Little-Known Federal Software Can Trigger Revocation of Citizenship (theintercept.com) 141
An anonymous reader writes: Software used by the Department of Homeland Security to scan the records of millions of immigrants can automatically flag naturalized Americans to potentially have their citizenship revoked based on secret criteria, according to documents reviewed by The Intercept. The software, known as ATLAS, takes information from immigrants' case files and runs it though various federal databases. ATLAS looks for indicators that someone is dangerous or dishonest and is ostensibly designed to detect fraud among people who come into contact with the U.S. immigration system. But advocates for immigrants believe that the real purpose of the computer program is to create a pretext to strip people of citizenship. Whatever the motivation, ATLAS's intended outcome is ultimately deportation, judging from the documents, which originate within DHS and were obtained by the Open Society Justice Initiative and Muslim Advocates through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
ATLAS helps DHS investigate immigrants' personal relationships and backgrounds, examining biometric information like fingerprints and, in certain circumstances, considering an immigrant's race, ethnicity, and national origin. It draws information from a variety of unknown sources, plus two that have been criticized as being poorly managed: the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, also known as the terrorist watchlist, and the National Crime Information Center. Powered by servers at tech giant Amazon, the system in 2019 alone conducted 16.5 million screenings and flagged more than 120,000 cases of potential fraud or threats to national security and public safety. Ultimately, humans at DHS are involved in determining how to handle immigrants flagged by ATLAS. But the software threatens to amplify the harm caused by bureaucratic mistakes within the immigration system, mistakes that already drive many denaturalization and deportation cases. "ATLAS should be considered as suspect until it is shown not to generate unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory results," said Laura Bingham, a lawyer with the Open Society Justice Initiative. "From what we are able to scrutinize in terms of the end results -- like the disparate impact of denaturalization based on national origin -- there is ample reason to consider ATLAS a threat to naturalized citizens."
ATLAS helps DHS investigate immigrants' personal relationships and backgrounds, examining biometric information like fingerprints and, in certain circumstances, considering an immigrant's race, ethnicity, and national origin. It draws information from a variety of unknown sources, plus two that have been criticized as being poorly managed: the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, also known as the terrorist watchlist, and the National Crime Information Center. Powered by servers at tech giant Amazon, the system in 2019 alone conducted 16.5 million screenings and flagged more than 120,000 cases of potential fraud or threats to national security and public safety. Ultimately, humans at DHS are involved in determining how to handle immigrants flagged by ATLAS. But the software threatens to amplify the harm caused by bureaucratic mistakes within the immigration system, mistakes that already drive many denaturalization and deportation cases. "ATLAS should be considered as suspect until it is shown not to generate unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory results," said Laura Bingham, a lawyer with the Open Society Justice Initiative. "From what we are able to scrutinize in terms of the end results -- like the disparate impact of denaturalization based on national origin -- there is ample reason to consider ATLAS a threat to naturalized citizens."
Social Credit System (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Social Credit System (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. Also note that the Germans had a part written into their form of constitution ("Grundgesetz") by the allied forces that citizenship cannot be revoked (and that part cannot be changed), because the Nazis were fond of using it against anybody they did not like. Seems some people in the US think these fascist methods were actually fine....
Re:Social Credit System (Score:4, Informative)
And then "GG Art 16 (1) Die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit darf nicht entzogen werden."
German citizenship can be removed if a citizen has a second citizenship only. If they do not, it is impossible to remove it. Incidentally, the article you reference says that as well. I guess you cannot read...
Re: Social Credit System (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't unique to Germany. In general if you have only one citizenship, it can't be revoked because having zero citizenships makes you stateless.
Actually, it very much can be revoked. And yes, it makes you stateless. That is what the Nazis liked to do to people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's generally true in all countries though. If someone does not have another citizenship they can't be made stateless. Well, the country the hold citizenship with can revoke it but other countries will not recognize that because otherwise everyone would just be making all the people they don't want stateless and someone else's problem.
The UK recently tried to do this with a woman who joined IS as a child, but it's being challenged in court on the basis of her not having any other citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. People can certainly be made stateless. That is precisely the reason the German constitution explicitly forbid it, namely because the Nazis were fond of doing it. That this has to be challenged in court nicely illustrated that it _is_ possible in the UK. It does really not matter what other countries think either, if you are made stateless, you lose all services and benefits from the state you formerly were a citizen of and that is the real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not possible in the UK, which is why they lied about her having Bangladeshi citizenship by birth.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. Still nicely shows the same mind-set as the Nazis in the "authorities" behind this. But good to know that UK law at least tries to prevent this as well.
Re:Social Credit System (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'm not sure why you suddenly brought up "second citizenships"
Suddenly :)
The US can still be at fault here even if other countries are too.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone does not have dual nationality, then revoking their citizenship will render them stateless.
There are various treaties and UN resolutions designed to prevent people from becoming stateless. Stateless persons are very difficult to deal with because you cannot deport them - no other country will accept them.
Re: Social Credit System (Score:2)
You can literally hear the jealousy of gweihr of the US in all of his posts.
He might be an anti-US shill but your projection reveals you to be a moron.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice whataboutism. Bottom line is that NO country should be able to remove citizenship for ANY reason once it's granted. The risk of abuse FAR outweighs the odd case of fraud.
Re:Social Credit System (Score:5, Insightful)
few people will object to what is a clear 4th amendment violation. These US CITIZENS are being searched without probable cause.
These are all government documents, not the property of the person being searched. That's like saying the IRS can't look at my old tax filings for possible fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
You should always fight for the rights of immigrants because whatever happens to them can and will eventually happen to you.
Re:Social Credit System (Score:4, Interesting)
Legal immigrants should be identical to "natural citizens" legally speaking, or the system has something very wrong with it.
Re:Social Credit System (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but they have a possible loophole: which is the department of immigration
to administratively declare that the naturalization occurred as a result of an error or fraud, and therefore it was invalid and did not legally happen in the first place (thus no naturalization = no citizenship).
Re: (Score:2)
If it can be revoked, it isn't "citizenship", it's just another conditional immigration status.
Re: (Score:2)
If it can be revoked, it isn't "citizenship", it's just another conditional immigration status.
Is it? Perhaps it is of practical necessity that you can cancel what was awarded based on a false application.
It just seems similar to the fact that if a College graduate is some years or decades later found to have cheated on their finals, or on their thesis, the School can revoke their status, cancel the diploma, and that person is no longer considered a graduate or alumni, no longer legally able to put it on t
Re:Social Credit System (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you site the part of the US Constitution that states only citizens have the vote, or even the part that makes voting a right? I've looked and didn't see it.
Canada, for example has it spelled out in our Charter of Rights that voting is one of the few rights that only applies to flesh and blood citizens. So all Canadians of age, with 2 exceptions (the head of Elections Canada and their deputy) can vote. Possibly if convicted of voter fraud, someone could also be banned at sentencing.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you site the part of the US Constitution that states only citizens have the vote, or even the part that makes voting a right? I've looked and didn't see it.
Canada, for example has it spelled out in our Charter of Rights that voting is one of the few rights that only applies to flesh and blood citizens. So all Canadians of age, with 2 exceptions (the head of Elections Canada and their deputy) can vote. Possibly if convicted of voter fraud, someone could also be banned at sentencing.
See the 15th, 19th, 24th , and 26th Amendments of the US Constitution:
15th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
24th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vi
Re: (Score:2)
OK, thanks, I'm not American. I do note that given a strict reading, none of those actually ban non-citizens from voting, just enabling laws banning non-citizens from voting. Of course as usual, it is how the courts interpret those laws.
I still like our version better,
With legislative assembly being the Provincial legislatures.
Re: (Score:2)
And if a naturalized citizen went on to commit fraud by, oh, I don't know... marrying her brother to get him citizenship, then t
Re: (Score:2)
small clarification (Score:2)
Naturalized citizens are citizens ... and the Constitution applies to them. Including all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities. The key difference in the Constitution between a native born citizen and a naturalized one is that the citizenship is guaranteed for a native born person and thus cannot be revoked.
In the US, you don't have a right to citizenship even when you have a right to everything else. Aliens and citizens have most rights, like a right to free speech and right to a fair trail. Some r
Re: (Score:2)
The key difference in the Constitution between a native born citizen and a naturalized one is that the citizenship is guaranteed for a native born person and thus cannot be revoked.
I wouldn't be too sure. There was a case here in Canada last time when the Conservatives were in power. They changed the law to enable removing the citizenship of anyone with dual citizenship. Then there was a kid who was a petty criminal, born in Canada to Pakistani parents, legally in Canada (citizens?) and Pakistan changed its law so that anyone with Pakistani parents was a Pakistani citizen and the government revoked his citizenship and deported him.
Hmm, perhaps I'm misremembering and he was a terrorist
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the American Constitution says
The 14th Amendment plus court precedence guarantees this in the US. If you don't have an equivalent in your Constitution then yes, some groups could try to take it away.
U.S. Code goes into more detail on what it means to have citizenship at birth, but this is something the legislature could easily change.
Finally, there is a great deal of international pressure that nations do not create stateless people. Revoking the only citizenship you possess is more serious than revoking dual citizenship. I suspect Cana
Re: (Score:2)
Well the potential loophole is due to countries that give citizenship to foreign born due to parents so it isn't stateless.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time, no. Sometimes yes.
If a person had dual citizenship and both countries drop the other citizenship at the same time, that's complicated enough to need TWO lawyers. Another possibility is if one nation's government collapses, such as a revolution. Then a person might be a dual citizen on paper, but in practice they only have one place left they can be, at least until a new government is installed and can start processing paperwork again. Assuming they'll even be willing to recognize "citizens
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Illegal or legal immigrants who are not citizens and thus do not have the same rights. They should not have the same rights as citizens either. But you SJWs are so messed up you don't even know your own gender so I don't expect you to understand that.
The article is about naturalized citizens.
Re: Social Credit System (Score:2)
Do an image search for "trans male" and see if you think all those people should be using the women's restroom.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, this does seem like a step toward a very dark sort of future. Stripping US citizenship, if done at all, should be so
Re: (Score:2)
"Stripping US citizenship, if done at all, should be something done in the most extreme exceptions - it certainly shouldn't be something DHS is actively seeking an excuse to do"
Citizenship fraud occurs all the time. To give just one example, someone from India applies for a U.S. visa but is denied, then they apply using a fake name, or a relatives name and get the visa. Years later they apply for citizenship (using the false name) and get it. Obviously they've committed fraud because they lied about their i
Re: (Score:2)
Second, to the extent that this *is* a concern with this system, when reviewed with a sufficiently critical eye just about any immigration file is going to contain some false information. You don't need to have lied about your identity, you need only have misunderstood a question
Re: (Score:2)
However if they renounce their indian citizenship after becoming a us citizen, you can no longer revoke their us citizenship without making them stateless.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps more importantly, no such thing has actually happened. All the issues described are entirely theoretical, and the groups describing them are opposed to screening immigrants altogether!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Social Credit System (Score:4, Insightful)
Its the revocation of citizenship that worries me the most. This should *only* be possible on a judges orders, and probably not at all.
The reason for this is when you lose citizenship you lose most of your constitutional protections, and giving governments the ability to strip citizenship means they now dont have to care about constitional protections for people i wants to persecute, as i can just de-citizen them, and do whatever they want.
Now of course some categories of citizenship are in fact protected. If your born in the US you cant be de-citizened, but even this has its probelms because you just end up with two categories of citizen with two categories of legal protections which seems to violate the equal protection clause.
Essentially *any* power to de-citizen people on the face of it is probably a violate of if not the black letter of the constitution, at the very least the spirit of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> BTW, the 4th amendment applies to all humans on USA soil.
It doesn't, though.
Any negative right in the Constitution is a limitation on the powers of the government. There are no grants of rights. 9A makes this plainly clear.
The prohibitions apply to all humans with whom the USG might interact - there is no mention of citizens or geographic boundaries. And boy do they wantonly violate those prohibitions (with impunity).
Re: Social Credit System (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Social Credit System (Score:2)
Biden created this mess, he should have evacuated citizens before troops....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Social Credit System (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He should have bombed the Presidential Palace when the Taliban top brass was posing for selfies, and then rained hellfire while the cavalry was charging in to finish them off.
Technically, he had no authority yet to do so back then. And second, it would have been stupid bombing what he would inherit only 2 weeks later.
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan has a median age of 18. We have been there for 20 years. A full half of the country has not know a
Re: (Score:2)
I would have reneged on Trump's agreement, and used the time to bolster the forces on the ground to grind the Taliban into the dirt where they belong. Then I would have left about 20,000 peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan, to allow contractors and internal structure to perform real nation-building.
When Trump signed the agreement with the Taliban in Feb 2020 to leave Afghanistan, the Taliban agreed not to attack US troops and in exchange the US would release 5000 Talibans in Afghanistan. If Biden reneged the deal to leave, the Taliban (now with a bigger force) would immediately resume attacks on US troops which would cause an even bigger backlash.
i will consider it a threat (Score:2)
If you give me statistics on how many people were deported based on that software results.
Re:i will consider it a threat (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, start with the word "trigger" is used in a misleading way. I doubt a statistical analysis of bullshit phrasings will assist you, though.
But the answer is 0 out of n deportations.
When the database flags somebody, it merely brings it to the attention of an immigration officer.
A better statistic would be: How many deportations were initiated by immigration officers without clear, evidence-based cause? Probably a lot.
A more important statistic regarding the millions of database searches, though, is how many immigration applicants were denied status because they were flagged by this system, a result that gives the applicant little recourse in many cases. And what percent of those were based on faulty information?
Sometimes the system works, I'm sure. Sometimes the name in the database as having been convicted of a crime is the same person, and they really were convicted of that crime. Sometimes they really were the same person that was added to the terrorist watchlist, and sometimes they were added because of legitimate data. The real problem here is with the humans receiving that data, and what they do (or don't do) to verify it. And what powers they even have to verify it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any data to support your assumption that "probably a lot" of deportations are initiated without "clear, evidence-based cause"? Or could it be that the opposite
Re: (Score:2)
Well, do you have any data to show that applicants have "little recourse"? Or that applications were rejected on faulty information? Or that applicants flagged by the system are not being investigated by a human to determine whether or not the flagging was appropriate? Or that said humans are making an inordinate number of mistakes?
I think this issue is far more nuanced, complicated, and a symptom of a bigger-yet-unrelated problem.
There are many, many areas of modern life where the following series of events occur:
1. Lots of data is fed into a database.
2. A person's job involves making a decision based on the data in the database.
3. That database is queried for both direct data, and correlated data.
4. The person uses the results of those database queries to make their decision.
Now, sometimes these sorts of scenarios are cut-and-dry. A
Re: (Score:2)
It is simple; as a US Citizen I could sue if they had falsely flagged my wife, because I have a legal right to have her here with me. But she couldn't; she has to "right" to immigrate and receive status.
It's not complicated. If your application is based on family status, that family member can fight for you, if they want. Otherwise, kick rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, do you have any data to show that applicants have "little recourse"?
You don't actually need "data" for that, you can just spend a couple years examining the rules, as I did before my wife's application.
If she had been denied, she has no recourse. I my right to have her here. But she could do nothing. As could most applicants.
There are various lawsuits she could file, but they have no chance of success, or even of getting a trial. You have to have somebody else who is already a "US Person" to be harmed. For example, if you're the mayor of a small, remote Alaskan village,
Re: (Score:2)
I wish you were right, because there are plenty of mayors and governors pissed off that the federal government drops illegal aliens and barely-vetted refugees in t
That would save me money and bother (Score:2)
No exit taxes, no paperwork, no filing fees - I call it a win. It is like the East German Stasi waving me through checkpoint charlie.
Kinda thin reasoning... (Score:2)
"DHS has a secret software program that can give them an excuse to get rid of a naturalized citizen!"
(DHS has literally millions of non-citizens they could track down and import, without having to try and invent a reason, but they pretty much fail to do so.)
Re:Kinda thin reasoning... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm glad that the DHS isn't tracking down and importing non-citizens. That would be worrying :D
I like being a non-citizen not living in the US, and I don't particularly want to get imported there.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that Julian guy also has the same feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Example? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, humans at DHS are involved in determining how to handle immigrants flagged by ATLAS.
And in this article, they didn't seem to show even a single instance of abuse or wrongdoing. But I did love this tidbit (designed to make ATLAS sound terrifying):
All told, going from an ATLAS notification to criminal denaturalization proceedings takes only four steps on the flowchart.
OMG, only FOUR STEPS? And remember, this is just to START denaturalization proceedings, which probably has a lot of steps to it as well. But... scary sounding!
Re: (Score:2)
There are two problems. One is the use of the word "trigger," which makes the story appear to be something different than what it is.
The other is that the government doesn't provide enough public access, or neutral oversight, for anybody to determine the rate of error.
But one thing I've noticed is that the individual cases that the activist groups often complain about turn out to be people who were deported after being convicted of drunk driving. To which I say: Good riddance!
My wife's friend's brother got
Re: (Score:2)
Non-immigrant driver's license? You mean drivers licenses for citizens?
Wow..what state is this a new thing for??
Re: (Score:2)
I think GP means "undocumented immigrant driver license", Technically H1 visas are "non-immigrant" visas, but, in my personal experience you can get a license if you have this type of visa.
Most visas other then green cards are non-immigrant visas.
Re: (Score:2)
Geez....WTF are they doing giving people in this country ILLEGALLY a driver license?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he means driver's licenses for people in the country illegally. California does that. (Let's the vote in state elections, too, I believe.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are they doing legitimizing them by giving out drivers license...much less even considering letting them vote on ANYTHING in the US?
I"ll bet you they don't reciprocate on that in Mexico if you go across the border there illegally.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's the vote in state elections, too, I believe.
Try to pay attention to your own posts before getting snarky with others. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the illegal immigrant driver's license does not allow voting in state elections
I didn't say it did. Try to pay attention.
You did say this though:
No, he means driver's licenses for people in the country illegally. California does that. (Let's the vote in state elections, too, I believe)
Which does give the impression that is what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Very, very true. We tend to refer to it as "The Pyrite State." You know, fool's gold.
What do you expect? It's the Intercept... (Score:2)
Founded by Glenn Greenwald, and despite his separation on bad terms with him, still possessing the corporate culture he established, they're queen of the disingenuous hot takes, slippery slope arguments, and outright bullshit - like this one where they claimed that Venezuelan military troops that lit aid trucks on fire weren't somehow associated with the Venezuelan government [theintercept.com].
I'm not sure why slashdot credulously greenlighted this based only on the slanted headline. They need the clickbait, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
I have only read TFS, however found something (unintentionally) funny.
"Muslim Advocates through Freedom of Information Act" - aka M.A.F.I.A
Re: (Score:2)
So long as there's human judgement involved... (Score:2)
It's very helpful to have expert systems that try to focus human attention on actionable issues. So long as the humans are willing to use judgement and follow rules with their authority, there's likely not an issue. Or at least there'd need to be a lot more than "it might be bad" concerns to demonstrate it.
Oh Jesus not this shit again (Score:3)
But advocates for immigrants believe that the real purpose of the computer program is to create a pretext to strip people of citizenship.
This pretext already exists. It's called fraud. For example: lying during your interview that you were a prisoner in the concentration camps when you were really one of the guards.
Ultimately, humans at DHS are involved in determining how to handle immigrants flagged by ATLAS. But the software threatens to amplify the harm caused by bureaucratic mistakes within the immigration system
So people in government make mistakes therefore government may not utilize tools to aid them in their work?
Sounds like when the RWNJs got a law passed that made it illegal for ATF to use computers.
Stripping Citizenship is BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is wrong after that point, just treat them like a citizen.
We shouldn't treat a person who has earned citizenship as anything less than a person who was gifted it through no work of their own.
If we had reason to prevent it, it should have stopped before we bestowed citizenship on a person.
Re:Stripping Citizenship is BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual reason to revoke naturalization is fraud in obtaining it.
Which is a good reason to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure? I mean, if there is going to be any good reason at all, this might be it. But we should all, in every country, be very wary about granting the power to unilaterally remove citizenship after it is granted.
What if the attribution of fraud or error is itself a fraud or error? If the state finds it expedient to remove citizenship from someone, should we always trust that an accusation of fraud is sound?
Countries, generally, already have legal systems in place that applies to both residents and cit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear you can't strip a citizen of their only citizenship. You can only strip a dual citizen of one of their citizenships. I say this as a dual citizen living in a country currently of which I have neither citizenships, but fundamental loyalty should be reciprocated. If you blead red white and blue, then give up your other citizenships, and then America literally *can't* strip your citizenship. If you pledge allegiances to more than one flag, well expect that that flag to cheat on you two.
If we had reason to prevent it, it should have stopped before we bestowed citizenship on a person.
That's like
Re: (Score:2)
If a person gained citizenship by lying about their place of origin for example, and this was simply not noticed at the time and only discovered much later, they damn well *SHOULD* have their citizenship revoked. To suggest otherwise is not altogether unlike saying that if a person gets away with robbing a bank, for instance, that they should not have to go to prison if they manage to ID the person later and catch him.
Granted, I do not think there are many cases that should warrant the revocation of ci
Then whats the point of citizenship? (Score:2)
Also what happens to people who renounced their original citizenship, as their birth country doesn't have dual citizenship?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not sure I see a problem here. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's also worth noting that the people complaining think we should make everyone a citizen no matter what, so we really shouldn't listen anyhow.
Something needs to be cleared up immediately (Score:2)
So whatever this software is looking for it then has to pa
Opposed by... (Score:2)
The system is opposed by those who coached immigrants on how to effectively lie to authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to develop a TDS vaccine to help these people out.
I could suggest a few, but they'd probably get me put on a list somewhere.