doing so is a “Herculean task.”382 Thus, permitting deportations before denaturalized persons “have had the opportunity to waive or exhaust direct appeals that are guaranteed to them as of right can substantially frustrate, or in some instances, effectively extinguish, their ability to exercise these established rights.”383 The denaturalized and deported will likely be unable to pay counsel (provided they have counsel) to continue pursuing their appeal and will face overwhelming logistical obstacles attempting to appear pro se from abroad, including navigating the U.S. court system, obtaining timely notice of docket entries, meeting filing deadlines, complying with filing procedures, and appearing for oral argument.384 The “rule of finality” holds that a conviction is not considered “final”—so as to trigger removal consequences or bar relief from removal—unless and until the individual’s direct appeals of that conviction have been exhausted or waived.385 Absent express recognition of the “finality” rule, DHS may continue to improperly pursue deportation of noncitizens based on non-final criminal convictions that remain under direct appellate review, thus subjecting many immigrants to removal on the basis of potentially wrongful or flawed convictions and eroding enshrined appellate rights. Failure to recognize the “finality” rule thus seriously affects the lives of many immigrants and their families and communities. Eighth Amendment: An “Ill-Gotten” Benefit that “Makes Life Worth Living” While the law treats the denaturalization statutes as a corrective measure, administrative in character, this gloss is difficult to square with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the harms inflicted by expatriation and denaturalization. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. While this is usually discussed in the context of capital punishment and torture cases, the Supreme Court has also found citizenship stripping to qualify. In Trop v. Dulles (1958), the court held that denaturalization was cruel and unusual, finding that “the total destruction of the individual’s status…is a form of punishment more primitive than torture...” In Knauer v. United States (1946), the court noted, “Denaturalization, like deportation, may result in the loss ‘of all that makes life worth living.’”386 The government recognizes the gravity and harm inflicted when it pursues denaturalization. Motions in limine by the government in recent criminal cases seek to enjoin defendants from “refer[ring] to any punishment or immigration consequences [they] might suffer if convicted,”387 noting that the severity of denaturalization might sway a jury’s sympathies. The U.S. justice system is based on a premise that the punishment must fit the crime. As confirmed by the Supreme Court in Solem v. Helm (1983), the nature and gravity of an offense II. Denaturalization: A Radical Measure in the Hands of Zealots 89