Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Can US citizens by birth have their citizenship taken away?
Executive Summary
U.S. citizens born in the United States cannot be stripped of their citizenship by the government except in extremely limited, legally constrained circumstances: loss requires voluntary expatriation or a successful legal finding that citizenship was never validly acquired. The Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence—the 1967 Afroyim decision—establishes that involuntary divestment of citizenship is unconstitutional, and current federal law treats loss of nationality as contingent on voluntary acts and intent [1] [2]. Recent statutory guidance reiterates that the burden of proving loss rests on the party asserting it, and contemporary analysts warn that proposals to eliminate or revoke birthright citizenship would face profound constitutional obstacles and practical consequences [2] [3].
1. How the Law Frames “Taking Away” Citizenship — Sharp Limits and a High Bar
Federal statutes identify specific acts that can result in loss of nationality, but they require voluntariness and intent; examples include naturalizing in a foreign state, swearing allegiance to another country, or serving in a foreign military. The statutory text expressly conditions loss on the person’s voluntary performance of such acts with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality, and the statute assigns the burden of proof to the party claiming the loss occurred [2]. Contemporary summaries of the law emphasize that these are not automatic penalties; rather, courts and administrative bodies look for clear evidence that the person intended to abandon U.S. citizenship. Analysts also note that where citizenship was wrongfully gained—for example, by fraud in the naturalization process—administrative or judicial remedies may void a nationality claim, but that too proceeds through legal process rather than unilateral executive cancellation [4].
2. The Supreme Court’s Turning Point — Afroyim and the End of Involuntary Expatriation
The Supreme Court’s decision in Afroyim v. Rusk is the doctrinal cornerstone: a U.S. citizen cannot be deprived of citizenship against their will. Afroyim overruled earlier precedents that allowed Congress broader power to strip citizenship for selected conduct, and it anchored citizenship protection in constitutional principles, including the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [1] [5]. Legal scholars trace the shift from Perez v. Brownell—which once allowed statutory expatriation for voting in foreign elections—to Afroyim, noting that the Court concluded Congress lacks authority to divest a person of U.S. nationality absent that person’s voluntary renunciation [6]. This decision remains the controlling legal rule cited by courts and commentators when assessing any attempt to involuntarily remove citizenship.
3. Statute, Procedure, and the Burden of Proof — How Loss Is Determined Today
Congress codified loss-of-nationality provisions but conditioned them on voluntariness and intent; administrative procedures exist for adjudicating claims, and statutes place the burden of proof on the party asserting that loss occurred [2]. The law contemplates administrative adjudication and certificates of loss of nationality, and courts have upheld statutory processes and fees tied to relinquishment procedures in recent litigation, showing judicial deference to procedural frameworks so long as voluntariness principles are respected [7]. Analysts emphasize that practical loss of citizenship for someone born in the U.S. typically arises only through voluntary expatriating acts or successful legal findings that the original claim to citizenship was invalid, which requires proof and due process rather than unilateral revocation [4].
4. Birthright Citizenship: Constitutional Protection and Political Proposals
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is the constitutional bedrock for birthright citizenship, and scholars warn that abolishing or revoking birthright citizenship would require difficult constitutional change or risk violating settled precedent [5] [3]. Commentators argue that efforts to curtail jus soli could trigger widespread legal challenges and have significant social consequences—such as creating persistent stateless or undocumented populations—thus making unilateral policy shifts legally and practically fraught [3]. Political proposals seeking to limit birthright citizenship sometimes rely on statutory reinterpretations or executive action, but Afroyim and the Fourteenth Amendment together make such routes legally perilous, and analysts caution that courts would likely scrutinize any measure aimed at involuntary divestment.
5. Competing Views, Stakes, and Practical Realities — What This Means for Individuals
Legal authorities converge that involuntary stripping of birthright citizenship is legally constrained and rare, but there are competing concerns about edge cases: where citizenship was obtained through fraud, where an individual clearly intends expatriation, or where Congress contemplates new statutory schemes. Proposals to change the rules often carry political agendas—some aim to address immigration concerns, others to assert national security prerogatives—and these motives shape advocacy while not altering constitutional limits [3] [6]. For most U.S.-born citizens, the current legal landscape means citizenship cannot be taken away without their voluntary renunciation or a court finding nullifying the original acquisition; any move to broaden government power to revoke birthright citizenship would face major constitutional obstacles and sustained litigation [4] [1].