Can Trump’s legally abolish birthright citizenship?

Shortly after his return to the White House, President Trump enacted an executive order aimed at abolishing birthright citizenship. Legal scholars largely agree that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures birthright citizenship, which confers automatic citizenship to children born on American soil. Trump’s directive has already faced legal opposition, which may ultimately be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Key insights regarding birthright citizenship are as follows:
What provisions does the Constitution contain regarding birthright citizenship?
The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, referred to as the Citizenship Clause, articulates: “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.” The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted by Congress in 1866 and subsequently ratified by the states in 1868, stands as one of three pivotal amendments from the Reconstruction era aimed at abolishing slavery. The amendment aimed to override the 1857 Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved individuals.
The prevailing consensus among legal scholars is that the amendment’s interpretation is unequivocal: individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens, irrespective of their parents’ citizenship status. The federal government has historically adhered to the principle that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution. “Trump’s action in this instance is overtly unconstitutional, and no president possesses the authority to revoke birthright citizenship,” stated Thomas Wolf, an attorney at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, a public-policy research institution.
What are the contents of Trump’s executive order?
Trump’s executive order presents an alternative interpretation of the Constitution that diverges from mainstream perspectives. The proposed measure seeks to terminate birthright citizenship for offspring of immigrants when the mother is illegally residing in the United States and the father lacks U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency. Should Trump’s directive be enacted, it would prohibit federal agencies from acknowledging the citizenship of individuals who fail to satisfy the newly established criteria.
The directive emphasizes the second stipulation of the Citizenship Clause, which asserts that an individual must be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, arguing that this provision was intended to confine birthright citizenship to lawful residents. The proposed directive, if enacted, would prohibit federal agencies from acknowledging the citizenship status of individuals who fail to satisfy the newly established criteria.
What is the effective date of Trump’s executive order?
The directive pertains to children born in the United States subsequent to February 19. The heads of federal agencies, including the Justice Department, have been given a deadline to provide guidance on the implications of the policy for their operations. Trump’s directive does not seem to strip citizenship from current citizens.
What legal obstacles might Trump’s directive encounter?
Numerous legal challenges are currently underway aimed at preventing the implementation of Trump’s directive. On Monday evening, a complaint was lodged in a federal court in New Hampshire, wherein attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union characterized the executive order as a clear infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“This represents a significant effort to redefine the essence of America,” remarked Cody Wofsy, the deputy director of the ACLU immigrants’ rights project. On Tuesday, attorneys general from over a dozen states initiated a comparable legal challenge in federal court located in Massachusetts. The states supporting that legal action comprise New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship in several landmark cases, affirming the principle that individuals born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This interpretation has been pivotal in shaping the legal landscape surrounding citizenship rights in the United States.
A pivotal ruling by the Supreme Court in 1898 is widely regarded by legal scholars as a reinforcement of birthright citizenship, though this view is not universally accepted. The Supreme Court, in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, determined that the son of Chinese immigrants, born in San Francisco, was a citizen and entitled to re-enter the United States following an overseas journey. Legal experts largely concur that the Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter is unequivocal: individuals born on U.S. territory are granted citizenship, with the notable exception of those born to diplomats, who remain outside the purview of U.S. law.
In a 2009 article, Lino Graglia, a law professor at the University of Texas at the time, contended that the case of Wong Kim Ark, which featured a plaintiff with parents holding full legal-resident status, did not address the question of whether the offspring of undocumented immigrants are entitled to citizenship. “Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of Wong Kim Ark concerning the offspring of legal resident aliens, it does not resolve the issue of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal resident aliens or those born to legally admitted aliens who have exceeded their visa duration,” Graglia stated.
In a 1985 publication, two law professors from Yale University—Rogers Smith and Peter Schuck—contended that the Supreme Court, in the case of Wong Kim Ark, aimed to delegate the determination of citizenship rights for the children of undocumented immigrants to Congress.