Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

President Donald Trump is seeking to end birthright citizenship in the the US.

Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. Legal experts argue that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, which states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of their parents' legal status.

Trump’s order targets children of immigrants, asserting that only those born to lawful residents should receive citizenship. This has been met with legal challenges from over 20 state Attorneys General, who argue that a president cannot unilaterally alter constitutional guarantees. They reference the 1873 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, which upheld birthright citizenship regardless of parental status.

The executive order affects children born to undocumented immigrants and those in the U.S. temporarily on visas. The administration plans to withhold citizenship documents from those deemed ineligible, limiting access to public services.

While many legal experts believe Trump’s order cannot override constitutional law, the conservative Supreme Court may entertain the arguments. Affected individuals should take precautions, such as securing passports and exploring citizenship options in other countries.

Ultimately, until the Supreme Court rules, the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark precedent remain in effect, asserting that birthright citizenship is the law.

Legal Arguments Supporting Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

1. Interpretation of "Subject to the Jurisdiction":

   • Proponents argue that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, should be interpreted to mean "subject to the jurisdiction" includes only those born to lawful residents. They contend that unauthorized migrants are not fully under U.S. jurisdiction, as they do not have the rights and responsibilities of citizens, such as voting.

     
     

2. Misinterpretation of Wong Kim Ark:

   • Some legal scholars believe the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children of immigrants, misinterpreted the Constitution. They argue that the ruling was not meant to extend citizenship to children of parents who are not legally present in the country.

     
     

3. Historical Context:

   • Supporters of the order point to historical instances where citizenship was restricted based on legal residency. They argue that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, not to grant automatic citizenship to children of all immigrants.

     
     

4. State Rights:

   • Advocates for the order may argue that individual states should have the authority to regulate citizenship and immigration, asserting that federal overreach undermines state laws and rights.

     
     

5. Policy Justifications:

   • Supporters claim that ending birthright citizenship would deter illegal immigration. They argue that the current system encourages people to enter the U.S. unlawfully with the expectation that their children will automatically gain citizenship.

     
     

6. Legal Precedent:

   • A minority of legal scholars and practitioners may cite cases where courts have recognized limitations to citizenship based on the legal status of parents, arguing that this establishes a precedent for Trump's order.

     
     

These arguments hinge on interpretations of the Constitution and historical context, creating a legal foundation that challenges the long-standing understanding of birthright citizenship in the U.S.

Sources: State of California Department of Justice, The White House