Materiality requirement in criminal denaturalization. While adhering to a narrow, textual interpretation of the statute, the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Maslenjak also registered the “disquieting consequences” of a looser materiality standard.226 “[I]f the interpretation were otherwise, prosecutors would have ‘near limitless leverage’ and [naturalized] citizens have ‘precious little security,’ as every immigrant would have a misstatement, however minor, in their application.”227 Removal from the United States Both civil and criminal denaturalization can result in deportation—and today that sanction is being applied with increasing frequency.228 Under federal law, a broad range of crimes constitutes removable offenses for non-citizens, including procuring U.S. citizenship unlawfully.229 The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act radically transformed immigration law by mandating the deportation of noncitizens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” while expanding the list of felonies which qualify as aggravated for immigration purposes (for example, failure to appear in court).230 As noted by ICE in its 2008 Denaturalization Handbook, “Prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1425…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.”231 Court documents reviewed for this report routinely cite removal from the U.S. as the next step following denaturalization. Most often, the language appears in the defendant’s plea agreement or settlement (in civil cases) with the government. For example: [B]ecause the Defendant is pleading guilty to this offense, removal is presumptively mandatory…the Defendant understands that no one, including his attorney or this district court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration status. The Defendant nevertheless affirms that he wants to plead guilty regardless of any immigration consequences that his plea may entail, even if the consequence is his automatic removal from the United States.232 Judges can order the removal of a defendant by issuing a Judicial Removal Order (JRO). A JRO orders the defendant’s immediate and automatic removal from the United States, bypassing the immigration system, and any possible defenses to removal or other forms of protection. In all 53 closed criminal cases reviewed for this report, 13 (24.5%) resulted in a JRO. Judicial Removal Orders are examined in greater detail at the end of this chapter. 58 UNMAKING AMERICANS