Denial and revocation of documentation of U.S. citizenship It is not possible to state conclusively that the number of passport denials and revocations has increased in recent years. However, a quantitative analysis of judicial actions in the Southern District of Texas revealed an increase of approximately 64.5% in the number of cases seeking to confirm citizenship in relation to passport revocations or denials filed since the beginning of 2017, over the same period immediately prior to this date. Both qualitative and quantitative information gathered for this report suggest that the government has also shifted its approach to defending cases that are reaching courts in South Texas. The principal difference is that the Department of Justice (which represents the government in defending passport cases) is currently defending all cases—regardless of the merits—rather than settling some. This approach requires time and resources, yet consistently results in a finding that the individual is in fact a citizen. The government’s approach is more centralized today than under previous administrations, with attorneys defending passport cases who have never been to the Rio Grande Valley and do not understand the local culture, including how common trans-border lives and families are and how important passports are to the local economy. The outcome is an unbending, uninformed approach that results in undue hardships for those targeted. By limiting Americans’ free movement in this way, arbitrarily and without sufficient understanding of the context or evidence in individual cases, the U.S. government violates constitutional rights and sends a stigmatizing message about who is a “real” American. This report tackles government policies and practices, many of which are purportedly intended to combat fraud. Fraud prevention may be a noble aim, but it is not a blank check to torment and seek to banish unwanted citizens. Based primarily on research in communities that face the brunt of suspected non-citizenship, in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, and empirical analysis of cases filed in the Southern District of Texas (detailed in the Description of Research section, below), the report records several significant findings. The odds are massively stacked against anyone whose citizenship comes under question by the Department of State, the agency responsible for issuing U.S. passports. This is especially evident when the affected individual is abroad, attempting to return to the United States. Citizens in such circumstances must seek permission to enter the U.S. as noncitizens, subjecting themselves to the full force of the immigration system, including detention and possible criminal immigration penalties. Even citizens who are in the U.S. when their passports are denied or revoked face unjustified hurdles, including the lack of a right to counsel, in challenging the agency’s decision. The Department of State (DOS) retains undue discretion in determining when to revoke or deny passports. That discretion has led to a woeful lack of coordination and documentation of how policies are developed and deployed, at home and abroad, as a 2016 investigation of passport denials in Yemen underscored. The recommendations made by the DOS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in that investigation are incorporated below. 12 UNMAKING AMERICANS