I had heard that convicted felons (in the US) lose their citizenship. Is that correct? And, if true, who checks up on this when they go to register to vote? Or, commit yet another crime? (Do they still get a speedy trial, right to atty, etc?) FYI: I am assuming a felon is one serving in a State or Federal prison for a year or greater, per an online law dictionary of “felony”.
No.
However, a felony conviction does make you ineligible to vote in some states.
And I believe in most cases you are not able to legally possess a firearm… but you’re still a citizen.
It’s a shame they don’t lose all US rights. Like, losing your right to vote is a BAD thing??? I know, when the Constitution was framed, it was a big deal…today, it’s be a blessing! 
[Moderator Note]
Jinx, political commentary of this kind is inappropriate for GQ. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
You assume wrong; many felons never have spent more than a couple of hours in a lockup,got out on bail and received probation for minor drug related offenses. IMO you should be correct, the term felon should be used for people who present a clear and present danger to society and their rights severely limited; but it doesn’t work that way.
So no, to answer the OP they do not lose their US citizenship or many of their rights. Where would we send them them to once we took away their citizenship? Australia is full and not taking anymore last I heard.
For what it’s worth, wikipedia addresses the loss of U.S. citizenship, and the only “felony” that might qualify is treason, but I don’t know if it’s automatic, or if it must be reviewed by a judge or comittee.
The law:
In Canada, people in prison (even for life) have the right to vote.
One theory says that in the USA removing felons’ right to vote is a tactic used because lower class, poor people, who tend to be minorities too, vote for one party - so when the other is in power, it passes a law disenfranchising convicted felons. (you fill in the blanks).
This becomes an issue in states like Florida where the election results can be close, and some voters are scrutinized closely because they are the same skin colour as a disproportionate number of convicted felons.
This is likely what you may have heard on the news - during US elections or primaries, etc. the news stories are full of people denied their right to vote or voting illegally based on their legal status as felon or not, or often from mistaken identity or lack of identification. The attention given to every voter in some districts means the line moves slowly and some people may not get a chance to vote in time.
But everyone who is a citizen stays a citizen with a legal right to be in the country. You can’t be deported if you have a legal right to be in the country; and where would the US deport you to?
I can’t say for other states, but in Missouri, if the polls are scheduled to close at 7PM, a Election Judge gets on the end of the existing line at that time. Everyone in line ahead of the Election Judge gets to vote. Anyone in line behind them should have gotten there sooner. My wife was an election judge for several years, so I know how it’s done in my state.
You can’t deport someone unless there is a country willing to accept them. Presumably a US citizen who somehow lost their citizenship w/o having another citizenship would simply be stuck in the US. Traveling abroad would be quite difficult since they’d be stateless and unable to get a passport (I’m pretty sure the US doesn’t issue alien’s passports.
I believe the only way to loose US citizenship if it is determined that it was gain illegally. then you could be deported back to the country you came from.
Just to agree with everybody else that convicted felons remain US Citizens. Can they vote? As prisoners, as parolees, after they’ve “paid their debt to society” or ever? Depends on the state.
In Texas, felons who’ve completed their sentence (including parole and/or probation) regain the franchise.
Minnesota, too.
But note that this includes probation/parole time. So if a person is convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison, but because of good behavior gets out after 8 years, legally, they still can’t vote for another 4 years – until the end of their original sentence.
About the only ‘voter fraud’ cases we have had in Minnesota have been such cases – people who register & vote after serving their time, but before the end of the original sentence. Not much ‘fraud’ involved – they use their real name & real address to register with the Secretary of State, and vote at the polling place the SoS office tells them to, thinking they were entitled to vote.
I think it’s been speculated several times in the past that Google and Wikipedia are blocked on Jinx’s computer. 
Heh. I say “for what it’s worth” in regards to wikipedia because I know that wikipedia can be hit or miss, and that some posters do not put much faith in cites from it.
I’d say that wraps it up pretty neatly, no? Unless, of course, you want to release felons from being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which strikes me as a really, really bad idea.
But also note the exception of life, liberty, and property being allowed to be removed after due process. They may remain citizens, but any of those otherwise fundamental rights can be removed. Thus one may claim they aren’t really full citizens, since the most fundamental protections are removed.
Yes, I know it’s talking about the states at that point, but removal by the federal government is already covered in the fifth amendment.
BTW, the idea of restricting the vote is based on the idea that a criminal should not be able to participate in the government that is punishing him, lest he use his participation to change his sentence. While I find that unlikely, I do wonder if politicians would start pandering to get the prison vote. In an ideal system, this shouldn’t matter, as all laws would be those that most of society thinks are good, and, thus, such pandering would lose more votes than it would gain. But I’m not so sure in other systems.
What happens in other countries that have a similar portion of their population incarcerated allow their prisoners to vote?
No other western democracy incarcerates a similar portion of their population as does the United States, which has the highest incarceration rate.
This issue is addressed in Canada (at the federal level at least - dunno how each province deals with it) by the location that prisoners vote. They aren’t included on the voters’ list for the riding where the correctional centre or penitentiary is located. They cast their votes in the riding where they came from, as defined by this list:
Source: Elections Canada; bolding in original.
So there isn’t a prisoners block of votes that may affect a particular riding or candidate disproportionately; their votes go back to where they came from, diluting the effect of a prisoners bloc.
Certainly, they have fewer rights than non-convicts, but the question at hand is whether they lose their citizenship itself. Which, clearly, they don’t.