procurement in the denaturalization statute. Notwithstanding that the Court has decided few denaturalization cases since the effective date of the 1961 amendment, the Fedorenko case is the first indication in several decades that the Court will countenance the denaturalization of a citizen based solely on the ground of illegal procurement.”). 219. According to the civil statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1451, subsection (e), upon criminal conviction, the court must “declare the certificate of naturalization of such person to be canceled.” If the offender is a birthright citizen, then this is a complete defense against denaturalization, however the person may still be imprisoned. 220. Comment, Denaturalization of Nazi War Criminals: Is There Sufficient Justice for Those Who Would Not Dispense Justice, 40 Md. L. Rev. 39, 46-47 (1981). 221. 18 U.S.C. § 3291. 222. Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918 (2017) Nikki Marquez & Eric Cohen, Denaturalization – Understanding the Process and Recent Increases in Denaturalization Efforts, ILRC, at 8 (Dec. 2018), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/ files/resources/denaturalization_und_prcs_rcnt_effrts-20181221.pdf. 223. For instance, the Ninth Circuit read the statue to require “materiality in order for misrepresentation to be contrary to law,” United States v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1992); whereas the Southern District of New York did not require materiality, United States v. Rogers, 898 F. Supp. 219, 220-21 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 224. Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918, 1925, 198 L. Ed. 2d 460 (2017) 225. Id. The court remanded the case and the Sixth Circuit held oral arguments on October 3, 2018. See Audio tape: United States v. Divna Maslenjak (Oct. 3, 2018), https:// www.courtlistener.com/audio/58819/united-states-v-divna-maslenjak/. At the time of writing, the Sixth Circuit has not decided the matter. 226. Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta, (Un) Civil Denaturalization, 94 New York University Law Review 402, 446 (2019), https://www.nyulawreview.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NYULawReview-94-3-RobertsonMantapdf.pdf (critiquing the court’s textual approach to the phenomenon of denaturalizations, rather than confronting broader constitutional questions raised by their existence and operation). 227. Id. The court remanded the case and the Sixth Circuit held oral arguments on October 3, 2018. See Audio tape: U.S. v. Divna Maslenjak (Oct. 3, 2018), https://www. courtlistener.com/audio/58819/united-states-v-divnamaslenjak/. At the time of writing, the Sixth Circuit had not decided the matter. 228. Patrick Weil, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013). 172 229. As noted in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Denaturalization Handbook, “Prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1425 also is an important consideration for subsequent removal proceedings because an attorney could argue that a conviction for this offense is a crime involving moral turpitude or an aggravated felony.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Office of Investigations, Denaturalization Investigations Handbook, OI HB 08-01, Jan. 15, 2008, https://www.unicornriot.ninja/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Denaturalization-full-hsi.pdf. For a list of removable offenses see Section 237 of the INA, 8 U.S.C §1227, http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim. 230. American Immigration Council, The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine – More Immigrants Are Being “Removed” from the United States Than Ever Before” (Mar. 1, 2014), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ research/growth-us-deportation-machine. 231. ICE, Office of Investigations, Denaturalization Investigations Handbook, OI HB 08-01, 14-15, Jan. 15, 2008, https://www.unicornriot.ninja/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Denaturalization-full-hsi.pdf. 232. USA v. Okwampa, 1:17-cr-71 (Doc. 17-1), Guilty Plea and Plea Agreement 4-5 (May 11, 2017) (emphasis added). 233. The Naturalization Act of 1906, Pub. L. No. 59-338, § 15. 234. Nationality Act of 1940, H.R. 9980, Pub. L. No. 76-853, § 338. 235. U.S. Const. amend. IXX (1920). 236. United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204, 215 (1923); Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta, (Un)Civil Denaturalization, 94 New York University Law Review 402, 425 (2019), https://www.nyulawreview.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NYULawReview-94-3-RobertsonMantapdf.pdf. 237. See Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta, (Un)Civil Denaturalization, 94 New York University Law Review 402, 425 (2019), https://www.nyulawreview.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NYULawReview-94-3-RobertsonMantapdf.pdf (citing the Mary Das case). 238. Id. 239. United States v. Lopez, 704 F.2d 1382, 1387 (5th Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Ness, 245 U.S. 319 (1917) (“Due to widespread fraud and abuse in the procurement of naturalization, Act of June 29, 1906, of which predecessor to 18 U.S.C.S. § 1425 was part, passed as attempt to remedy and prevent occurrence of fraud in naturalization proceedings.”); Bindczyck, 342 U.S. at 79, 82 (“[T]he history of the Act of 1906 makes clear that elections UNMAKING AMERICANS