In a landmark move, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a practice that has guaranteed U.S. citizenship to individuals born on American soil regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The decision challenges a centuries-old interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and has already prompted fierce legal opposition.
Understanding Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship is a policy enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War. It declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state where they reside. This provision has historically ensured citizenship for anyone born in the country, including children of undocumented immigrants or those in the U.S. temporarily.
Supporters of the policy view it as a cornerstone of equality and inclusion in American society. Critics, including President Trump, argue that it incentivizes illegal immigration and needs to be reinterpreted to apply only to children of legal residents or citizens.
Details of the Executive Order
Trump’s order challenges the current understanding of the 14th Amendment, arguing that citizenship should not be automatically granted to children born to parents who lack legal status or are temporarily in the country. The order stipulates that children born under such circumstances would no longer be recognized as U.S. citizens and instructs federal agencies to enforce the new policy.
The directive is set to take effect on February 19 and includes provisions to exclude individuals from citizenship if their mother was not legally present in the United States at the time of birth or if their father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Historical Context of Birthright Citizenship
The principle of birthright citizenship has been a point of contention throughout U.S. history. For example, Native Americans born in the U.S. were not granted citizenship until 1924. In the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants was a citizen, even though the Chinese Exclusion Act restricted their parents’ rights.
While the ruling in Wong Kim Ark has been a key precedent, some legal scholars and immigration restriction advocates argue it does not explicitly cover the children of undocumented immigrants, leaving room for interpretation and debate.
Reaction and Legal Challenges
The executive order has sparked immediate backlash. Immigration advocates, including chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have filed lawsuits claiming that the order violates the Constitution.
One lawsuit filed in federal court in New Hampshire centers on a woman, referred to as “Carmen,” who has lived in the U.S. for 15 years without legal status. She is expecting a child who, under the executive order, would be denied automatic citizenship. The suit argues that stripping citizenship from such children undermines their rights and full membership in U.S. society.
Critics of the order argue that it erodes constitutional protections and targets vulnerable populations. Proponents see it as a necessary step to strengthen immigration enforcement and address what they perceive as abuses of the system.
