Bharat Rakshak

A_Gupta wrote: ↑07 Jun 2025 04:39 <snip>
Contemptible.

We learned of this girl's detention because of someone else who was detained but released after 3 weeks or so.
This following is a second-hand report: https://medium.com/blog/what-its-like-t ... e1c46f8de1

So you’re saying someone who once drove 60 in a 55 and didn’t report it could be deported?

Later, the government found she had lied during her immigration process by concealing her husband's involvement in a Serbian military unit accused of war crimes.

Amber G. wrote: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer in particular expressed concern that the DOJ’s position would give the government too much power — potentially enabling revocation for any trivial misstatement, like forgetting to disclose a speeding ticket.

pravula wrote: ↑07 Jun 2025 08:50 But if you were cited, you would know...Its not asking if you ever broke the speed limit...

Let’s say I fail to disclose that I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone. Five years later, they find out — not that I got a ticket, but that I drove 60 in a 55 — and they start a denaturalization proceeding.

(Un)Civil Denaturalization
94 New York University Law Review 402 (2019)
Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2018-14
70 Pages Posted: 30 Aug 2018 Last revised: 26 Jun 2019

Cassandra Burke Robertson
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Irina D. Manta
Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law

Date Written: August 29, 2018

Abstract
Over the last fifty years, naturalized citizens in the United States were able to feel a sense of finality and security in their rights. Denaturalization, wielded frequently as a political tool in the McCarthy era, had become exceedingly rare. Indeed, denaturalization was best known as an adjunct to criminal proceedings brought against former Nazis and other war criminals who had entered the country under false pretenses.

Denaturalization is no longer so rare. Naturalized citizens’ sense of security has been fundamentally shaken by policy developments in the last five years. The number of denaturalization cases is growing, and if current trends continue, it will continue to increase dramatically. This growth began under the Obama administration, which used improved digital tools to identify potential cases of naturalization fraud from years and decades ago. The Trump administration, however, is taking denaturalization to new levels as part of its overall immigration crackdown. It has announced plans for a denaturalization task force. And it is pursuing denaturalization as a civil-litigation remedy and not just a criminal sanction—a choice that prosecutors find advantageous because civil proceedings come with a lower burden of proof, no guarantee of counsel to the defendant, and no statute of limitations. In fact, the first successful denaturalization under this program was decided on summary judgment in favor of the government in 2018. The defendant was accused of having improperly filed an asylum claim twenty-five years ago, but he was never personally served with process and he never made an appearance in the case, either on his own or through counsel. Even today, it is not clear that he knows he has lost his citizenship.

The legal status of denaturalization is murky, in part because the Supreme Court has long struggled to articulate a consistent view of citizenship and its prerogatives. Nonetheless, the Court has set a number of significant limits on the government’s attempts to remove citizenship at will—limits that are inconsistent with the adminis- tration’s current litigation policy. This Article argues that stripping Americans of citizenship through the route of civil litigation not only violates substantive and procedural due process, but also infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, (un)civil denaturalization undermines the constitutional safeguards of democracy.

The Denaturalization Consequences of Guilty Pleas
20 OCT 2020
Amber Qureshi
ABSTRACT. The Obama and Trump Administrations have engaged in a systematic effort to revoke the citizenship of foreign-born U.S. citizens. The denaturalization program has targeted naturalized citizens who allegedly committed a crime before obtaining citizenship but were arrested for that crime post naturalization. The federal government is pursuing denaturalization on the basis that these citizens committed fraud during the naturalization process by failing to disclose their criminal conduct. This Essay presents a novel legal theory to protect the Sixth Amendment and due-process rights of those facing denaturalization on this basis. Under the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal-defense counsel have a duty to advise noncitizen clients of the deportation consequences of pleading guilty. This Essay argues that, under Padilla’s reasoning, criminal-defense counsel and judges must also advise defendants who are naturalized citizens of the potential denaturalization consequences of pleading guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... ted_States

Stripping Naturalized Immigrants of Their Citizenship Isn’t New
The United States has a history of denaturalization spanning more than a century
Kritika Agarwal, Perspectives on History
July 24, 2018

In January 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice revoked the citizenship of Baljinder Singh a.k.a. Davinder Singh, a naturalized Indian American. Singh, who first arrived to the United States in 1991, was accused of misrepresenting his identity and failing to disclose a deportation order on an asylum application. “The defendant exploited our immigration system,” said Chad Readler, assistant attorney general for the department’s civil division.

Singh’s case was the first to be concluded under the Operation Janus program of the Department of Homeland Security. Begun during the Obama administration, the program exists to identify individuals who may have committed naturalization fraud, by consulting fingerprint records collected by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Under Operation Janus, USCIS intends to bring denaturalization proceedings against an additional 1,600 individuals.

This effort has in turn spawned Operation Second Look, another DHS program to follow leads obtained from Operation Janus. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s proposed fiscal year 2019 budget, the agency seeks to hire staff to review about 700,000 “alien files” for naturalization fraud under Operation Second Look. The first citizens to have been caught up in this new dragnet include a 46-year-old Bangladeshi American woman and a 56-year-old Haitian American woman, both living in Florida. Another Florida resident, a 63-year-old woman who migrated to the United States from Peru in 1989, recently received a letter from the DOJ about an impending denaturalization lawsuit against her.

The reactions to these cases—as well as to USCIS director L. Francis Cissna’s recent statements to the Associated Press about hiring dozens of lawyers and immigration officers to review cases of naturalization fraud—have been a mix of shock, disbelief and fear.
...

ALIENATING CITIZENS

Amanda Frost ABSTRACT- Denaturalization is back. In 1967, the Supreme Court declared that denaturalization for any reason other than fraud or mistake in the naturalization process is unconstitutional, forcing the goverment to abandon its aggressive denaturalization campaigns. For the last half century,

the government denaturalized no more than a handful of people every year. Over the past year, however, the Trump Administration has revived denaturalization. The Administration has targeted 700,000 naturalized American citizens for investigation and has hired dozens of lawyers and staff members to work in a newly created office devoted to investigating and prosecuting denaturalization cases.

Using information gathered from responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, legal filings, and interviews, this Essay is the first to describe the Trump Administration's denaturalization campaign in detail. The Essay then situates denaturalization within the Trump Administration's broader approach to immigration. Under a policy known as "attrition through enforcement." the Trump Administration has sought to discourage immigration and encourage self-deportation." Although attrition through enforcement is typically described as a method of persuading unauthorized immigrants to leave the United States, the denaturalization campaign and other Trump Administration initiatives suggest that the same approach is now being applied to those with legal status.

Operation Janus

Operation Janus began under the Obama Administration after the gov-ernment realized that it had failed to upload fingerprints from immigration records in the early 1990s to its centralized database.56 This mistake allowed for some individuals to naturalize as U.S. citizens, even though they had previously been ordered for deportation under a different name.57 While previous deportation orders alone were not a basis for denaturalization, the government argued that if they had been aware of these deportation orders, then they may have denied citizenship to some or all of these individuals.58 Further, had these individuals lied about the fact that they had been previously ordered deported, then they would have “conceal[ed] a material fact” and engaged in “willful misrepresentation,” which is, in itself, an independent basis for denaturalization.59

By September 2016, the Inspector General (“IG”) issued a report finding that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) granted citizenship to more than 800 individuals whom the government had not realized were previously deported under different identities.60 These errors came not just from individuals who willfully hid the fact that they had previously been ordered deported, but also from individuals who had no idea that they had been previously ordered to leave the country due to the lack of fingerprint data on the government’s behalf.61 Further, the IG reported that the U.S. Attorney’s Office planned to pursue denaturalization in some cases, but only if those individuals posed a particular risk to national security.62 However, by the time President Obama left office in January 2020, no individual had been denaturalized as a result of these investigations.63

B. Operation Second Look

While Operation Janus did not begin as a denaturalization program, the Trump administration escalated the program into an explicit denaturalization effort, investigating over 700,000 naturalized citizens and bringing more de- naturalization cases per year than any presidential administration since Lyndon B. Johnson.64 While Afroyim barred the federal government from denaturalizing citizens based on their speech, conduct, and political affiliations, the Court did note that the government could continue to denaturalize individuals for fraud or error during the naturalization process.65

In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it was filing civil denaturalization cases against three individuals identified through Operation Janus.66 All three had been ordered deported in the early 1990s and had subsequently naturalized under different names than those which they had been deported.67 The government claimed that the three individuals were “exploit[ing] our immigration system” and were seeking to “defraud the United States.”68 By January 2018, the government claimed its first successful civil denaturalization case under Operation Janus, stating that the individual had “exploited our immigration system and unlawfully secured the ultimate immigration benefit of naturalization, which undermines both the nation’s security and our lawful immigration system.”69

The Trump Administration’s denaturalization campaign continued to escalate in the summer of 2018. The ICE Fiscal Year 2019 Budget overview described two programs dedicated to denaturalization.70 The Budget first described Operation Janus as an “interagency initiative designed by DHS to prevent aliens who received a final removal order under a different identity from obtaining immigration benefits,” and Operation Second Look as a pro- gram designed to “address leads received from Operation Janus.”71 Further, the Budget noted that both programs needed to hire more staff to “support the review of an estimated 700,000 remaining alien files.”72

By early 2020, the Trump Administration codified this new denaturalize zation regime into the structure of the government, creating a new Denatu- ralization Section within the Department of Justice dedicated to “investigat[ing] and litigat[ing] the denaturalization of terrorists, war criminals, sex offenders, and other fraudsters.”73 The press release announcing this new program stated that the “growing number of referrals anticipated from law enforcement agencies motivated the creation of a standalone agency” dedicated to denaturalization cases.74

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 01:33 Do OPT folks need an H1B? I thought they can work for one year on OPT. A lot of them are using up their OPT time during summers to earn money and pay off the loans they took back home.

There is also oversupply of programmers and that is where most jobs are. Many folks are coming to the US to get MS in LIbrary and Information Sciences in which they do take mostly DBMS/SE/Data Management/Information Science (not Information Theory) and were offered jobs at even places like Deloitte, Banks, etc. Those jobs have dried up now. Usually companies employ the consulting companies to do in -house development projects. Once they are done, their own IT takes over the maintenance with very few consultants if any. This was always the case. Now AI driven tools like copilot have thrown a big spanner into the works.

Mort Walker wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 01:47 They're going after people with hard graduate degrees with solid research in Aerospace, Electrical, Material Science & Physics.

A decades-old tax rule helped build America's tech economy. A quiet change under Trump helped dismantle it

The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods.

vera_k wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 03:17 Leaving this here since it seems relevant to the job market troubles.

The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

A decades-old tax rule helped build America's tech economy. A quiet change under Trump helped dismantle it

Repeal may come too late
A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.

vera_k wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 03:17 Leaving this here since it seems relevant to the job market troubles.

The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

A decades-old tax rule helped build America's tech economy. A quiet change under Trump helped dismantle it

drnayar wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 13:02

vera_k wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 03:17 Leaving this here since it seems relevant to the job market troubles.

The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

Quite a good one, wonder if India can have its version of Section 174 of the IRS Code
[/quot
Indian tax law has an omnibus clause for deduction of all all expenditure incurred in the course of running a business which would include R&D expenditure. The Courts have interpreted this provision in a liberal way. The only requirement is whether a prudent business would incur that expenditure even if there is no immediate benefit from such expenditure. R&D expenditure would clearly fall under that. In addition there are weighted deductions too, ranging from 125 to 200% in some cases. The deduction doesn't apply to cost of land and buildings. But buildings are eligible for normal depreciation of 10% which can be claimed as business expenditure.

chetak wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 18:06 This could be a scene straight out of a police state in a “third world” country.

It’s LA in Trump’s America.
...

Manish_P wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 19:50

We might soon see IFVs with 30mm machine cannon... Come on Trump ji. Show them who is da boss.

Fifty-seven years ago, starting on March 5, 1968, thousands of Mexican American high-school students walked out of classes in Los Angeles protesting inequality in the public education system.

In the backdrop of a tumultuous time, the significance of this event — the first major mass protest against racism undertaken by Mexican Americans in the history of the United States — is often lost to history.

However, the 1968 walkouts set in motion a transformation that bears greatly on the rapidly evolving June 2025 events in Los Angeles. As he orders the US military onto the streets of Los Angeles to enforce DHS workplace raids, Trump is awakening a sleeping giant.

Some brief history.

That same year, 1968, the Vietnam War was in full swing, headlined by the massive political impact of the January Tet Offensive by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. In April, Martin Luther King, Jr., would be assassinated. In June, RFK would meet the same fate. In November, Republican Richard M. Nixon would be elected as President, accelerating the political demise of the Democratic Party in the South that had begun during passage of the Civil Rights Acts.

The day before the Mexican American student walkouts, FBI Director Hoover had urged local law enforcement to prioritize "political intelligence work to prevent the development of nationalist movements in minority communities". At the time, the local Los Angeles political system remained under white majority control, led by Democratic Mayor Sam Yorty, a politician with a long and complex history who had transitioned from a New Dealer into someone who would later endorse Nixon and Reagan. To give the flavor of Yorty, when he ran successfully for reelection against Tom Bradley in 1969, he painted his opponent as a “dangerous radical, alternately of the black power or Communist revolutionary varieties” (Bradley, who would later win election as the first African American mayor of LA, had spent much of his career in the Los Angeles Police Department — the LAPD). At the state level, California was under newly elected Republican Governor Ronald Reagan.

Los Angeles had a long history of violent repression of Mexican Americans. Local history featured episodes like the WW2 era “Zoot Suit” riots in 1943 where American servicemen in LA and other US cities rampaged and beat Mexican American youths, and the 1951 “Bloody Christmas” LAPD beatings of jail inmates. During the Great Depression, in the early 1930s, the United States deported between 500,000 and 2 million people of Mexican descent (including 1.2 million children who were U.S. citizens) during what was called “the Mexican Repatriation.” Many of these deportees were from Southern California.

In sum, March 1968 was a very rough time for young Mexican American high school students in Los Angeles to carry out a mass walkout. But the movement was a volcano ready to erupt. So out they went. Thousands and thousands of them. Linked to parallel political developments like the 1962 birth of the United Farm Workers, it was the flowering of what would be called the Chicano Movement.

Fast forward to 2025. In the years following that era, some progress was made. Notably, Mexican Americans began to run and win races for local elections. The LAPD became more integrated. And school curriculums were improved. Today, one of California’s two US Senators is Mexican American and a significant number of California House seats are held by Latinos as well. It is also notable that, since the 1960’s, the Latino population itself has become very diverse, including many Latinos from Central and South America.

As a Mexican American myself, and a native of Los Angeles, my jaw dropped when I saw that Trump was ordering troops onto the streets of LA. Did he not know this history? Did he not understand the depth of memory?

Yes, Mexican Americans, like all people, support fighting crime. And the relationships between legal and undocumented residents can be complex.

But now it is clear to a much wider audience, beyond the immigrant rights activist core (which knew from the start this was likely where things were headed), that this was never about “violent criminals.” This is about returning Mexican Americans, and Latinos and other immigrants, to the dark days of “the great repatriation.” This is about promoting violent right-wing fantasies.

Tanaji wrote: ↑08 Jun 2025 20:34 ...
Saar even smallish police departments in US now have MRAPS. In fact the feds have a virtual Amazon style shopping portal with retired military gear that police departments can browse and buy. Only the 30mm is missing.
…