The Debate Over Birthright Citizenship in the United States
President Trump’s first day in office was marked by an executive order aimed at challenging the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship. This move quickly spurred lawsuits from state attorneys general, civil rights organizations, and immigrant rights groups. Here’s an overview of the situation and the implications of this legal battle.
Understanding the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
The 14th Amendment clearly states in Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Historically, this has been interpreted by all branches of government to encompass a wide-ranging entitlement to citizenship. This interpretation was notably upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that anyone born in the U.S., including children of non-citizen parents, is guaranteed citizenship, with few exceptions.
Details of Trump’s Executive Order on Citizenship
The executive order, Executive Order 14160, seeks to withhold citizenship from children born in the U.S. to a mother who is either unlawfully present or temporarily authorized, and a father who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. This measure targets children of undocumented immigrants and those whose parents are in the country on temporary permits like student or work visas.
The order instructs agencies to reject “documents recognizing United States citizenship” for these children, likely impacting their ability to obtain passports and social security numbers. While local governments would still issue birth certificates, these documents would not necessarily confirm U.S. citizenship.
The Historical Context of the Citizenship Clause
The Citizenship Clause was instituted to definitively settle debates about who qualifies for U.S. citizenship. Before the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, the Constitution largely sidestepped the issue. The matter gained urgency following the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford verdict, which infamously declared that Black people could not be American citizens.
In response, the 14th Amendment was enacted, embedding a comprehensive birthright citizenship guarantee into the Constitution. This historical backdrop forms the foundation of modern interpretations of the Citizenship Clause.
The 14th Amendment’s Application to Immigrants’ Children
From its inception, the 14th Amendment’s broad citizenship guarantee was meant to include children of immigrants, irrespective of their parents’ legal status. During debates in 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard stated that the clause reaffirmed existing law that anyone born in the U.S. was a citizen. Concerns about extending this to immigrants’ children were addressed by Sen. John Conness, who affirmed the language’s inclusivity.
This interpretation was solidified in Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court confirmed that children born in the U.S. to non-citizens are citizens.
Potential Outcomes of Ending Birthright Citizenship
The executive order could lead to significant challenges if implemented. It risks denying citizenship to many, creating a group without full rights. Some children might become stateless, lacking a recognized nationality, which the UNHCR warns can restrict access to basic rights like healthcare and education.
Administratively, the order would complicate processes by necessitating more rigorous checks on citizenship status, potentially leading to arbitrary and discriminatory scrutiny of individuals’ citizenship claims.
The Supreme Court’s Stance in Trump v. CASA
Legal challenges to the executive order led to temporary nationwide blocks from federal district courts. The Supreme Court, in Trump v. CASA, ruled against universal preliminary injunctions unless necessary for the plaintiffs’ protection. It remanded the cases for narrower rulings but did not assess the order’s constitutionality.
Despite the Court’s decision allowing parts of the order to proceed, subsequent lower court rulings continue to block it nationwide, reflecting widespread skepticism about the order’s legality. Legal experts anticipate the Supreme Court will eventually address its constitutional merits.
