Donald Trump, now serving as the 47th President of the United States after a four-year hiatus, began his term with a series of high-profile executive orders. Among the most contentious is his move to revoke birthright citizenship, which guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status.
This executive order marks a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy and has already sparked widespread legal and constitutional debates.
DETAILS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
The new policy mandates that, for a child born in the U.S. to gain citizenship, at least one parent must:
- Be a U.S. citizen,
- Hold a green card (legal permanent resident), or
- Serve in the U.S. military.
The order states that children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully present, or whose presence is temporary (e.g., tourists, students, or workers on visas), will no longer automatically qualify for citizenship.
During his inauguration speech, Trump reiterated his hardline stance. He stated, “All illegal entry will be immediately halted.” Trump also mentioned the beginning of the process of returning millions of illegal aliens back to the places from which they came.”
WHAT IS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?
Birthright citizenship stems from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868 to guarantee citizenship to anyone born on American soil. This provision was designed to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals after the Civil War.
The key clause in 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. They are also citizens of the State wherein they reside.”
Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship, notably in the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents was still entitled to citizenship.
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
While Trump’s executive order has drawn significant attention, altering birthright citizenship faces immense constitutional hurdles. Amending the 14th Amendment requires:
- A two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- Ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Currently, the political landscape poses significant barriers to such an amendment. With Republicans holding a slim majority in both chambers of Congress, achieving the supermajority required for constitutional change is unlikely.
Furthermore, legal experts argue that an executive order can’t override constitutional guarantees. Critics believe the order will face challenges in federal courts, where it could be struck down as unconstitutional.
IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS
If implemented, the order could dramatically reshape U.S. immigration policy, potentially affecting millions of individuals born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. It also raises concerns about statelessness, as children born in the U.S. may be left without citizenship in any country.
Supporters of the order argue it is a necessary step to curb illegal immigration and prevent exploitation of the U.S. immigration system. Opponents, however, see it as a direct attack on constitutional protections and a deviation from the nation’s historical values.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PRECEDENTS
The United States has long upheld birthright citizenship as a cornerstone of its democratic values. The Wong Kim Ark ruling remains a critical precedent. It reinforces the idea that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
Trump’s order is not the first challenge to birthright citizenship, but it is among the most aggressive. Previous attempts to reinterpret or limit the scope of the 14th Amendment have largely failed in courts.
Trump’s move to revoke birthright citizenship has reignited debates over immigration, constitutional rights, and the scope of executive power. As the order faces inevitable legal battles, its fate may ultimately rest with the U.S. Supreme Court.
This initiative underscores the broader challenges of immigration reform in the U.S., highlighting the tension between enforcement policies and constitutional protections. The outcome will shape not only the future of U.S. citizenship but also the nation’s identity on the global stage.
