Denaturalization goes through civil courts and requires only "Clear and convincing evidence" which is a lower standard than "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Loss_of_nationality
The process of denaturalization is a legal procedure which results in nullifying nationality. Based upon the 1943 Supreme Court decision of Schneiderman v. United States, clear and convincing evidence must be evaluated in processing a denaturalization action. United States Attorneys for the district in which a defendant resides bring suit in the jurisdiction's Federal District Court. Juries are typically not present and the defendant may be compelled to testify. Failure to testify may result in a presumption of guilt, though defendants can plead against self-incrimination. The standard of proof is not reasonable doubt, but rather clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Decisions may be appealed in federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Once the legal process has concluded, the Department of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Standards of Proof in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Clear_and_convincing_evidence
Excerpt:
Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality. In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions (i.e. preponderance of the evidence), which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.
Why YSK: If you are a naturalized US citizen, you might want to reconsider if you want to protest and ending up being another Mahmoud Khalil. (Not saying to not protest, just informing you of the risks so you can decide for youself if its worth it or not).
And if you aren't a naturalized US citizen; Why YSK: So you understand that the risks of protesting is higher than the risks of natural-born US Citizens protesting, so I hope you don't judge them too harshly for not protesting.
You need to read history. Read about the French and Russian revolutions. People DID do something! They stormed the government. They didn’t wait for “someone” to save them. They didn’t wait for other countries to “save them”.
I'm genuinely confused how you think that these two examples of internal uprisings are at all connected to someone saying effectively "don't count on international law to mean anything since there isn't any body to enforce it"
There are some dense, odd people on lemmy as well as any other online platform.
I am genuinely confused how you think your stories about internal revolutions has anything to do with the idea of "international law" being a thing or not. If you want to go do a revolution, just go do a revolution, it's very adjacent to the point being discussed here.
Go along now slugger, go! get! shoo!