[MUSIC]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, sitting in for Brian this week. Now we'll talk about the state of naturalized citizens during the second Trump presidency. What once served as the final step of securing the American dream has now become a status marked with uncertainty.

Nearly 25 million Americans became citizens of this country through the laborious process of naturalization. Yet, despite coming here the right way, enduring years of documents, interviews and exams, naturalized citizens fear their right to continue living their lives in this country is under threat. The fear is not without reason. Last month, the Department of Justice released a memo designating denaturalization as one of their top five priorities, asserting they will initiate civil proceedings "if an individual either illegally procured naturalization or procured naturalization by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."

What counts as a legal procurement or misrepresentation of fact? What happens to the naturalized citizens who swore an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, which is more than most of us born here have done? With me now is Chris Feliciano Arnold, Director of the Creative Writing Program at St. Mary's College of California and the author of The Third Bank of the River: Power and Survival in the Twenty-First-Century Amazon. He has a new piece in the Atlantic titled Naturalized Citizens Are Scared. Chris, welcome to WNYC.

Chris Feliciano Arnold: Thank you for having me. It's an honor to be here.

Brigid Bergin: Chris, you begin your piece in the Atlantic with your own story of naturalization, so why don't we start there? You became a citizen of the United States at age 13. Tell us about your experience.

Chris Feliciano Arnold: I was born in Brazil in 1981, near the end of that country's military dictatorship. I came to the United States through international adoption, was adopted to the United States, and spent the first several years of my life on an immigrant visa before my adoption was finalized in the United States and before I became a naturalized citizen at age 13.

Although I was born in another country, I spent my upbringing in Central Oregon, very much an American upbringing, so to speak. English was my first language. In many ways, I did not undergo the same process of assimilation or naturalization that many immigrants do by virtue of the fact that, as an international adoptee, all I ever knew was life in the United States and growing up American. In many ways, my upbringing was indistinguishable from that of a natural-born American citizen.

Through my upbringing and through my naturalization, I always took great pride in being American, great pride in my citizenship. It wasn't until quite recently that I really began to consider that although I'm equal in status as an American citizen, my status as a naturalized citizen leaves myself and millions like me particularly vulnerable to the political whims of this or any administration.

Brigid Bergin: Chris, are there differences written into law that distinguish your citizenship because you were naturalized? How did this distinction become such a point of conflict in the last couple of decades?

Chris Feliciano Arnold: Yes, that's a great question. There are some really important distinctions, and some of them run as deep as the Constitution, which specifies, for example, that the President of the United States is one example, can only be a natural born citizen. This distinction between Americans born in the United States and Americans who come to the United States runs deep, as old as our country. Yet, for the most part, up until very recently, that story of immigration to the United States, that story of the United States as a nation of immigrants, has been one of great pride.

As you mentioned in your introduction, the step of becoming a naturalized American citizen for millions of immigrants to this country has been seen as a final and permanent step toward calling this country home, to feeling a sense of belonging in this country, and to being active participants in this democracy. At the same time, the fissures between natural-born American citizens and naturalized American citizens run deep throughout our laws, throughout our constitutional amendments, and throughout decades of case law that have made some very important distinctions between the rights of natural-born citizens and the rights of naturalized citizens.

Although they're quite similar in many regards, there are some really important differences. It hasn't been until quite recently that this administration has decided to upend the narrative about what immigration means in this country and upend the narrative about what citizenship means in this country to the point where the president has taken it upon himself to threaten people, both naturalized and natural born citizens, with the revocation of their citizenship, almost as if it's the president who chooses who is the citizens rather than citizens who choose who is president.

Brigid Bergin: Chris, just so that people understand what it takes to go through this naturalization process, for those who are listening, who were born here, who didn't have to go through what we have described can be a very painstaking process, just help demystify it for us. How challenging can it be to become a naturalized citizen in this country, just for your average person?

Chris Feliciano Arnold: The process looks a little different for everyone, depending on their context, depending on their age, and depending on where they're coming from. Generally speaking, the process of becoming a naturalized citizen begins with establishing residency in this country and then spending a certain amount of time in the country as a lawful permanent resident.

Throughout that process, which can take years and can also take considerable time and considerable amounts of money, the applicant for citizenship undergoes a process of applying and undergoing interviews that look deeply into the person's background, as well as establishes that they are, for example, not of national security risk to the country. In addition, undergoes those applicants who are over the age of 18 a civics test in which they have to demonstrate a general familiarity with the United States systems and values and history, and essentially also demonstrate to the government that they are faithful and will be loyal participants of this democracy and are committed to the values of the United States.

This process can take years, it can take a considerable amount of funding, it takes considerable amount of support by the immigrant's family. Often, for many who become naturalized citizens, it's a point of pride that lasts a lifetime. As I mentioned, the final step and the idea that that status of citizenship ought to be permanent is one that many naturalized citizens take great pride in because they've undergone great sacrifices and have had to give considerable thought and devotion to undergoing that process.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, are there any naturalized citizens who want to join this conversation? Do you share some of the fears as our guest for this segment, Chris Feliciano Arnold, Director of the Creative Writing Program at St. Mary's College of California, and author of The Third Bank of the River: Power and Survival in the Twenty-First-Century Amazon? Are you in the process of becoming a citizen of the United States? How has the Trump administration's pursuit of denaturalization complicated your pursuit of naturalization? Call or text us. The number is 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can call or text at that number.

Chris, I just want to read to you a couple texts. Before I even did the call out, we were already getting some listeners who wanted to weigh in. Just so that you can share some of the sentiments that people are experiencing, one listener wrote, "I've been naturalized since 1977 but was not approved for the REAL ID in New Jersey. I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm not inclined to rock the boat." Another listener wrote, "My sister-in-law is a naturalized citizen, and she's afraid of what the Trump administration is capable of, especially when she returns from foreign travel.

Two very different issues there, Chris. I don't expect you to know the rules in New Jersey necessarily, but those anxieties, is that something that you can relate to at all?

Chris Feliciano Arnold: Absolutely. My heart goes out to those listeners, and thank you for sharing your experiences with us. I think a couple things stand out from those comments. One is this notion of I'm afraid to rock the boat about something as simple as the right to a REAL ID. Here we have a naturalized American citizen who's afraid to pursue an everyday bureaucratic process like securing a legal REAL ID because they're afraid to rock the boat. That's worrisome to me.

That second message from somebody who's afraid to leave and come back to the country, that fear of, should a United States citizen reasonably have that fear that they cannot leave and return to their own country? These comments from your listeners echo with a lot of the mail that I've been receiving from readers since the publication of my piece. That's to say that even before the administration undergoes any sort of massive efforts towards denaturalization cases, even before these investigations begin, there's already been a worrisome chilling effect.

If we have citizens of this country, naturalized citizens or natural born, who are afraid to get a REAL ID, who are afraid to leave and come back to the country, what does that mean about their level of comfort with participating in the democratic process in general? Whether it's attending a town hall meeting, whether it's casting a vote, standing up for a campaign, standing out in the streets for a demonstration.

The fact that this level of chilling effect is already taking root goes to show that the words of the President of the United States, however absurd they may be sometimes, still matter. When we have the President of the United States habitually threatening people with their citizenship, that creates a climate of fear.

Brigid Bergin: Chris, in your article in the Atlantic, you mentioned this memo listing prioritizing denaturalization as one of the DOJ's top priorities. How do you understand the Trump administration's motives for going after naturalized citizenship, and both the explicit/implicit fears one may be subject to denaturalization?

Chris Feliciano Arnold: The memo is interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, to be clear, denaturalization has been part of civil law for decades. The questions around naturalization, who gets to be a citizen, who belongs in this country, to what degree, with what rights, are as old as our republic. For a long time, this country has been fighting over the question of who gets to be a citizen, who gets to have rights, and who belongs. Oftentimes, those questions have been answered along racial and gendered, and political lines.

In some respects, this is nothing new. What is new, however, is the fact that the Department of Justice has now identified denaturalization as a top five priority, that they say that they will maximally pursue these cases. Another thing that's new is the technology at the disposal of these agencies, who now have the capability to digitally sort back through decades of bureaucratic filings and are able to now, through the use of technology, more effectively surface the sorts of inconsistencies that may be lurking in any number of naturalized citizen cases.

The other thing that's worrisome is among the criteria that the Department of Justice lay out, there are two that give me great pause. One is that they suggest that one priority should be denaturalizing anybody who is a potential threat to national security. As we know from the behavior of this administration so far, there is a very broad interpretation of what can be considered a threat to national security in the eyes of the Trump administration. Anywhere from protesters of any number of causes, any supporters of DEI, for example, people who don't speak English, for example, there's any number of causes or people or kinds of citizens who might find themselves on the wrong end of who's a threat to national security.

Lastly, and one of the more worrisome components of that Department of Justice memo is a catch-all clause at the end that says that the Department of Justice can pursue this investigation against any case that it deems sufficiently important to pursue, which is essentially saying the Department of Justice is giving itself carte blanche to initiate these investigations against any naturalized citizen.

We see that threat out in the open when the president and his surrogates say things like, "We'll look into that. We're not sure. There's people saying this person or that person isn't here legally. We're going to look into that." That implicit threat is brazen. It's damaging to the Constitution. It's damaging to the notion of citizenship. What it is is the executive branch and the president claiming the power of a king to choose who is a citizen in this country, and that's just not how it works in the United States. The citizens choose the president.

Brigid Bergin: I want to bring some of our callers into this conversation. Listeners, we're asking for your stories to help us report this story. How are you feeling about the Trump Department's call for pursuit of denaturalization? How does that complicate your pursuit of naturalization or your experience as a naturalized citizen? Let's start with Anthony in Inwood. Anthony, you're on WNYC.

Anthony: Hey, guys. Thank you so much for the opportunity here. I really appreciate the conversation. I'm a naturalized citizen. I became a citizen when I was 13 years old. I'm 38 years old now, and my whole family became naturalized citizens. It's just insane that we're now living in this state of just fear and just worry about what may happen to our citizenship. I'm scared to leave the country in case I get caught up at customs with a passport that says I was born in a different country.

I'm just wondering how much longer we're going to tolerate this twisted version hellscape that Stephen Miller and Laura Loomer, and others are creating, because I find that naturalized citizens know more about this country than US-born citizens when they take the civics test and know how this government works more than most American voters and more about US History. It's just, how serious is this going to be? With the 14th Amendment, it's just-

Brigid Bergin: Anthony, thank you for that.

Anthony: -I'm just wondering.

Brigid Bergin: We definitely hear your anxiety and your concerns. I want to get in one more caller before we get you to react, Chris. Let's go to Peter in Maplewood, New Jersey.

Peter: Hi.

Brigid Bergin: Hi. You're on WNYC.

Peter: Thank you. What would you like to know? My history? [laughs]

Brigid Bergin: Well, you called in to respond to our question. What's your story?

Peter: Well, I kind of took my American citizenship a little bit for granted. I became a citizen in my 40s. I was 40 years old and never thought about it. Recently, with what's happening with the Trump administration and all this stuff that's going on, it really made me start to think and actually get a little afraid for nothing.

If people who are going to be good citizens or people who are naturalized citizens are now going to be separated and said, "All right, well, these folks really aren't as good as naturally born citizens. What's next? Am I at some risk here? Is everybody that was legally naturalized and been here for a while have to really think about it? What could happen? Where will Trump go next? What's the next thing?"

Brigid Bergin: Peter, thank you for that. I think that raises a really good point because it does feel a bit like a slippery slope. Chris, just want to get your reaction. In particular, I thought Anthony raised the point about the civics test, which I know you wrote about a lot in that piece. I can say anecdotally, as a listener, I know that this show has used questions from that test during some of our pledge drives, during our listener quiz segment, and it was, in fact, true that people who had naturalized, who had taken that test, did better than people who were born here in our unscientific sample. Can you talk a little bit about-- just respond to those callers and talk a little bit more about the civic test?

Chris Feliciano Arnold: Yes. I want to thank both of those callers for sharing their experiences. I think that, for me, stresses the importance of sharing these anxieties in this community of naturalized citizens. I don't think anyone should feel isolated or unreasonable in these fears or anxieties. The civics test is interesting because it's actually quite comprehensive in its scope of American history, American systems, and values. It's a civics test that spans 100 questions. Applicants are asked to answer 10 of those questions at random in an oral test with an officer.

For me, when I think about that test, it's emblematic of the fact that always naturalized citizens in this country have had an additional burden of proof. They've had to prove their knowledge, their loyalty, their patriotism. In any number of cases, throughout everyday life, natural-born citizens are subject to an additional burden of proof of having to carry certain documents or keep track of their naturalization certificate. They're constantly being questioned in ways formal and informal about their loyalty to this country, their knowledge of this country, what language they speak, what practices they cherish.

For that, naturalized citizens have always had to carry an additional burden of proof. That's nothing new. What is new here is, I think, that in this moment, naturalized citizens also have to carry an extra burden of responsibility for, frankly, standing up to the Constitution and upholding the values of the oath that we took at our naturalization ceremony that, frankly, natural born citizens do not have to take.

Part of upholding that oath means standing up for our rights, standing up for our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I think that is especially important, that is vital right now for natural born citizens who are working in areas of civic life that are under threat by the Trump administration, naturalized citizens who are working in law, who are working in media, who are working in higher education, who are working in health care, who are working the immigration system.

These are the naturalized citizens who are doing their part to uphold our civic life in this country. We need their voices now more than ever at precisely the time that the administration is trying to silence them. In fact, that is exactly why the administration is trying to silence them, because they're doing the good work of keeping this democracy together at a time of threat.

Brigid Bergin: I want to get one more caller in. Let's go to Deborah in Hancock, New York. Deborah, you're on WNYC.

Deborah: Hi, how are you? I just want to say thank you to your guest right now because that was very encouraging what he just said. I recently got my first American passport after being naturalized a few years ago. In these past few months, I was kind of putting it off because I was starting to get very, very nervous about taking in my naturalization certificate because I knew that they have to have that certificate. I had to send that in, mail it, like it was out of my hands. I was very nervous as to whether I would get that back because of maybe where I stand politically.

I also never post on social media, even though I have very strong feelings about things, because I'm nervous that if I go to, say, visit Ireland, which I'm hoping to do, that's my home country, in October, that I might be stopped on the way home. It's kind of very, very nerve-wracking these days to be a naturalized citizen. Yet, I'm so proud to be it.

Brigid Bergin: Well, Deborah, thank you for your call, for your story. Good luck on your trip. We really appreciate you sharing that with us. Chris, we've had a couple callers and texters mention that idea, this idea of, could foreign travel somehow trip them up and make them a target as a naturalized citizen? How concerned are you about something like that?

Chris Feliciano Arnold: Well, I think that speaks to a point of contact where naturalized citizens have become accustomed to an extra level of scrutiny. Those of us who have US passports that specify that we were born in another country, it's not uncommon that we are subject to additional layers of questioning or additional levels of scrutiny at places like border crossings or passport control. When callers specifically bring up those questions of travel as areas of anxiety, I think it just speaks to the fact that people, over the course of their lifetimes as naturalized citizens, have become accustomed to this additional scrutiny.

Now the question is, can that scrutiny be weaponized? Can that scrutiny be used to destabilize us? I think that the fear here is, first of all, real and palpable in the voices of your callers. I think what's equally worrisome is that it, although it may, and to be clear, the criteria, even though denaturalization cases are handled under civil law, and even though civil law has some worrisomely lax safeguards, for example, no statute of limitations, for example, on these cases, for example, no guarantee of legal representation in these cases, a lower standard of proof, even though it's very worrisome, the standard is still quite high to actually strip a citizen of their citizenship.

Yet, the standard to bring an investigation has never been lower. I think that's what has people worried, not necessarily the notion that they're going to be immediately stripped of their citizenship, but that they can be taken for a ride. Because if there's one thing we know is that this administration is vengeful, that it's not afraid to use law enforcement for its own ends, that it's not afraid to bring investigations that may or may not be dubious, that it's not afraid to bring legal challenges, and that it's not afraid to take people for a ride, and also that it really, at the end of the day, doesn't make much of a distinction between someone who's a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen or a permanent resident or someone who's undocumented.

Oftentimes, these distinctions and these investigations and these roundups are being brought purely on the basis of race or on the basis of what language someone is speaking. I think the fear has many levels, but I think that, ultimately, what people fear is not necessarily the letter of the law, but the way that this administration can warp and distort the letter of the law to destabilize someone's life and essentially punish them.

Brigid Bergin: Chris, just my final question. Are there recent examples of people who have faced denaturalization in this country? How did this happen, and what was their fate?

Chris Feliciano Arnold: Yes. There are some worrisome examples from as recently as 2018, which is one of the first instances where the Trump administration, during the first Trump administration, began this process of civil denaturalization. In this case, there was a man who was an asylum seeker in the United States who had been a naturalized citizen for decades. Yet, in his application materials, through some sort of bureaucratic mix-up, two different pieces of his application had two different names. Again, this was a decades-old process, and this bureaucratic mix-up was only uncovered on the basis of digging through decades-old files.

When they found this mix-up, they served process papers to this man at an old address. That man never even received papers to be summoned to court. They underwent civil proceedings to revoke his citizenship, where the man was not even there to appear in his own defense at a hearing. They, ultimately, revoked this person's citizenship without ever having that citizen be a part of that judicial process at all. What we know is that this person's citizenship was revoked. What we don't know is whether this person ever learned that the investigation was underway in the first place.

That's the most aggressive and sort of Kafkaesque situation here and scenario. It doesn't have to happen hundreds or even thousands of times, a situation like this. Even a few of these terrifying denaturalization cases are going to be enough to silence thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of naturalized citizens. As we've heard from your texters and callers today, even before these denaturalization cases are underway in any sort of mass denaturalization schema, we're already seeing the chilling effect, the fear, the anxiety, and most worrisomely, the lack of a sense of home and belonging.

If there's anything that I could leave your callers with and your audience, and especially the callers today, is that this is precisely the time to stand up and lean into your constitutional rights, feel confident that you are, despite what the country may be telling you, despite what civil law may be telling you, you're every bit as American as any other American in this country. Although you've had a burden of proof to demonstrate your citizenship and your loyalty, you also have special standing to stand up for those rights as a naturalized citizen.

I just urge all of your listeners, and especially the callers today, to remember that no matter what the president says, citizens choose the president; the president does not get to choose citizens.

Brigid Bergin: Well, we're going to have to leave it there for this morning. I want to thank my guest, Chris Feliciano Arnold, Director of the Creative Writing Program at St. Mary's College of California and the author of The Third Bank of the River: Power and Survival in the Twenty-First-Century Amazon. His piece in the Atlantic is titled Natural Citizens Are Scared.

I also really want to thank so many of our listeners who called in, shared their stories, their anxieties. We couldn't get to everyone who was on the board, Chris. We have some really just heart-wrenching stories of people who've been in situations that sound very scary and have a lot of questions about how to proceed, but I think you ended us on a really nice note about remembering that citizens select the president. Thank you for being here.

Chris Feliciano Arnold: Thank you so much for having me.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.