Commentator’s Call to “Deport Paperwork Americans” Signals Escalation in Right-Wing Citizenship Discourse
A recent statement by political commentator Auron Macintyre has ignited a fierce debate regarding the definition and permanence of U.S. citizenship. In a social media post that has gained significant traction, Macintyre asserted, “It’s time to deport paperwork Americans,” a phrase that marks a significant pivot from standard political debates surrounding illegal immigration toward a direct questioning of legal citizenship status.
The term “paperwork American” is employed within specific circles of the Dissident Right and paleoconservative movements to distinguish between specific groups of citizens. It creates a dichotomy between “heritage” Americans—typically defined by proponents as those with deep ancestral roots and specific cultural alignment—and those who hold citizenship solely through legal documentation (naturalization or birthright) but are viewed by critics as culturally or ideologically distinct from the nation’s historic core. This rhetorical distinction challenges the prevailing concept of Civic Nationalism, which holds that American identity is defined by adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law, regardless of ethnicity or country of origin.
By utilizing this terminology, the discourse moves beyond the enforcement of border security or the deportation of undocumented individuals. Instead, it suggests a political objective to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens or potentially their descendants who are perceived as failing to assimilate to a specific traditionalist standard. This aligns with broader “Post-Liberal” critiques that view mass migration and multiculturalism not merely as policy failures, but as existential threats to the nation’s cohesiveness.
However, the proposal faces insurmountable legal, constitutional, and ethical objections. Under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, citizenship is guaranteed to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” and the Supreme Court has historically set an extremely high bar for denaturalization. Legal scholars emphasize that the United States does not recognize a tiered system of citizenship; under the law, a naturalized citizen possesses the same rights and protections as a natural-born citizen, with the sole exception of eligibility for the Presidency.
Critics further argue that the concept of “deporting” a citizen is a legal impossibility, as deportation applies strictly to foreign nationals. To implement such a policy, the state would first have to engage in mass denaturalization, a process currently reserved for rare instances of proven fraud during the citizenship application process. Opponents of Macintyre’s view contend that delegitimizing the status of legal citizens undermines the foundational principles of the republic, effectively aiming to replace the rule of law with identity-based criteria for membership in the body politic. As this rhetoric gains visibility, it highlights a widening fracture regarding the nature of American identity and the stability of constitutional rights.
