(FLORIDA, UNITED STATES) Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine labeled New York City mayoral candidate and state lawmaker Zohran Mamdani “little more than a Muslim terrorist,” and urged revoking citizenship and having him deported, citing Mamdani’s Ugandan birth and his criticism of Israel after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. Fine’s remarks followed Mamdani’s statement condemning Hamas while also describing Israel’s response as a “genocidal war,” and arguing the United States is complicit. Legal experts and immigrant advocates say Fine’s call has no basis in U.S. law.
Mamdani, a sitting New York State Assemblymember who moved to the United States at age 7, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018. He is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor in 2025. His campaign has made immigrant rights and civil liberties central themes, and he has spoken publicly about the danger he believes such rhetoric poses to Americans who became citizens through the legal naturalization process.
Escalation of Attacks and Political Context
Fine’s message lands amid a wider surge of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant attacks aimed at Mamdani from some Republican officials and conservative activists.
- Rep. Andy Ogles urged deportation.
- Rep. Nancy Mace referenced 9/11 when criticizing Mamdani.
- At a conservative gathering, Steve Bannon called him “a Marxist and a jihadist.”
- President Trump questioned Mamdani’s citizenship and threatened arrest and deportation despite Mamdani’s legal status as a U.S. citizen.
These attacks mix questions of birthplace, religion, and political speech in ways that legal experts say do not create lawful grounds for revoking citizenship or ordering deportation.
Legal Reality of Denaturalization and Deportation
Federal law sets a high bar for stripping citizenship. Denaturalization is rare and typically involves:
- Proven fraud during the naturalization process, or
- Serious crimes such as treason.
It does not apply to political speech, even harsh criticism of U.S. or foreign policy. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, federal courts require clear proof that citizenship was obtained illegally or by willful misrepresentation; mere opinions, religion, or political associations are not valid grounds.
U.S. immigration authorities emphasize that revocation is an exceptional remedy. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Policy Manual explains that revocation of naturalization is usually pursued by the Department of Justice and overseen by federal courts, and is not a tool for punishing speech. Readers can review the USCIS guidance in Volume 12, Part K of the Policy Manual, which outlines how denaturalization cases are brought, the need for strong evidence, and the narrow legal grounds that apply.
For official guidance, see the USCIS Policy Manual on Revocation of Naturalization here.
Because Mamdani is a U.S. citizen, deportation is not an option unless his citizenship were first lawfully revoked. As immigration lawyers point out, the path Fine described—first revoking citizenship, then removing the person from the country—simply does not exist for speech-based claims. The First Amendment protects political expression, including criticism of government policy at home or abroad.
In practice, denaturalization cases usually involve issues like:
- Concealed war crimes
- Past persecution
- Major identity fraud
Courts and agencies treat denaturalization as a last resort. Even when the government opens an investigation, the standard is much higher than for most civil cases, and the process can take years. None of the public allegations against Mamdani relate to fraud in his naturalization or to conduct that would meet the legal threshold for denaturalization.
Key legal takeaway: Political speech and religious identity are not grounds for denaturalization or removal.
Political Fallout and Impact on Immigrant Communities
Democratic leaders, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal, condemned the remarks as racist, Islamophobic, and dangerous, warning that calls for revoking citizenship based on speech threaten the rights of millions of naturalized Americans. Civil rights groups stress that labeling a public official a “Muslim terrorist” echoes post-9/11 smears and risks chilling effects on Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and African communities that already face surveillance and bias.
For many naturalized citizens, the rhetoric is not abstract. Community advocates report increased fear that political disagreement could be twisted into grounds to be targeted by officials.
- Immigrant families ask whether a tweet, a protest, or a controversial speech could make them vulnerable.
- Lawyers say immigration law does not work that way, but fear can still curtail civic participation.
Mamdani described the attacks as an effort to intimidate him and his supporters. He framed the moment as a test of whether democratic norms will hold when an elected official’s religion and birthplace become campaign weapons. He has vowed to keep speaking out against what he calls authoritarian threats while pushing policies that protect immigrant communities across New York City.
Policy specialists note that blurring the line between national security and speech is not new, but the renewed focus on naturalized Americans in public life is striking. The idea that someone could be stripped of citizenship and then removed for their views cuts against decades of constitutional protections. To date, no official action against Mamdani has been reported; what exists are public threats and calls to use powers that do not apply in this context.
Practical Guidance and Legal Standards
For naturalized citizens and would-be Americans, the law provides clear guideposts. The government may seek to undo citizenship only if it can prove that a person:
- Lied about material facts during naturalization,
- Concealed serious crimes, or
- Engaged in acts that legally disqualify them.
The denaturalization process:
- Is initiated by government authorities (typically the Department of Justice).
- Requires strong, clear evidence of fraud or disqualifying conduct.
- Is decided through the federal courts, not by public opinion or social media.
- Often takes years and is treated as an extraordinary remedy.
Immigration lawyers encourage communities to:
- Keep records,
- Know their rights,
- Seek reputable legal help if contacted by authorities.
This advice is especially important when public rhetoric turns aggressively toward stripping status or pushing people out of the country.
Broader Political and Constitutional Implications
The larger political question is whether campaigns will continue to lean on religion and birthplace as attack lines. Critics say such tactics are both morally wrong and legally hollow. Supporters of Mamdani argue that blending calls to have him “deported” with the slur “Muslim terrorist” is designed to make a citizen sound like a threat who doesn’t belong, undermining the shared ground of equal citizenship.
Ultimately, there is a wide gap between rhetoric and law:
- The Constitution protects political speech.
- The immigration code sets strict rules for undoing naturalization.
- In this case, those rules offer a clear answer: political speech and religious identity are not grounds for denaturalization or removal.
For millions of Americans who became citizens through naturalization, that legal certainty matters as much as any campaign talking point.
This Article in a Nutshell
Florida Rep. Randy Fine publicly labeled New York state lawmaker and mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “little more than a Muslim terrorist,” urging revocation of his citizenship and deportation after Mamdani criticized Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack. Mamdani, born in Uganda, arrived in the U.S. at age 7 and naturalized in 2018. Legal experts and immigrant advocates counter that U.S. law imposes a high standard for denaturalization—typically proven fraud during naturalization or crimes like treason—and explicitly excludes punishment for political speech or religious identity. Civil rights leaders warn such rhetoric is racist and Islamophobic and risks chilling civic participation among naturalized citizens. No official denaturalization action has been reported; authorities say revocation is rare and requires strong evidence and court proceedings.
