478. Luis H. Zayas & Laurie Cook Heffron, Am. Psychol. Ass’n, Disrupting young lives: How detention and deportation affect US-born children of immigrants (Nov. 2016), https:// www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/newsletter/2016/11/ detention-deportation. 479. Wendy Cervantes, Rebecca Ullrich & Hannah Matthews, Center for L. & Soc. Pol’y, Our Children’s Fear: Immigration Policy’s Effects on Young Children, (Mar. 2018), https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018/03/2018_ourchildrensfears.pdf; Maureen B. Costello, S. Poverty L. Center, The Trump Effect: The impact of the presidential campaign on our nation’s schools (2016), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ splc_the_trump_effect.pdf; Randy Capps et al., Migration Pol’y Institute, Implications of Immigration Enforcement Activities for the Well-Being of Children in Immigrant Families: A Review of the Literature (Sept. 2015), http:// www.migrationpolicy.org/research/implications-immigration-enforcement-activities-well-being-children-immigrant-families. 480. Leila Schochet & Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Center for Am. Progress, How ending TPS will hurt U.S.-citizen children (Feb. 11, 2019), https://www.americanprogress. org/issues/immigration/reports/2019/02/11/466022/ ending-tps-will-hurt-u-s-citizen-children/; Kalina M. Brabeck and Qingwen Xu, The Impact of Detention and Deportation on Latino Immigrant Children and Families: A Quantitative Exploration, 32 Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 341 (2010), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247721989_ The_Impact_of_Detention_and_Deportation_on_Latino_ Immigrant_Children_and_Families_A_Quantitative_Exploration.; Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Erin B. Godfrey & Ann C. Rivera, Access to institutional resources as a measure of social exclusion: relations with family process and cognitive development in the context of immigration, 2008 New Directions for Child & Adolescent Dev. 63 (2008), https:// nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/access-to-institutional-resources-as-a-measure-of-social-exclusio. 481. 328 U.S. 654. 482. Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta., (Un)Civil Denaturalization, 94 New York University Law Review 402, 461 (2019), https://www.nyulawreview.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NYULawReview-94-3-RobertsonMantapdf.pdf. 483. Unicorn Riot, Icebreaker Pt 1 – secret Homeland Security ICE/HSI manual for stripping US citizenship (Feb. 14, 2018), https://unicornriot.ninja/2018/icebreaker-pt-1-secret-homeland-security-ice-hsi-manual-stripping-us-citizenship/. 484. Civil Division, FY 2020 Budget & Performance Plans (Mar. 2019), at 16, https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/ file/1143936/download. 485. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 78 & n.12 (1976): “The Constitution protects the privileges and immunities only of citizens, Amdt. 14, § 1; see Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, and the right Endnotes to vote only of citizens. Amdts. 15, 19, 24, 26. It requires that Representatives have been citizens for seven years, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Senators citizens for nine, Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and that the President be a ‘natural born Citizen.’ Art. II, § 1, cl. 5. “A multitude of federal statutes distinguish between citizens and aliens. The whole of Title 8 of the United States Code, regulating aliens and nationality, is founded on the legitimacy of distinguishing between citizens and aliens. A variety of other federal statutes provide for disparate treatment of aliens and citizens. These include prohibitions and restrictions upon Government employment of aliens, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 5571; 22 U.S.C. § 1044(e), upon private employment of aliens, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 2279; 12 U.S.C. § 72, and upon investments and businesses of aliens, e.g., 12 U.S.C. § 619; 47 U.S.C. § 17; statutes excluding aliens from benefits available to citizens, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 931 (1970 ed. and Supp. IV); 46 U.S.C. § 1171(a), and from protections extended to citizens, e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1526; 29 U.S.C. § 633a (1970 ed., Supp. IV); and statutes imposing added burdens upon aliens, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 6851(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d). Several statutes treat certain aliens more favorably than citizens. E.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1586(e); 50 U.S.C.App. § 453 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Other statutes, similar to the one at issue in this case, provide for equal treatment of citizens and aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 10 U.S.C. § 8253; 18 U.S.C. § 613(2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Still others equate citizens and aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens. E.g., 43 U.S.C. § 161; 30 U.S.C. § 22. Yet others condition equal treatment of an alien upon reciprocal treatment of United States citizens by the alien's own country. E.g., 10 U.S.C. § 7435(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2502.”See also Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationalism in France and Germany 21 (“There is a conceptually clear, legally consequential, and ideologically charged distinction between citizens and foreigners.”). 486. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 521 (2003) (quoting Mathews, 426 U.S. at 79-80). See also Rachel E. Rosenbloom, The Citizenship Line: Rethinking Immigration Exceptionalism, 54 B.C.L. Rev. 1695, 1982 (2013) (quoting Demore v. Kim). 487. See James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1998). 488. See Judge Kozinski in Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 901 (“Those born with U.S. citizenship cannot imagine what this is worth to the world’s poor and oppressed billions, most of whom would come here tomorrow if they could. Gaining a lawful foothold in America is an incalculable benefit. It sets an immigrant on a the path to a peaceful life in a free society, economic prosperity, citizenship and the opportunity to bring family members in due course. A prize like this is worth a great deal of expense and risk. Telling an elaborate lie, and coming up with forged documents and mendacious witnesses to back it up, is nothing at all when the stakes are so high.”). See also Sarah Igo, The Known Citizen 89 (2018) (On the Social Security Number: “Never simply a means of tracking 183