[soulofmischief]

Here's a fact sheet from the ACLU which covers the USCIS denaturalization unit created by Trump during his last administration. [0]

Biden dismantled the unit, and part of Project 2025 is reimplementing it.

> typical hyperbolic fear-mongering from Trump's opponents

Let me be clear. There is nothing hyperbolic about Project 2025. The Heritage Foundation, a prominent Republican think tank, is spearheading it. Hundreds of high-ranking politicians and corporate executives are on board with it. The entire administration is going to push for it, systematically, and get as far as they can. It behooves you to study Project 2025 [1] and understand just how bad the next 4 years can be.

Obligatory preface, before it derails my message, the Biden/Harris machine is also anti-democratic, but with a particular neoliberal flavor, while Project 2025 is a largely domestic coup, with sweeping support across the GOP, in a time where Republicans have control of the Legislative branch, Judicial branch and soon, Executive branch. And once Trump begins mass-replacing government workers with sympathizers, there will be little any of us can really do about it.

[0] https://immpolicytracking.org/media/documents/ACLU_Fact_Shee...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

[tivert]

> Here's a fact sheet from the ACLU which covers the USCIS denaturalization unit created by Trump during his last administration. [0]

That sounds nothing like "declaring anyone that subsequently went on to be naturalized while living here under these [H1-B] and other programs to have their citizenship revoked." It's more like hyper-strict enforcement of existing law, about making material false statements on a naturalization application.

[th0ma5]

Yes this is exactly it, any remote thing that can disqualify people that is today forgiven, and additionally, where Chevron comes in, that a lot of these norms are rules within departments where such things can be evaluated, but Project 2025 says if it isn't a law or statute then it doesn't matter, and that includes any concept of a person living here but not a full, naturalized citizen.

[tivert]

> Yes this is exactly it, any remote thing that can disqualify people that is today forgiven...

No that's not at all "exactly it." Do you realize you're moving the goalposts?

Looking for flaws in an applications according to existing critera is totally different than somehow retroactively declaring the previous regulations were invalid and screwing everyone who relied on them by revoking their naturalization.

> where Chevron comes in, that a lot of these norms are rules within departments where such things can be evaluated

Chevron says if there's a controversy over those things, a court needs to resolve it without giving total deference to the department. It doesn't say those "norms are rules" must be struck down, it just says a court will decided if they're following the law.

> but Project 2025 says if it isn't a law or statute then it doesn't matter, and that includes any concept of a person living here but not a full, naturalized citizen.

You seem to be saying here that there's no law or statute that allows for any state besides "full, naturalized citizen," and that's just so totally not true that it's bonkers you're claiming it.

[th0ma5]

Well I don't know what to tell ya man. I am too dumb to just invent this. Go dig through Jamelle's videos or ping him when he's on twitch about this. Send me a link if you do.

[tivert]

> Well I don't know what to tell ya man. I am too dumb to just invent this.

How about admitting you could be wrong? You repeated an unbelievable claim, and so far have failed to support it. The best you seem to be able to do is come up with something superficially similar without realizing the difference.

And I don't think you invented the claim. There's an entire fever swap producing and promulgating fear fantasies like it. The mechanism seems to be: assume the worst, make some hyperbolic speculation, someone repeats that speculation as something that's really planned, rinse, repeat.

> Go dig through Jamelle's videos

That's a totally unreasonable request.

[th0ma5]

Is it though? You're trying to refute someone else's argument through me. And it is confusing, either I am wrong or they are making it up, it seems weird that it could be either of those when it could be neither.