Denaturalization goes through civil courts and requires only "Clear and convincing evidence" which is a lower standard than "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Loss_of_nationality
The process of denaturalization is a legal procedure which results in nullifying nationality. Based upon the 1943 Supreme Court decision of Schneiderman v. United States, clear and convincing evidence must be evaluated in processing a denaturalization action. United States Attorneys for the district in which a defendant resides bring suit in the jurisdiction's Federal District Court. Juries are typically not present and the defendant may be compelled to testify. Failure to testify may result in a presumption of guilt, though defendants can plead against self-incrimination. The standard of proof is not reasonable doubt, but rather clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Decisions may be appealed in federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Once the legal process has concluded, the Department of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Standards of Proof in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Clear_and_convincing_evidence
Excerpt:
Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality. In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions (i.e. preponderance of the evidence), which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.
Why YSK: If you are a naturalized US citizen, you might want to reconsider if you want to protest and ending up being another Mahmoud Khalil. (Not saying to not protest, just informing you of the risks so you can decide for youself if its worth it or not).
And if you aren't a naturalized US citizen; Why YSK: So you understand that the risks of protesting is higher than the risks of natural-born US Citizens protesting, so I hope you don't judge them too harshly for not protesting.
Worth noting that it's against international law to leave a person stateless.
I find it charming when people cite "international law" as if it's really a thing.
Our species is really stuck on the idea that "somebody will do something" and it's just a matter of evidence or a strong enough case.
Sorry, nobody is coming, international law exists only as a wink and a nod between players who want to get something out of each other.
Laws are threats by those with power to enforce them. The UN will not threaten the US under any circumstance in any meaningful way. So for them to decide something is illegal is meaningless and, quite literally, of no consequence.
Canada has been your best neighbour and ally for decades. We have backed you in wars, even when they were BS wars. Now YOU have attacked us with tariffs. YOU started this.
I feel like there has to be some sort of misunderstanding here. Because I absolutely and abundantly agree, the tariffs are pointless, ridiculous and a giant stab in the Canadian back. All because our idiotic, racist turd of a president somehow got the idea that y'all would be part of the US. It's ludicrous top to bottom and I'm sorry that our national disgrace is becoming your problem. I don't agree with him, or his fascist supporters at all.
But I'm not entirely sure how this relates to international law and stateless refugee tho?
You need to read history. Read about the French and Russian revolutions. People DID do something! They stormed the government. They didn’t wait for “someone” to save them. They didn’t wait for other countries to “save them”.
I'm genuinely confused how you think that these two examples of internal uprisings are at all connected to someone saying effectively "don't count on international law to mean anything since there isn't any body to enforce it"
There are some dense, odd people on lemmy as well as any other online platform.
I am genuinely confused how you think your stories about internal revolutions has anything to do with the idea of "international law" being a thing or not. If you want to go do a revolution, just go do a revolution, it's very adjacent to the point being discussed here.
Go along now slugger, go! get! shoo!
Umm what is the international police going to come and arrest trump? Do you actually think anyone in this government gives a shit about international law?
Is the US administration aware that there are international laws? And if so does it care? It doesn't seem to care much about the local ones.
International law at worst is just gonna slap some sanctions on us, which is something the current admin is already doing every other day.
Lol.
I wonder if the Trump administration would follow international law seeing how they're openly defying court rules.
America and Americans broadly do not respect "international law" as an idea. We don't vote for representatives in a UN House of Reps or UN Senate. And if we did why would we wish to be beholden to a majority rules vote when that majority combined might be inferior militarily.
America tolerates international law when it doesn't interfere with our course.
The idea of a "one world government" is treated as a fringe tin hat conspiracy theory nonsense that no one is advocating for.
There's certainly no guarantee.
what does international law say about taking over a few foreign countries and a canal or so?
Except that countries like Canada has laws that makes it possible to happen
I would be curious to read a reference to that… not that any country cares just they history on how they agreed on something like that
What law? Nobody cares about any international "laws" unless they can benefit from them and enforce them in some way.
What law - Trump