Trump's Assault on Birthright Citizenship
Continuing the warpath he has embarked upon to reshape American society, Donald Trump has taken significant steps towards altering one of the foundational principles of American citizenship: birthright citizenship. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order purporting to end the automatic granting of citizenship to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This change would apply not only to those in the country unlawfully but would extend even to those here lawfully on temporary visas. This move is part of a broader strategy to reshape U.S. immigration policy, fulfilling campaign promises from his 2024 run for office, where he explicitly vowed to end what he terms "birth tourism,” controlling immigration by redefining citizenship rights.
My mother is an immigrant from the Philippines who arrived in the U.S. on a student visa to study at the East-West Center on Oahu (Hawai’i). My father is a second-generation Sicilian American born in New York. His grandparents, my paternal great-grandparents were loyalists of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and were forced to flee when Giuseppe Garibaldi took power. They immigrated from Sicily by boat, seeking refuge and opportunity in the United States, where they were greeted at Ellis Island. Because of my father's citizenship, I was fortunate to be born with birthright and bloodline citizenship. However, Trump's attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship strikes at the core of my family's history and American identity.
So, what exactly is birthright citizenship, and why do we have it? Birthright citizenship in the U.S. is the automatic acquisition of U.S. citizenship for any child born within the country's borders, a principle grounded in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified in 1868, this 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 clause was primarily introduced to ensure that African Americans, post-Civil War, were recognized as full citizens. Over time, this right has been interpreted to include children of immigrants, regardless of their parents' legal status, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898, which held that the U.S.-born son of Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen. In other words, Donald Trump seeks to upend what has been the law of the land for well over 100 years.
Trump's strategy involves using executive action to reinterpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment, arguing that this clause does not apply to children of parents who are not legal residents or citizens. His administration has directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to these children, setting a deadline for implementation, thus attempting to bypass the legislative process required to amend the Constitution directly.
Before even addressing how wildly unlawful it is for Trump to seek to rewrite the Constitution via executive order, meaning that he can not do this, let’s look for a moment at why he should not do this.
Birthright citizenship has been pivotal in ensuring that all children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' status, grow up with the same rights and opportunities as any other American. This integration fosters a sense that everyone has an equal stake in the nation's future. Removing this right could create a permanent underclass of individuals without full rights, leading to social division and inequality. We are, at our core, a nation of immigrants.
Children of immigrants contribute significantly to the economy through education, work, and innovation. Denying them citizenship could hinder their economic participation and integration, potentially reducing productivity and growth. These children are often raised in America, educated in its schools, and culturally American, yet they would be treated as foreigners without the right to vote, work freely, or receive certain benefits.
Revoking birthright citizenship is directly contradictory to the American ethos of being a nation of immigrants and a land of opportunity. It sends a message of exclusion rather than inclusion, which contradicts the moral fabric of the country built on the principles of equality and justice for all. Every day, it becomes increasingly obvious that when Donald Trump says, “Make America Great Again,” what he means is Make America Racist Again.
Ending birthright citizenship could lead to family separations, where U.S.-born children might be separated from their non-citizen parents or face deportation if their citizenship is not recognized. This disrupts families, communities, and the lives of children who know no other home but America.
Moral arguments aside, the legal problems with Trump's executive order are numerous and stem from a deep-rooted interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment is clear in its language about citizenship by birthright. Legal scholars across the political spectrum argue that the amendment was intended to be inclusive, covering all born in the U.S., with only very specific exceptions like children of foreign diplomats or Native Americans at the time of its ratification. Trump's reinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" is seen by many as a misreading of historical and legal intent.
The Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark directly supports birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, legal or otherwise. This precedent has stood for over a century, making any executive action that contradicts it legally questionable. An executive order cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution or overrule existing judicial interpretations. The power to change citizenship laws lies with Congress, and any amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. Trump's use of an executive order to bypass this process is a blatant misuse of overreach of executive power and should rightly be struck down by courts.
Multiple lawsuits from states, civil rights groups, and others have already been filed against this executive order, arguing its unconstitutionality. A federal judge has already issued a temporary block on the order, a promising signal of early judicial resistance to this policy.
This move by Trump not only faces significant legal barriers but also challenges the very principles of American identity and law, setting the stage for what could be a landmark legal battle over the interpretation of citizenship rights.
Although I am confident that the order will fail under legal scrutiny, its very issuance is a stark reminder of the radical and reckless way Donald Trump intends to use presidential power. This move not only challenges well-established constitutional rights but also signals a broader, more troubling intention to reshape American society in ways that could undermine its foundational principles of equality, liberty, and justice for all.
The audacity to attempt such a dramatic policy shift via executive fiat rather than through the democratic legislative process highlights a willingness to bypass checks and balances, which are essential to the functioning of American democracy. It's a strategy that could pave the way for further authoritarian measures if left unchecked. This executive order is not just about immigration or citizenship; it's a litmus test for how far the boundaries of executive power can be pushed under Trump's presidency.
The implications extend beyond this single policy. By attempting to redefine citizenship through executive action, Trump sets a precedent for future administrations to interpret the Constitution in ways that serve political agendas rather than legal or moral principles. Each radical policy, even if it fails legally, normalizes the idea of such actions in political discourse, potentially lowering the threshold for what is considered acceptable in future policy-making. Therefore, vigilance is more crucial now than ever. The resistance to Trump's efforts must be multifaceted. We must continue to challenge these actions in court not only to protect existing rights but also as a defense of the rule of law against executive overreach. We must continue to educate the public about the implications of such policies beyond the legal sphere. We are still a democracy, for now, and the will of the people still rules this country. Political activism, from voting to participating in protests or supporting candidates who uphold democratic values, is vital. The power of the electorate in a democracy should not be underestimated, particularly in countering authoritarian tendencies. The media must continue to scrutinize these actions, providing a platform for debate, analysis, and the highlighting of expert opinions to counteract misinformation and propaganda.
The battle over birthright citizenship is more than a policy disagreement; it's a fight for the soul of America, its commitment to inclusivity, and the preservation of its democratic institutions. As such, every American who values these principles must remain alert and actively engaged in resisting these radical shifts, ensuring that the country's trajectory does not veer away from its promise of being a beacon of democracy and freedom.
Client Centered Approach
Reputation by Excellence
Experience
Innovative & Determined
You're Not Just Another Client
AVAILABLE FOR YOU NOW
"*" indicates required fields
