On Tuesday, 22 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit aimed at halting President Donald Trump’s efforts to terminate the long-standing immigration principle known as birthright citizenship. This practice guarantees citizenship to children born within the United States, irrespective of the immigration status of their parents.
Trump’s executive order, which spans around 700 words, reflects a topic he has consistently raised throughout his presidential campaign. However, the future of this initiative remains uncertain, as it is expected to lead to a protracted legal confrontation regarding the president’s immigration policies and the constitutional right to citizenship.
The attorneys general from the Democratic Party, alongside advocates for immigrant rights, argue that the matter of birthright citizenship is well-established and that while the President wields considerable authority, he does not possess unilateral power. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin remarked, “The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period.”
In response, the White House stated readiness to defend its position in court, labeling the lawsuits as merely part of an ongoing resistance from the Left. Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields insisted, “Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump.”
William Tong, the Attorney General of Connecticut and the first Chinese American to be elected to that position in the U.S., shared that the lawsuit holds personal significance for him. He asserted, “The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says — if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop.” Tong emphasized the lack of legitimate debate on this issue while warning that Trump’s incorrect stance could cause substantial harm to American families like his own.
The controversy centers around the right to citizenship for anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration situation. This practice, supported by the 14th Amendment, allows children born to individuals in the U.S. on a tourist visa or those who are undocumented to acquire citizenship if born on American soil. Trump’s administration, however, challenges this interpretation, advocating for stricter citizenship requirements.
The principle of birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli or “right of the soil,” is adopted by roughly 30 countries, primarily in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico. The majority of countries globally, however, confer citizenship based on parental nationality, known as jus sanguinis, or implement more restricted interpretations of birthright citizenship.
Trump’s executive order raises questions about whether the 14th Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to every individual born in the United States. The Amendment, ratified in 1868 post-Civil War, asserts that “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.” Trump’s directive posits that children of noncitizens do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction and outlines specific exclusions for automatic citizenship based on parental status.
Additionally, the order seeks to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of individuals who fall into these excluded categories, with the measure becoming effective 30 days from the announcement date, specifically on February 19.
Uncertainties remain regarding whether the directive would apply retroactively to those currently recognized as birthright citizens. It mandates that federal agencies shall neither issue citizenship documents nor accept them from local governments for people identified in the excluded categories.
Historically, the 14th Amendment did not originally grant automatic citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. It wasn’t until 1924 that all Native Americans born on U.S. soil were conferred citizenship rights. The landmark case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confirmed citizenship for individuals born in the U.S. to immigrant parents, strengthening the interpretation of birthright citizenship.
The debate surrounding birthright citizenship resurfaced in Arizona back in 2011, during legislative discussions aimed at challenging the automatic citizenship provision. Although proposed legislation did not progress, the discussions indicated an intricate connection between state-level policies and federal citizenship definition disputes.
Reactions to Trump’s executive order have included further lawsuits from not just various states, but also the District of Columbia and San Francisco. Advocacy groups focused on immigrant rights have joined the legal battle. Notably, some chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union across New England have filed suit in federal court in New Hampshire. This lawsuit contends that Trump’s order is unconstitutional, highlighting the situation of a woman named “Carmen,” who has been living in the U.S. for over 15 years without citizenship and is facing uncertainty about her unborn child’s citizenship status.
Overall, the ongoing legal challenges represent a significant clash over immigration policy and the interpretation of citizenship rights in America, impacting numerous families and individuals across the nation, as exemplified by the wide array of states and cities participating in the lawsuits.
