The thing is, the process of revoking US citizenship is a very long and difficult one where the State Department has to prove that the Citizen intended to revoke his citizenship, since they are bound by SCOTUS rulings that state it is unconstitutional to take your citizenship against your will. And citizens have the right to due process in various forms including contesting the revoking of citizenship in a Court of Law where it would have to be proven that intent to revoke citizenship was made. Congress had wars with the USSC over removing citizenships when they tried to do it,I think during and after WWII. That resulted in a compromise which has made it very hard to take citizenships; a US citizen losing citizenship is extremely rare. While I do not agree with having a series of broad, vague anti terror laws passed in succession and have concerns of my own, I have not seen any shred of evidence that the EEA tampers with due process in anyway in removing citizenships. . It only adds an eight condition to the existing 7, and of those 7, only the 7th specifically states “if and when convicted” but the other 6 still have plenty of due process if you’re accused. And again, I see zero proof that there wouldnt be due process with the 8th one. Of course, I would love to see the term hostilities as applied to the laws of war clearly defined. Hostilities has never before referred to people protesting, but ensuring it never does would of course be very nice.
The law is about naturalized citizens and not natural born citizens. Only those granted a citizenship are affected.
It applies to native-born and naturalized citizens.
I quote from the amended act, Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), above.
Someone who commits a listed act can have their citizenship revoked by “a preponderance of the evidence” that they performed the act with the intent to revoke their citizenship.
A difficult standard of proof in this case, but lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases.