Trifles aren’t fraud

Taking citizenship for undisclosed speeding is crazy

Chief Justice John Roberts was born in Buffalo. But if he were an immigrant, his citizenship might be in question because of a crime he confessed in court last week: The highest judicial official in our great country ... once did 60 in a 55-mph zone.

Chief Justice Roberts mentioned his perfectly ordinary past because a question on an immigration form asks whether the applicant has ever committed any offense and not been caught. And in the case the Supreme Court was considering, the government was arguing that any lie, no matter how trivial, in an immigration document signed under oath can cost a naturalized American his citizenship years later.

So if Chief Justice Roberts put a no for that question, despite knowing that he had engaged in speeding and not been caught, he could, as an immigrant, lose his country.

As at least four justices seem to have seen, the government’s argument would inject absurdity into what ought to be a solemn matter. Revoking someone’s citizenship is one of the most profound sanctions the government can impose short of execution. It should not even be contemplated for something trivial.

Once people are naturalized, their journey is supposed to be over; they are supposed to be at rest, at home, with the same security and the same freedom as those who were born here.

The Supreme Court, of course, must interpret the law as Congress wrote it. But if it turns out to allow taking away citizenship over undisclosed speeding, that’s absurd, and Congress should fix it.