ENDNOTES 1. In this report, the term “alien” refers to any person not a citizen or national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3). The terms “citizen” and “national” are used interchangeably, to indicate a legal connection between an individual and a state. Where relevant, for example in the case of “non-citizen nationals” under U.S. law, the terms may take on different meanings, as will be indicated in the text and notes. The term “denationalization” covers multiple forms of involuntary loss of nationality, including denaturalization (loss of citizenship acquire by naturalization) and deprivation of citizenship acquired at birth. org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NYULawReview-94-3-RobertsonMantapdf.pdf (citing Marta Tienda, Demography and the Social Contract, 39 Demography 587, 607 (2002)). 2. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), USCIS partners with Justice Department and Secures First Denaturalization As a Result of Operation Janus, (2018), https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/ uscis-partners-justice-department-and-secures-first-denaturalization-result-operation-janus. 12. There is no comprehensive way to search for civil denaturalization cases. Instead, a general search must be performed (using a civil nature of suit code for “Other Immigration Actions”), which may not capture all cases. At least one case identified through other means was not coded under this category. The Northern District of Georgia does not permit specific case searches under the criminal denaturalization statute, although cases are being filed in this district. Cases filed prior to January 1, 2017, but refiled due to a jurisdiction transfer, are not included in the data set. 3. Nurith Aizenman, Trump Wishes We Had More Immigrants From Norway. Turns Out We Once Did, NPR, (Jan. 12, 2018), https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/12/577673191/trump-wishes-we-had-moreimmigrants-from-norway-turns-out-we-once-did. 4. Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta., (Un)Civil Denaturalization, 94 New York University Law Review 402, 453 (2019), https://www.nyulawreview.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NYULawReview-94-3-RobertsonMantapdf.pdf. 5. Jie Zong, Jeanne Batalova & Micayla Burrows, Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States, Migration Policy Inst. (Feb. 8, 2018), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/ frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states. 6. Because historical data used in this study is catalogued by year, numerical estimations for past administrations are approximate and not absolute. 7. United States Department of Justice, Civil Division (“Civil Division”), FY2020 Budget & Performance Plans, 26, 16 (Mar. 2019), https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/ file/1143936/download. 8. Id. at 26. 9. This is a conservative estimate based on case identification and coding, as explained in the Description of Research. Operation Janus and Second Look type cases may account for between 50-55% of all cases filed in 2017 and 2018. 10. Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta, (Un) Civil Denaturalization, 94 New York University Law Review 402, 466-67 (2019), https://www.nyulawreview. 162 11. The information requested covered historical data on past denaturalization practice. The Civil Division provided information on the number of civil cases from 1972-2018, which is incorporated and analyzed in this report. Further responsive information could have allowed for a more comprehensive comparative analysis across different administrations. 13. As is the case for many denaturalization cases, some case dockets were sealed or unavailable. For sealed and unavailable dockets, the final case list includes actions in which available information regarding the parties involved, unsealed orders, and docket codes supported the conclusion that immigration and passport revocation were the issues at hand. For that reason, these cases were included where possible in the research, including in the total tally of cases identified during the relevant period, in order to provide a sense of the number of cases dealing with this issue that were brought before the federal judiciary. The universe of cases identified is not exhaustive, but is sufficiently comprehensive to provide reliable and objective results from a sample of cases from the Southern District of Texas for the relevant period of time. The universe was established through the following process. A key search on Lexis was performed using the search terms “passport or citizenship and (apply or application or denied or deny or denial or revoc! or revok!) and not (criminal or diversity w/s citizenship).” The list was then reviewed to remove irrelevant cases. The remaining cases were cross-checked by case number on PACER and Bloomberg, using the Nature of Suit Code “465 Other Immigration Actions,” and narrowed by Cause of Action Code 28:1331 Federal Question. Following the establishment of the final case sample, all available orders that were related to each case and material to the subject-matter were compiled. Data from all cases under review were organized into an Excel spreadsheet containing the following columns, used in a basic quantitative analysis that is presented in the report: (i) case name; (ii) file number; (iii) date; (iv) parties; (v) claim basis; (vi) government actions/arguments; (vii) UNMAKING AMERICANS