that considered the wisdom of allowing denaturalizations at all under U.S. law focused on the potential for abuse, the effectiveness of the measure to achieve any worthy policy goal, and the paralyzing impacts for the individual. These animating principles remain important and were never adequately resolved after OSI was established. As one scholarly article has observed: The underlying concern of Afroyim was that denaturalization could be wielded as a political weapon—that a group of citizens ‘temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.’ And yet that is exactly what we see with Operation Janus and the proposed denaturalization task force [Operation Second Look]: current political expediency supports looking back through the files of individuals naturalized years or decades ago, and, in particular, prioritizing the files of individuals from countries associated with the current popular fears and anxieties.482 The informant who leaked the 2008 Denaturalization Handbook to an online media outlet claimed to have done so because, “the agency is systematically violating the human rights of countless immigrants.” As an example, the informant cited what they felt was a particularly unjust denaturalization case, and added, “They have created an extrajudicial process here that is not being subject to any transparency, and I believe there are many more cases like this we are not aware of.”483 An underlying theme of this chapter has been the indefinite nature of Operation Second Look and the potential for further similar programs in the future, under any administration, if new constraints are not put in place in accordance with the recommendations of this report. The Department of Justice itself now boldly portrays denaturalization as an “ever-increasing” project.484 Without transparency and oversight, the American public may be unaware that such measures are in place until it is too late to do anything about them. II. Denaturalization: A Radical Measure in the Hands of Zealots 113