An AI Experiment: The SCAM Act’s Role in Trump’s Attack on Immigrants and Rep. Eli Crane

I’m trying a new post methodology here on the blog today and would love your feedback on whether you think it provides value. I have recently used AI tools, specifically Perplexity.ai, for some purposes here on the blog and have always disclosed when doing so; this time, I’m including my initial AI research process into a news item I think could be of interest to my readers.

In this post, I will outline my initial exposure to an issue, my specific use of AI in researching the topic, the whole response from the LLM, and my initial reactions based on that AI search. I seek to ensure total transparency so that you can easily replicate my ownexploration of the topic, seeing for yourselves what I am reacting to. Finally, I summarize my initial reactions. I seek to gauge if this is something you would like to see more of here on the blog, or if this is objectionable in any way. As such, I would really value any feedback or reactions in the comments, which I will follow carefully and likely respond to individually.

This particular experiment was prompted by the latest issue Rep. Eli Crane’s obnoxiously named newletter “One in the Chamber” (oh, how clever! A double entendre between guns and the House chamber… ::groan::… which just serves to highlight how coarse and violent language has been imported into governance by the MAGA cult) about his sponsorship of the so-called SCAM Act (Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation Act). Sadly, I am a subscriber and reader of ALL the Arizona Reps’ and Sens’ Congressional newsletters, so that you don’t have to be (especially those of the MAGA Members… but you probably should subscribe to those of our hardworking Democratic Members).

Rep. Crane (or more likely his staff, I presume) wrote:

• Cosponsored Rep. Emmer’s bill titled “Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation Act” (SCAM Act): Congressman Crane joined Congressman Tom Emmer (R‑MN) on legislation to strengthen the government’s ability to pursue denaturalization in cases involving serious fraud tied to recent Somali fraud schemes. Under current law, applicants for U.S. citizenship must demonstrate that they are persons of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well‑disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. Whip Emmer’s bill reinforces these statutory requirements by adding types of evidence the government may use to show that an individual did not meet these standards at the time of naturalization. Specifically, the bill allows the government to pursue denaturalization when, within 15 years of naturalization, an individual:
  • Is convicted of, or admits to, committing substantial fraud against federal, state, or local government welfare or assistance programs;
  • Joins or affiliates with transnational criminal organizations, including drug cartels or designated foreign terrorist organizations; or
  • Is convicted of, or admits to, committing an aggravated felony.

This propsed legislation has a counterpart that is the same or similar in the Senate called the Fraud Accountability Act sponsored by Sen. Blackburn. Neither bill yet has proposed language published, just calendar descriptions, so I can’t directly examine the proposed language as I would normally do.

So, I decided to let Perplexity take a stab at an intitial search and analysis based on initial reports, strategic partisan messaging from the Parties, and press and think tank coverage to discover what some of the mechanics of the bill and concerns about it might be. I generally use Perplexity because I have found that it is the most transparent about sourcing, and doesn’t confabulate like some other LLMs; for that reason, I find it a good entry point to deeper research.

I gave Perplexity the following prompt: “Explain the provisions of the proposed Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation Act (SCAM Act) and analyse any media and legislative reports accounts for legal and constitutional and prudential concerns about the effect of such an act on our naturalized citizens’ rights.” You can click through to the result to explore the sources used for yourself, should you wish.

I didn’t seek an artificially balanced view of the legislation, I purposely weighted analysis of the likely mechanisms by which the bill likely operates, and the the legal and prudential concerns it might raise, so that the LLM would focus on reservations about the bill.

This is the result, unedited:

The Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation Act (SCAM Act) is a Republican-backed proposal that broadens and accelerates denaturalization and removal of certain naturalized citizens, especially those later convicted of fraud, terrorism‑related conduct, or serious crimes. Commentators and legal analysts are already flagging substantial due process, equal protection, and prudential concerns, particularly around targeting of naturalized citizens, interaction with existing Supreme Court precedent, and the risk of politicized or discriminatory enforcement.​

Core provisions of the SCAM Act

Available descriptions indicate that the SCAM Act (S.3674 in the Senate; a parallel House bill by Rep. Emmer) would significantly alter current denaturalization practice.​

Key features:

• Expanded denaturalization grounds
  • Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to “expand and clarify the grounds for civil denaturalization proceedings for individuals who have defrauded a governmental program, joined a terrorist organization, or committed certain criminal offenses.”​
  • Fox News’ summary notes that the bill is aimed at naturalized citizens convicted of fraud against government programs, terrorism ties, or aggravated felonies within a specified time frame after naturalization (reported as 10 years).​
• Clarification and easing of proof of ineligibility at time of naturalization
  • The House sponsor describes the bill as clarifying “what evidence the federal government can use when proving an individual did not meet the lawful requirements at the time of their naturalization,” making it easier to show that they “never should have been given citizenship in the first place.”​
  • This is designed to plug what proponents view as loopholes that make it harder to unwind citizenship from those later discovered to have committed fraud or concealed disqualifying conduct.​
• Linkage to criminal convictions and immigration consequences
  • Public messaging from Emmer and allied Republicans ties denaturalization to subsequent criminal convictions for fraud and serious offenses, with the rhetorical through‑line: “If you came to this country, scammed taxpayers, and committed serious crimes, you’re going home.”​
  • In tandem with the separate Fraud Accountability Act in the Senate, Republicans are pushing to explicitly list fraud as a deportable offense and to make clear that a person who commits such a deportable offense may be subject to both denaturalization and removal.​
• Procedural vehicle: civil denaturalization
  • The Senate description frames S.3674 as expanding “civil denaturalization proceedings,” which are brought by DOJ in federal court under injunction‑type standards, rather than as a pure criminal expansion.​
  • Existing law already permits civil denaturalization when citizenship was “illegally procured” or obtained “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation,” but with a stringent evidentiary standard (“clear, unequivocal, and convincing”).​
  • The SCAM Act appears intended to specify additional categories (e.g., serious fraud against government programs, certain terrorism‑related conduct) where those standards would more readily be found satisfied.​

Because full statutory text is not yet widely posted beyond brief calendar and media descriptions, these provisions are best understood as a targeted but politically charged expansion of existing denaturalization and deportation tools, keyed to high‑salience fraud and security cases.​

Existing legal framework on denaturalization

Understanding concerns about the SCAM Act requires a baseline of the current law and constitutional constraints on revoking citizenship.​

• Statutory basis
  • The INA allows denaturalization where citizenship was “illegally procured” or obtained “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation,” with the government bearing a very high burden of proof.​
  • Criminal denaturalization under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 mandates automatic revocation when a person is convicted of certain forms of naturalization fraud, again requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person unlawfully procured naturalization.​
• Constitutional and doctrinal constraints
  • The Supreme Court has held that citizenship is a fundamental right that generally cannot be taken away without the citizen’s consent, except in narrow categories such as fraud in obtaining naturalization.​
  • In Maslenjak v. United States (2017), the Court unanimously held that a naturalized citizen cannot lose citizenship for a false statement unless the government shows the lie was material—that it actually made a difference to the grant of citizenship.​
  • Historical abuses of denaturalization statutes—often targeting disfavored political groups or ethnic communities—pushed the Court and Congress toward stricter standards and strong presumptions in favor of citizenship security.​
• Due process and evidentiary protections
  • Civil denaturalization proceedings require the government to prove its case by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence, a standard just below criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” and well above preponderance of the evidence.​
  • Commentators note that this heightened threshold reflects a deliberate choice to tolerate some unremedied fraud rather than risk erroneous deprivation of citizenship.​

Against this background, any legislation that lowers the practical bar or broadens categories of denaturalization triggers immediate scrutiny for consistency with Maslenjak’s materiality rule, due process, and equal protection principles.​

Media framing and policy justification

Public discussion of the SCAM Act is emerging primarily in the context of highly publicized fraud scandals involving immigrant communities, especially Minnesota daycare and nonprofit fraud cases.​

• Proponents’ messaging
  • House Majority Whip Emmer presents the bill as a response to “Somali fraudsters” and other naturalized citizens implicated in alleged large‑scale fraud against Minnesota and federal programs, arguing that such individuals should lose citizenship and be deported.​
  • Senate Republicans have rolled out parallel proposals (e.g., Blackburn’s Fraud Accountability Act) emphasizing that anyone who “steals from American taxpayers by committing fraud should be deported” and that denaturalization should follow deportable fraud offenses.​
  • Supportive conservative media describe the SCAM Act as a “citizenship crackdown” and “common sense” measure to restore integrity to the naturalization process and protect taxpayers.​
• Emerging critical commentary
  • Civil liberties and immigrant‑rights advocates, as well as legal analysts, are tying the SCAM Act to a broader shift in federal focus toward denaturalization, warning that even narrow statutes can fuel overbroad enforcement cultures, as seen in prior DOJ efforts to “maximize” denaturalization under Trump.​
  • Public radio and policy think‑tank discussions stress that, while denaturalization is legally possible when fraud is proven, the process is supposed to be rare and tightly constrained, and that proposals like SCAM risk normalizing citizenship revocation as a routine penalty for a wider range of conduct.​

Media coverage therefore frames the bill both as a targeted anti‑fraud measure and as part of a larger normative fight over whether naturalized citizenship should be as secure in practice as birthright citizenship.​

Legal and constitutional concerns

Legal and constitutional worries arise on several fronts: the materiality and timing of underlying misrepresentations; equal‑protection implications of effectively creating a “second‑class” citizenship; and the risk of punitive use of denaturalization beyond its historically recognized remedial function.​

• Tension with Maslenjak and materiality
  • If the SCAM Act allows denaturalization based largely on post‑naturalization convictions (fraud, terrorism, aggravated felonies) with attenuated or presumptive links back to the original eligibility, it risks conflict with Maslenjak’s insistence that a lie must be material to the naturalization decision itself.​
  • Provisions that “clarify” evidentiary rules could in practice lower the government’s burden by permitting inferences from later conduct to earlier intent or eligibility, which courts may regard as an attempt to sidestep established materiality and causation requirements.​
• Due process and punishment vs. remedy
  • Current doctrine conceptualizes denaturalization as a remedy for fraudulently obtained citizenship, not as an additional punishment layered on top of criminal sentences.​
  • If SCAM operates to strip citizenship automatically or semi‑automatically following certain convictions—especially where the connection to the naturalization process is thin—it invites arguments that denaturalization has become an unconstitutional punishment, raising due process and possibly Eighth Amendment concerns.​
• Equal protection and “two‑tier” citizenship
  • Because the bill applies only to naturalized citizens, it sharpens existing distinctions between naturalized and birthright citizens: the latter cannot be stripped of citizenship as a consequence of fraud or crime, while the former can.​
  • While courts have historically allowed some statutory differences, modern equal‑protection doctrine is wary of schemes that effectively render naturalized citizens permanently probationary. Legal scholars point out that expanding revocation grounds tends to undermine the long‑standing principle that, once properly naturalized, a citizen stands “on the same footing” as any other.​
• Risk of discriminatory enforcement
  • The political rollout of SCAM is explicitly tied to Somali and other immigrant communities in Minnesota, and rhetoric from some supporters singles out “Somali scammers” and individual Muslim elected officials.​
  • Such targeting invites arguments that even facially neutral statutory language will be enforced with discriminatory intent or effect, supporting equal‑protection and selective‑enforcement challenges if denaturalization proceedings disproportionately focus on particular national origin, religious, or political groups.​
• Retroactivity and reliance interests
  • If the bill is drafted so that certain post‑enactment convictions expose previously naturalized citizens to denaturalization based on older conduct, litigation is likely over impermissible retroactivity and the impairment of settled reliance interests that naturalization was secure.​
  • Courts have recognized that citizenship is unique in generating strong reliance interests: people build families, careers, and civic lives on the assumption their status is permanent absent clear and narrow fraud.​

Prudential and policy concerns about naturalized citizens’ rights

Beyond strict constitutional doctrine, commentators raise broader prudential concerns about what measures like the SCAM Act would signal and how they might reshape the relationship between naturalized citizens and the state.​

• Chilling effect on naturalization and civic participation
  • Expanding denaturalization grounds and amplifying media coverage of “citizenship crackdowns” can deter eligible immigrants from applying for naturalization, especially those from communities already under heightened surveillance or subject to political rhetoric.​
  • Fear that citizenship may be revisited years later based on evolving enforcement priorities or contested evidence may also chill political participation, speech, and association among naturalized citizens who worry that being visible or outspoken could invite scrutiny.​
• Normalization of denaturalization as a policy tool
  • Historically, denaturalization has been rare and reserved for clear‑cut fraud, precisely to avoid normalizing citizenship revocation as a routine instrument of immigration control or criminal punishment.​
  • By packaging denaturalization in a high‑profile anti‑fraud and anti‑terrorism bill, the SCAM Act risks embedding the notion that revoking citizenship is an ordinary consequence of certain crimes, which may in turn encourage future Congresses and administrations to ratchet up the list of qualifying offenses.​
• Institutional and rule‑of‑law concerns
  • Analysts point to the Trump‑era creation of dedicated denaturalization units at DOJ as evidence that bureaucratic and political incentives can easily push agencies toward expansive enforcement even under existing law.​
  • Adding new statutory denaturalization triggers without simultaneously strengthening procedural safeguards (e.g., guaranteed counsel, heightened review, limitations on retroactive use of new categories) may thus be seen as imprudent, given the difficulty of reversing citizenship revocations once imposed.​
• Relationship to broader immigration and criminal‑justice policy
  • Critics also note that using denaturalization to address domestic fraud and crime problems shifts focus away from the design and enforcement of benefits programs themselves, effectively turning what are often system‑level failures into citizenship‑level penalties for a narrow class of offenders.​
  • From a rule‑of‑law perspective, layering denaturalization and deportation on top of substantial criminal penalties raises proportionality concerns and questions about whether naturalized citizens are being punished more harshly than similarly situated U.S.‑born citizens for the same underlying conduct.​

In short, while the SCAM Act is framed as a targeted anti‑fraud and anti‑terrorism measure, existing case law and historical experience with denaturalization suggest that it will likely face serious constitutional challenges and carries significant prudential risks of creating a more precarious, politically contingent form of citizenship for naturalized Americans.​

Pretty impressive for what is, in essence, an elaborate spreadsheet, eh? I did not include the links to the sources here, you can click through to its actual response if you wish to check them out for yourself.

Having read this initial synthesis by Perplexity and read several of the 15 sources it (do we need to invent a new pronoun for AIs? maybe here is a wider use case for “xe/xem”?) relied upon, I can form some initial reactions to Rep. Crane’s sponsorship and likely effect of this legislation, which forms the final part of this experimental use of AI for a blog post.

First, Crane’s sponsorship of this legislation is quite typical of Crane’s overweening focus on supporting Trump’s very worst abuses and most divisive agendas. I find Crane totally despicable, focused as he is on bolstering and laundering disinformation and misinformation from the depths of the MAGA media swamp, and attacking and demonizing the people that Trump seeks to scapegoat and demonize in service to his extra-Constitutional, racist, and dangerous assaults on both undocumented and fully legal immigrants, refugees (including those pending reasonable fear hearings, and and under TPS [temporary protected status]), and now even recently naturalized citizens.

Crane provides very little value to his constituents that might actually benefit or truly represent the bulk of the voters in his district. In short, he’s a petty little lickspittle hatchet-man who spews propaganda and disinformation for his master, Trump. I had hoped that he would at least bring the experience of a special operator to oversight and governance of the Armed Forces, but he is far too mired in grievance and hate to even provide that. He is not really a legislator in any meaningful sense so much as a reliable and totally shameless catspaw for Trump in Congress. Expecting Crane to fulfill his Constitutional role in an independent branch of government, or as a check and balance to Trump, is like expecting Trump’s own anus to serve any purpose other than being a conduit for Trump’s shit. This sponsorship of the SCAM Act is typical of how Crane abuses and demeans his office.

As to the legislation itself, my worst fears are confirmed. This legislation is just an attempt to make naturalized citizens less secure in their citizenship, and more vulnerable to politically motivated legal attacks on their status.

One can see the intent written all over the rollout of this legislation as a direct response to (and support for further attacks on) naturalized Somali citizens as a group being smeared with the acts of a few of their community. It’s an attempt to exploit the current progrom of propaganda and induced hysteria agaist several immigrant communities, including the Somalis, Venzuelans, Haitians, and others, to attack their legal statuses here in America – even those who are naturalized citizens.

This bill represents a clear attempt to reduce the evidentiary standards for attacking naturalized citizenship status, and to conflate subsequent criminal behavior by a few recently with an intent to defraud at the time of naturalization under current law by everyone in that community. That is troubling and objectionable in itself.

But the bill also serves as a vehicle to smear an entire community and make them feel insecure about that status and therfore ‘shut the fuck up’ and withdraw from public life in fear of attack by the Trump regime. In particular, I think this is an attack on the Somali community (Rep. Crane event admits this deplorable fact, saying “to strengthen the government’s ability to pursue denaturalization in cases involving serious fraud tied to recent Somali fraud schemes”), and other polically convenient target communities.

In part, this is also an attack on a specific fellow Member, or at least is inspired by the determined and brave advocacy of Rep. Ilhan Omar. Being an ‘uppity’ minority woman who dares to speak against them while being of an ethnicity and race and faith that Trump and his MAGA minions despise is totally unacceptable. They seek to scapegoat her and her entire community as an example to anyone else from an immigrant background who dares exercise political power in opposition to their fantasy White Power Regime of fascist authoritarianism.

Perhaps the portion most open to obvious and immediate abuse is the provision (as yet unpublished) that Crane says will seek to denaturalize any naturalized citizen who “Joins or affiliates with transnational criminal organizations, including drug cartels or designated foreign terrorist organizations.”

As we have seen far too often, such allegations are VERY easy to make based on little more than inflamatory rhetoric and character assassination, such as the false and baseless allegations of “terrorist drug gang” affiliation against those whom the Trump Regime illegally sent to El Salvadore’s concerntration camp. Joining, affiliating, or materially supporting groups that the Trump Regime has unilaterally ‘designated’ as foreign terrorists is far too easy to allege, based on little more than the the target’s exercise of free speech rights, and/or the provision of community mutual aid.

We have seen this dastardly playbook deployed by this Regime frequently in service to their domestic terrorism against immigrants, and now they seek to weaponize their disinformation inside the naturalization process. I suspect that they are likely already using such allegations in the naturalization process (which I will be investigating next as a result of this research…) and they seek to weaponize those mere allegations and sophisticated disinformation against recently (in the past 15 years!) naturalized citizens in a manner that is guaranteed to target politically disfavored groups.

In short, if we see ANY Democrat crossing the aisle to support the SCAM Act, or its Senate counterpart, out of political convenience (such as Sens. Gallego and Kelly did regarding the excerable Laken Reilly Act) we should absolutely torch them (and pitchfork them, too!).

I hope that Nez and Descheenie will absolutely cudgel the crap out of Crane for his sponsorship of this trash fire of a bill.