WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 221

A Resolution designating the week of June 16 through 22, 2025, as "Pollinator Week" in Pennsylvania.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz and 29 co-sponsors

H.R. 221 urges the federal government to reverse prioritizing civil denaturalization of naturalized citizens, citing due-process and civil-liberties concerns.

Adopted
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 221

Summary — H.R. 221 (House Resolution): Urging the federal government to reverse course on expediting denaturalization through civil proceedings

Purpose

H.R. 221 is a non‑binding House resolution urging the federal government to stop efforts to accelerate the denaturalization (revocation of naturalized U.S. citizenship) of naturalized citizens through civil litigation rather than criminal proceedings. The resolution expresses concern that recent Department of Justice guidance prioritizing civil denaturalization raises due‑process, fairness, and civil‑liberties issues.

Background

  • Federal law: Section 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1451) authorizes the U.S. government to institute civil proceedings to revoke a naturalization order when citizenship was “illegally procured” or “procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.”
  • Recent development: A DOJ Civil Division memorandum dated June 11, 2025 advised attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue” civil denaturalization cases and gave broad discretion over which cases to pursue.
  • Due‑process concerns cited: Civil denaturalization defendants do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel nor a jury trial; civil proceedings apply a “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” burden of proof — arguably lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. Legal experts cited in the resolution warn this may be constitutionally insufficient and susceptible to abuse.

Key provisions / Findings in the resolution

  • Condemns the expedited use of civil denaturalization as raising serious constitutional and policy concerns.
  • States that denaturalization could be misused for political ends or to target individuals for expression of protected speech.
  • Notes public opinion polling showing majorities opposed to revoking naturalized citizenship.
  • Highlights the contributions of naturalized citizens (the resolution references Michigan’s >400,000 naturalized citizens) and affirms that naturalized citizenship is not “second‑class” and merits full constitutional protections.
  • Urges the federal government to “reverse course” on prioritizing civil denaturalization.
  • Directs that copies of the resolution be transmitted to the President, the U.S. Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the state's congressional delegation.

Who would be affected

  • Naturalized U.S. citizens (potential targets of denaturalization and deportation proceedings).
  • Department of Justice (Civil Division) and U.S. Attorneys (whose policies and prosecutorial priorities are addressed).
  • State constituencies (the resolution references local/state concerns and asks officials to take note), but the resolution itself does not change federal law or DOJ authority.

Procedural status & timeline (selected)

  • Introduced: January 7, 2025; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • Consideration and adoption actions recorded in spring–summer 2025: placed on calendar, laid before the House, adopted May 23, 2025; enrolled and transmitted to the Secretary of State May 30, 2025.
  • Later entries (Nov 13, 2025) show additional referral to a Committee on Government Operations and other re‑introductions/related procedural activity, suggesting multiple versions or companion measures in different bodies.
  • Related bill: H.R. 129 (companion).

Practical effect

H.R. 221 is a symbolic, non‑binding resolution intended to register the legislative body’s opposition to the DOJ policy prioritizing civil denaturalization. It does not alter federal statutes or DOJ authority directly, but it communicates legislative concern and requests federal officials reconsider policy.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.