India”; “assist[ed] an enemy” in war; has within five years since naturalizing, been sentenced, in any country, to imprisonment for two years or more; or has resided outside of India for a continuous period of seven years without notification to relevant authorities.362 Article 8 permits the renunciation of citizenship. However, should a citizen renounce their citizenship, “every minor child of that person shall thereupon cease to be a citizen of India.” According to Article 5, “[n]o person who has renounced, or has been deprived of, his Indian citizenship or whose Indian citizenship has terminated, under this Act shall be registered as a citizen of India…except by order of the Central Government.” India’s citizenship laws, on their face, raise significant risks of statelessness for denaturalized U.S. citizens. Nigeria President Trump has described Nigerian immigrants in insulting terms in connection with his administration’s policies.363 His remarks were offensive and also disproportionate: as of June 2015, Nigerian immigrants accounted for only about 0.6% of naturalized U.S. citizens.364 According to Nigeria’s Constitution, only “a citizen of Nigeria by birth” may acquire another citizenship and still retain Nigerian citizenship. Section 28 of the Constitution provides that: “. . . a person shall forfeit forthwith365 his Nigerian citizenship if, not being a citizen of Nigeria by birth, he acquires or retains the citizenship or nationality of a country, other than Nigeria, of which he is not a citizen by birth.”366 Nigeria’s Constitution defines “citizens by birth” as those born in Nigeria whose parent or grandparent is a Nigerian citizen or born outside Nigeria to a parent who is a Nigerian citizen.367 There is a risk that denaturalized U.S. citizens from Nigeria would become stateless, if they held Nigerian citizenship by naturalization, and no other citizenship, particularly given that the loss of Nigerian citizenship in such cases occurs “forthwith,” and thus is immediate and automatic. As stated above, further research on the operation of foreign nationality laws in practice would be needed in order to conclude that there is a risk of statelessness in individual cases. A major conclusion of this report is that the U.S. government is currently incapable of undertaking that assessment, a situation that requires urgent attention. Considering the severe impact of statelessness on an individual’s life and security, and the practical and legal complications that statelessness raises for states in the orderly and humane administration of immigration law, this report makes several important recommendations as to how these glaring gaps in U.S. law should be closed. In the context of denaturalization proceedings, the likely creation of statelessness should be explored as a matter of priority, not only due to the moral implications of 84 UNMAKING AMERICANS