By Sophia Doan
On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President Donald Trump was re-inaugurated into office. Within the first 24 hours of his presidency, he signed a record number of orders, far surpassing what he signed during his first term. Along with decisions on the TikTok ban and the reinstatement of the “Stay in Mexico” initiative, he signed a directive to end birthright citizenship for immigrants, something that could change citizenship in the United States as we know it.
The 14th amendment to the Constitution clearly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” (nationalarchives.gov). Controversy surrounding the interpretation of this amendment goes back to 1898, during a Supreme Court case regarding an immigrant’s citizenship. Since the Supreme Court granted him citizenship under the 14th amendment, immigrants born in the United States have had the right to U.S. citizenship, no matter the status of their parents. The 14th amendment historically has been interpreted to include the children of immigrants, mainly only disregarding the children of foreign diplomats. Instead of attempting to ratify the Constitution, which President Trump does not hold the power to do alone, he is claiming that the past interpretation of the amendment was false. President Trump has had the plan to take away this citizenship qualification all throughout his campaigning process. “We have to end [birthright citizenship],” he stated, “we’re the only country that has it.” While several other countries including Canada and Mexico operate under birthright citizenship, the United States’ ruling on the topic is quite unique. In an executive order issued by President Trump, named “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” he states that the fourteenth amendment was never meant to extend to the children of immigrants (whitehouse.gov). His order states that people born in the United States are not citizens if their “mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the said persons birth.” Later he elaborates that this extends to mother’s on student, tourist or work visas, or if the father was unlawfully present in the U.S. While this holds up to the standard set by many governments around the world, the order is a very big change from what the United States has held.
Although it is highly unlikely that Donald Trump could completely invalidate birthright citizenship, seeing as the clause is part of the constitution, he could potentially “jeopardize the future US’s understanding of birthright citizenship” (theguardian.com). Many people educated on the topic have spoken out against this, one law professor calling the executive decision a “lunatic fringe agreement.”
Outcry about Trump’s plans has already resulted in multiple law disputes. Not only 24 hours after being inaugurated, the state of Washington sued the Trump administration. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown filed a lawsuit “challenging President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional executive order on birthright citizenship.” Because of the potential civil rights violation concerns regarding the documentation, the American Civil Liberties Union also filed a lawsuit (found here). Lawyers for Civil Rights also filed a lawsuit within 24 hours of the executive directive.
Although President Trump has not responded to these lawsuits by the time this article was written, the current expectation is that the cases will be sent to the Supreme Court. Until then, state and local agencies cannot issue citizenship documentation to people born to non-lawful citizens. People who are already United States citizens with parents who are not are unaffected thus far. Concern and questions over what this means for the children of immigrants as well as the future are still up in the air.