In a bold move during his second inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order challenging the long-held interpretation of birthright citizenship in the United States. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” aims to exclude children of illegal immigrants and temporary residents from automatically receiving U.S. citizenship at birth.
The executive order has sparked immediate legal challenges, with advocates for undocumented immigrants arguing that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on American soil. However, the administration’s interpretation focuses on the amendment’s crucial phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which has historically been used to exclude certain groups from automatic citizenship.
The 14th Amendment states: “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.” This language has traditionally excluded children of foreign diplomats and, for a period, certain Native American tribes with sovereign status. The Trump administration argues that this precedent allows for excluding children of illegal immigrants as well.
The order’s supporters maintain that the 14th Amendment’s original purpose was to ensure citizenship for former slaves and their descendants, who had endured tremendous hardship under American jurisdiction. They argue that extending this right to children of individuals who entered the country illegally contradicts the amendment’s intent.
Three district courts have already issued nationwide injunctions against the executive order. The Supreme Court took up the case on May 15, addressing both the scope of district courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions and the constitutional validity of the executive order itself.
Even if the Supreme Court rules against presidential authority in this matter, Congress maintains the power to enforce the 14th Amendment’s provisions through legislation. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the presidency, there exists a unique opportunity to legislatively define who falls under the jurisdiction requirement for citizenship.
However, the Senate’s filibuster rules present a significant obstacle, requiring more than a simple majority to pass such legislation. Some suggest creating a narrow exemption to the filibuster rules
specifically for defining citizenship parameters, similar to existing exceptions for presidential nominations and budget reconciliation bills.
Critics argue that with over 20 million illegal immigrants in the country, continuing to grant automatic citizenship to their U.S.-born children poses significant challenges to national cohesion and stability. They cite concerns about integration, language barriers, and respect for American laws and customs.
Proponents of the executive order reference Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg’s 1963 statement that the Constitution is “not a suicide pact,” suggesting that unrestricted birthright citizenship could lead to demographic and social instability. They argue that citizenship should reflect a deeper connection to American society than merely being born within U.S. borders to parents who entered illegally.
The outcome of this legal battle could fundamentally reshape American immigration policy and the concept of citizenship itself. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation faces a crucial decision about how to interpret the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause in the context of modern immigration challenges. The resolution of this issue will likely have lasting implications for generations to come, affecting millions of future births to non-citizen parents in the United States.