickly flooded the Guadalupe River, triggering a flash flood similar to the one in 2025. Ten teenagers being evacuated from a camp died in the rushing water.

San Antonio, at the eastern edge of Hill Country, was hit with a flash flood on June 12, 2025, that killed 13 people whose cars were swept away by high water from a fast-flooding creek near an interstate ramp in the early morning.

Why does the region get such strong downpours?

One reason Hill Country gets powerful downpours is the Balcones Escarpment.

The escarpment is a line of cliffs and steep hills created by a geologic fault. When warm air from the Gulf rushes up the escarpment, it condenses and can dump a lot of moisture. That water flows down the hills quickly, from many different directions, filling streams and rivers below.

As temperature rise, the warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, increasing the downpour and flood risk.

The same effect can contribute to flash flooding in San Antonio, where the large amount of paved land and lack of updated drainage to control runoff adds to the risk.

What can be done to improve flash flood safety?

First, it’s important for people to understand why flash flooding happens and just how fast the water can rise and flow. In many arid areas, dry or shallow creeks can quickly fill up with fast-moving water and become deadly. So people should be aware of the risks and pay attention to the weather.

Improving flood forecasting, with more detailed models of the physics and water velocity at different locations, can also help.

Probabilistic forecasting, for example, can provide a range of rainfall scenarios, enabling authorities to prepare for worst-case scenarios. A scientific framework linking rainfall forecasts to the local impacts, such as streamflow, flood depth and water velocity, could also help decision-makers implement timely evacuations or road closures.

Education is particularly essential for drivers. One to two feet of moving water can wash away a car. People may think their trucks and SUVs can go through anything, but fast-moving water can flip a truck and carry it away.

Officials can also do more to barricade roads when the flood risk is high to prevent people from driving into harm’s way. We found that 58% of the flood deaths in Texas over the past six decades involved vehicles. The storm on June 12 in San Antonio was an example. It was early morning, and drivers had poor visibility. The cars were hit by fast-rising floodwater from an adjacent creek.

This article, originally published July 5, 2025, has been updated with the death toll rising.

Hatim Sharif does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding – https://theconversation.com/why-texas-hill-country-where-a-devastating-flood-killed-more-than-120-people-is-one-of-the-deadliest-places-in-the-us-for-flash-flooding-260555

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

Vance Boelter, who allegedly shot Melissa Hortman, a Democratic Minnesota state representative, and her husband, Mark Hortman, on June 14, 2025, studied at Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas. The group is a Bible school linked to the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.

The NAR is a loosely organized but influential charismatic Christian movement that shares similarities with Pentecostalism, especially in its belief that God actively communicates with believers through the Holy Spirit. Unlike traditional Pentecostalism, however, the organization emphasizes modern-day apostles and prophets as authoritative leaders tasked with transforming society and ushering in God’s kingdom on Earth. Prayer, prophecy and worship are defined not only as acts of devotion but as strategic tools for advancing believers’ vision of government and society.

After the shooting, the Christ for the Nations Institute issued a statement “unequivocally” denouncing “any and all forms of violence and extremism.” It stated: “Our organization’s mission is to educate and equip students to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through compassion, love, prayer, service, worship, and value for human life.”

But the shooting has drawn attention to the school and the larger Christian movement it belongs to. One of the most important aspects of NAR teachings today is what is called “the Seven Mountain Mandate.”

The Seven Mountain Mandate calls on Christians to gain influence, or “take dominion,” over seven key areas of culture: religion, family, education, government, media, business and the arts.

With over three decades of experience studying extremism, I offer a brief overview of the history and core beliefs of the Seven Mountain Mandate.

‘Dominion of Christians’

The Seven Mountain concept was originally proposed in 1975 by evangelical leader Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. Now known as “Cru,” the Campus Crusade for Christ was founded as a global ministry in 1951 to promote Christian evangelism, especially on college campuses.

United by a shared vision to influence society through Christian values, Bright partnered with Loren Cunningham, the founder of Youth With A Mission, a major international missionary training and outreach organization, in the 1970s.

The Seven Mountain Mandate was popularized by theologian Francis Schaeffer, who linked it to a larger critique of secularism and liberal culture. Over time, it evolved.

C. Peter Wagner, a former seminary professor who helped organize and name the New Apostolic Reformation, is often regarded as the theological architect of the group. He developed it into a call for dominion. In his 2008 book “Dominion! How Kingdom Action Can Change the World,” he urged Christians to take authoritative control of cultural institutions.

For Wagner, “dominion theology” – the idea that Christians should have control over all aspects of society – was a call to spiritual warfare, so that God’s kingdom would be “manifested here on earth as it is in heaven.”

Since 1996, Bill Johnson, a senior leader of Bethel Church, and Johnny Enlow, a self-described prophet and Seven Mountain advocate, among others, have taken the original idea of the Seven Mountain Mandate and reshaped it into a more aggressive, political and spiritually militant approach. Spiritual militancy reflects an aggressive, us-vs.-them mindset that blurs the line between faith and authoritarianism, promoting dominion over society in the name of spiritual warfare.

Their version doesn’t just aim to influence culture; it frames the effort as a spiritual battle to reclaim and reshape the nation according to their vision of God’s will.

Lance Wallnau, another Christian evangelical preacher, televangelist, speaker and author, has promoted dominion theology since the early 2000s. During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Wallnau, along with several prominent NAR figures, described Donald Trump as anointed by God to reclaim the “mountain” of government from demonic control.

In their book “Invading Babylon: The 7 Mountain Mandate,” Wallnau and Johnson explicitly call for Christian leadership as the only antidote to perceived moral decay and spiritual darkness.

The beliefs

Sometimes referred to as Seven Mountains of Influence or Seven Mountains of Culture, the seven mountains are not neutral domains but seen as battlegrounds between divine truth and demonic deception.

Adherents believe that Christians are called to reclaim these areas through influence, leadership and even, if necessary, the use of force and to confront demonic political forces, as religion scholar Matthew Taylor demonstrates in his book “The Violent Take It By Force.”

Diverse perspectives and interpretations surround the rhetoric and actions associated with the New Apostolic Reformation. Some analysts have pointed out how the NAR is training its followers for an active confrontation. Other commentators have said that the rhetoric calling for physical violence is anti-biblical and should be denounced.

NAR-aligned leaders have framed electoral contests as struggles between “godly” candidates and those under the sway of “satanic” influence.

Similarly, NAR prophet Cindy Jacobs has repeatedly emphasized the need for “spiritual warfare” in schools to combat what she characterizes as “demonic ideologies” such as sex education, LGBTQ+ inclusion or discussions of systemic racism.

In the NAR worldview, cultural change is not merely political or social but considered a supernatural mission; opponents are not simply wrong but possibly under the sway of demonic influence. Elections become spiritual battles.

This belief system views pluralism as weakness, compromise as betrayal, and coexistence as capitulation. Frederick Clarkson, a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, a progressive think tank based in Somerville, Massachusetts, defines the Seven Mountain Mandate as “the theocratic idea that Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.”

The call to “take back” the culture is not metaphorical but literal, and believers are encouraged to see themselves as soldiers in a holy war to dominate society. Some critics argue that NAR’s call to “take back” culture is about literal domination, but this interpretation is contested.

Many within the movement see the language of warfare as spiritually focused on prayer, evangelism and influencing hearts and minds. Still, the line between metaphor and mandate can blur, especially when rhetoric about “dominion” intersects with political and cultural action. That tension is part of an ongoing debate both within and outside the movement.

Networks that spread the beliefs

This belief system is no longer confined to the margins. It is spread widely through evangelical churches, podcasts, YouTube videos and political networks.

It’s hard to know exactly how many churches are part of the New Apostolic Reformation, but estimates suggest that about 3 million people in the U.S. attend churches that openly follow NAR leaders.

At the same time, the Seven Mountain Mandate doesn’t depend on centralized leadership or formal institutions. It spreads organically through social networks, social media – notably podcasts and livestreams – and revivalist meetings and workshops.

André Gagné, a theologian and author of “American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times,” writes about the ways in which the mandate spreads by empowering local leaders and believers. Individuals are authorized – often through teachings on spiritual warfare, prophetic gifting, and apostolic leadership – to see themselves as agents of divine transformation in society, called to reclaim the “mountains,” such as government, media and education, for God’s kingdom.

This approach, Gagné explains, allows different communities to adapt the action mandate to their unique cultural, political and social contexts. It encourages individuals to see themselves as spiritual warriors and leaders in their domains – whether in business, education, government, media or the arts.

Small groups or even individuals can start movements or initiatives without waiting for top-down directives. The only recognized authorities are the apostles and prophets running the church or church network the believers attend.

The framing of the Seven Mountain Mandate as a divinely inspired mission, combined with the movement’s emphasis on direct spiritual experiences and a specific interpretation of scripture, can create an environment where questioning the mandate is perceived as challenging God’s authority.

Slippery slope

These beliefs have increasingly fused with nationalist rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

A powerful example of NAR political rhetoric in action is the rise and influence of the “Appeal to Heaven” flags. For those in the New Apostolic Reformation, these flags symbolize the belief that when all earthly authority fails, people have the right to appeal directly to God’s authority to justify resistance.

This was evident during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, when these flags were prominently displayed.

To be clear, its leaders are not calling for violence but rather for direct political engagement and protest. For some believers, however, the calls for “spiritual warfare” may become a slippery slope into justification for violence, as in the case of the alleged Minnesota shooter.

Understanding the Seven Mountain Mandate is essential for grasping the dynamics of contemporary efforts to align government and culture with a particular vision of Christian authority and influence.

Art Jipson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is the ‘Seven Mountain Mandate’ and how is it linked to political extremism in the US? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-seven-mountain-mandate-and-how-is-it-linked-to-political-extremism-in-the-us-260034

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Guillaume Chomicki, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Durham University

In the middle of the South Pacific, a group of Fijian plants have solved a problem that has long puzzled scientists: How can an organism cooperate with multiple partners that are in turn competing for the same resources? The solution turns out to be simple – compartmentalization.

Imagine an apartment building where unfriendly neighbors might clash if they run into each other, but smart design keeps everyone peacefully separated. In our new research published in the journal Science, we show how certain plants build specialized structures that allow multiple aggressive ant species to live side by side inside them without ever meeting.

Ants and plants cooperate in Fijian rainforest

Squamellaria plants are epiphytes – meaning they don’t have roots attached to the ground, and instead grow on another plant for physical support. They live high up in the rainforest canopy, in the South Pacific.

Because they don’t have direct access to the soil’s nutrients, Squamellaria plants have evolved an original strategy to acquire what they need: In a mutually beneficial relationship, they grow structures that appeal to ants looking for a place to live. This kind of long-term relationship between species – whether helpful or harmful – is called symbiosis.

Here’s how it works in this case. The base of the Squamellaria plant stem forms a swollen, hollow structure called a domatium – a perfect place for ants to live. Domatia gradually enlarge to the size of a soccer ball, containing ever more plant-made houses ready for ants to move into. Each apartment can house a colony made up of thousands of ants.

The relationship between the ants and the plants is mutualistic, meaning both parties benefit. The ants gain a nice sturdy and private nest space, while the plants gain essential nutrients. They obtain nitrogen and phosphorus from the ants’ feces and from detritus – including dead insects, plant bits and soil – that the ants bring inside the domatium.

However, tropical rainforest canopies are battlegrounds for survival. Ants compete fiercely for nesting space, taking over any hollow branch or space under tree bark. Any Squamellaria ant house would thus be at risk of being colonized and taken over by other incoming ants, disrupting the existing partnership.

Until now, it was unclear how the cooperative relationships between ants and plants remain stable in this competitive environment.

Walls keep the peace

Our first hint about what keeps the peace in the Squamellaria real estate came when we discovered several ant species living in the same plant domatium. This finding just didn’t make sense. How could aggressively competing ant species live together?

We investigated the structure of domatia using computed-tomography scanning, which revealed an interesting internal architecture. Each plant domatium is divided into distinct compartments, with thick walls isolating each unit. Independent entrances prevent direct contact between the inhabitants of different units. The walls safeguard the peace as they prevent encounters between different ant species.

Back in the lab, when we removed the ant apartments’ walls, placing inhabitants in contact with their neighbors, deadly fights broke out between ant species. The compartmentalized architecture is thus critical in preventing symbiont “wars” and maintaining the stability of the plant’s partnership with all the ants that call it home. By minimizing deadly conflicts that could harm the ants it hosts, this strategy ensures that the plant retains access to sufficient nutrients provided by the ants.

This research reveals a new mechanism that solves a long-standing riddle – the stability of symbioses involving multiple unrelated partners. Scientists hadn’t previously discovered aggressive animal symbionts living together inside a single plant host. Our study reveals for the first time how simple compartmentalization is a highly effective way to reduce conflict, even in the most extreme cases. The ant colonies are living side by side, but not really together.

What’s next

The key to conflict-free living of multipartner symbioses discovered in these Fijian plants – compartmentalization – is likely important in other multispecies partnerships. However, it remains unknown whether compartmentalization is widespread in nature. Research on cooperation between species has long focused on pairwise interactions. Our new insights suggest a need to reinvestigate other multispecies mutualistic symbioses to see how they maintain stability.

Guillaume Chomicki receives funding from UKRI.

Susanne S. Renner received previous funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG)

– ref. This tropical plant builds isolated ‘apartments’ to prevent battles among the aggressive ant tenants it relies on for survival – https://theconversation.com/this-tropical-plant-builds-isolated-apartments-to-prevent-battles-among-the-aggressive-ant-tenants-it-relies-on-for-survival-260674

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

The Trump administration wants to take away citizenship from naturalized Americans on a massive scale.

While a recent Justice Department memo prioritizes national security cases, it directs the department to “maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence” across 10 broad priority categories.

Denaturalization is different from deportation, which removes noncitizens from the country. With civil denaturalization, the government files a lawsuit to strip people’s U.S. citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into noncitizens who can then be deported.

The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone “illegally procured” citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process.

The Trump administration’s “maximal enforcement” approach means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator’s error rather than intentional fraud.

A brief history

For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically during the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterized by intense suspicion of communism. The United States government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, over 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way.

Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v. Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person’s consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process.

After this decision, denaturalization became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship, mostly war criminals who had hidden their past.

How the process works

In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can’t afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” – the highest standard of proof.

But in most denaturalization cases, the government files a civil suit, where none of these protections exist.

People facing denaturalization get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There’s no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – “clear and convincing evidence” instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Most important, there’s no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases.

As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the “right to have rights.”

In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can’t afford it, no jury trial, and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the Constitution when the government seeks to deprive someone of their rights.

The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy.

When the government can strip citizenship from naturalized Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalized citizens face ongoing vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy.

The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalization cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems “sufficiently important to pursue.” This “maximal enforcement” approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is.

This creates fear throughout immigrant communities.

About 20 million naturalized Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship.

A two-tier system

This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalized Americans face ongoing vulnerability that can last their entire lives.

This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalized citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the FBI investigation, was characterized by prosecutors as only a “minimal participant,” completed her sentence, and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn’t report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn’t been charged at the time.

The Justice Department’s directive to “maximally pursue” cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration’s efforts to review over 700,000 naturalization files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalization efforts.

The policy will almost certainly face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, but the damage may already be done. When naturalized citizens fear their status could be revoked, it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide.

The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v. Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right which can’t be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalization cases today.

The Trump administration’s directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v. Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said, “A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.”

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Justice Department efforts to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans likely violate constitutional rights – https://theconversation.com/justice-department-efforts-to-strip-citizenship-from-naturalized-americans-likely-violate-constitutional-rights-260353