In recent days, there has been a wave of political noise calling for the denaturalization and even deportation of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Kwame Mamdani. The allegations stem from a lyric in a 2017 rap song where Mamdani expressed sympathy for the “Holy Land Five,” a group convicted in the U.S. for allegedly funneling funds to a Hamas-linked charity. Opponents argue that this lyric could signify concealed support for terrorism, and some GOP lawmakers have gone as far as requesting a Department of Justice investigation.
But when examined through the lens of immigration law and established legal precedent, it becomes clear that it is not going to be easy for someone’s citizenship to be stripped based on the allegations cited by Representative Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee.
Mamdani, a Ugandan-born son of filmmaker Mira Nair and Columbia professor Mahmood Mamdani, immigrated to the United States at the age of seven. He became a U.S. citizen in 2018 at around 26 or 27 years old. Before his political career, he was also a rapper and songwriter, performing under names like Young Cardamom and Mr. Cardamom. The controversial lyric, written and performed by him, simply says, “My love to the Holy Land Five. You better look ’em up.” It’s a politically sympathetic statement — not a criminal act, and certainly not evidence of fraud in the naturalization process.
Many of Mamdani’s political views are deeply troubling. Mamdani once said he would not appear on the same stage as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, calling him a “war criminal” and drawing parallels with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “This is someone who we should view in the same manner that we do Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a war criminal,” Mamdani said at a May 2025 event when asked if he would join Modi at a public rally. Such remarks, alongside his call for Netanyahu’s arrest have been viewed as radical and inflammatory. Mamdani, of course, has no legal authority to arrest foreign heads of state; such powers lie solely with federal authorities and, in any operational sense, local law enforcement like the NYPD if acting under a lawful warrant or international cooperation agreement. He has championed policies that include taxing millionaires and expanding city services in ways that critics believe would further burden taxpayers and drive businesses away. For a city that hosts the New York Stock Exchange and major global financial institutions, his policies may signal a shift that could drive out capital and jobs. These are legitimate political concerns that should be debated vigorously as part of the democratic process and denaturalization should not be used as a threat. Immigration law is not the tool to settle ideological battles.
In the U.S., denaturalization is not a casual process. It is governed by Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and can only occur if the government proves that an individual obtained citizenship through fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts. Importantly, political beliefs or protected speech — including controversial or offensive song lyrics — do not constitute fraud.
Supreme Court precedent reinforces this distinction. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Court clarified that independent advocacy, even if favorable to a terrorist group, is protected speech unless it involves coordinated, material support. Brandenburg v. Ohio further established that speech cannot be punished unless it incites imminent lawless action. Mamdani’s lyric, standing alone, does neither.
To initiate denaturalization, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must first investigate credible claims of fraud during naturalization. This may be triggered by data audits, law enforcement referrals, or sometimes even media disclosures or public complaints. But a high evidentiary standard applies. The Department of Justice must then file a civil lawsuit in federal court, where the individual has full due process rights, including the right to defend against the charges and appeal. Only a federal judge — not Congress members or political commentators — can revoke citizenship.
The calls for Mamdani’s denaturalization parallel another high-profile example: Prince Harry. In his memoir, Prince Harry admitted to past drug use, raising questions about whether he truthfully answered drug-related questions on his U.S. visa or green card application. A conservative think tank filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain his immigration records. But USCIS and DHS refused to release them, citing privacy protections. No investigation or revocation occurred. This case underscores how even public admissions, without actual evidence of misrepresentation on immigration documents, do not trigger denaturalization.
Contrast that with the case of Jakiw Palij, a former Nazi concentration camp guard who was denaturalized and deported in 2018 at age 95. Palij had concealed his Nazi affiliations during his visa and naturalization process. The government proved this in federal court, and he was stripped of his citizenship and deported to Germany. That case involved willful misrepresentation about war crimes — a far cry from a political lyric.
Even when someone is successfully denaturalized, they do not automatically get deported. In most cases, they revert to lawful permanent resident status and retain all the rights and protections that come with it. DHS must initiate removal proceedings, and the person has a right to a full hearing before an immigration judge. This was evident in the 2024 Khaleel case, where a Palestinian man on permanent resident status was able to challenge his removal in court. As of 2025, he remains in the United States with his case pending.
Even when someone is denaturalized, they are not automatically deported. Instead, they typically revert to lawful permanent resident status and are entitled to full due process under immigration law. This includes the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, access to legal defenses, and the ability to appeal. Deportation can only occur following a lawful removal proceeding, not as an automatic consequence of losing citizenship.
Denaturalization is a legal remedy for fraud — not a tool for punishing unpopular political speech. In Mamdani’s case, the First Amendment shields his right to write lyrics, perform songs, and hold political views, just like any other citizen. The effort to weaponize immigration law against him is not only dangerous but legally doomed.
There is no serious legal argument to support stripping Mamdani’s citizenship. It’s a civics lesson — and also a stark reminder that the Democratic Party has been increasingly influenced by its most liberal wing. While America’s strength has long rested on democratic debate, some of the ideas being mainstreamed today — such as punishing economic success — fly in the face of capitalism, which remains at the core of American identity and prosperity. If Mamdani’s vision for New York is too extreme, the answer is not to strip his citizenship, but to confront these ideas at the ballot box and reinvest in policies that protect the city’s economic leadership in the world.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
