Trump's pledge to end birthright citizenship sparks debate over its constitutional roots and immigration implications.
President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to abolish birthright citizenship, aiming to fulfill his campaign promises of restricting immigration and redefining American citizenship. This proposal has sparked intense debate and raised questions about its feasibility, given the substantial legal challenges it would face.
Birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy for decades. While Trump and his supporters argue it incentivizes illegal immigration, opponents stress its constitutional roots and societal benefits. Here’s a comprehensive look at what birthright citizenship entails, Trump’s position on the matter, and the legal and social implications of attempting to end it.
Birthright citizenship is the legal principle that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parent’s immigration status. This policy ensures that children born to individuals in the country illegally or on temporary visas, such as tourists or students, are recognized as U.S. citizens.
This practice is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, which 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."
While the policy has been instrumental in integrating immigrants and their children into American society, critics argue it has been exploited. Opponents claim it encourages “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals deliberately give birth in the U.S. to secure citizenship for their children.
In a recent interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump reaffirmed his intention to terminate birthright citizenship. When asked if he planned to act on this issue, he responded, “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.” Trump and other opponents claim that the policy encourages illegal immigration and exploits the system through birth tourism.
Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, supports ending the practice, asserting, “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship.” NumbersUSA advocates for stricter requirements, such as mandating that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident for their child to gain citizenship.
However, critics argue that ending birthright citizenship would harm societal integration and the assimilation of immigrants. Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, noted, “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens. This ensures better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children.”
The Migration Policy Institute estimates that in 2019, about 5.5 million children under 18 lived with at least one parent who was in the U.S. illegally, comprising 7% of the nation’s child population. Most of these children were U.S. citizens. The Institute has warned that repealing birthright citizenship could create a marginalized, stateless underclass, excluded from social membership for generations.
Birthright citizenship is deeply rooted in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for all, including Black individuals. The 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."
Despite this, the application of birthright citizenship has evolved. For instance, Native Americans born in the U.S. were not granted citizenship until 1924.
A landmark Supreme Court case in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, reinforced the principle of birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was denied reentry to the U.S. after a trip abroad. The court ruled that he was a U.S. citizen by birth, despite his parents’ immigrant status.
However, some argue the ruling applies primarily to children of legal immigrants and raises questions about its applicability to those born to individuals without legal status or on short-term visas. Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, remarked, “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.”
Proponents of immigration restrictions often cite the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, arguing that it excludes children of individuals in the U.S. illegally. Trump echoed this interpretation in his 2023 campaign announcement, signaling his intent to target this constitutional provision.
Trump’s exact strategy to end birthright citizenship remains unclear. In his Meet the Press interview, he suggested that legislative or executive actions might be necessary, stating, “We’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.”
In a 2023 post on his campaign website, Trump elaborated on his plan to issue an executive order on his first day in office. The order would instruct federal agencies to deny automatic citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Furthermore, he proposed denying such children passports, Social Security numbers, and access to taxpayer-funded welfare benefits.
This approach is likely to face immediate legal challenges. Constitutional experts argue that birthright citizenship cannot be revoked by executive order. Alex Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute stated, “The law is clear that birthright citizenship cannot be ended by executive action.” He expressed skepticism about Trump’s commitment to this agenda, noting that similar promises during Trump’s first term as president did not materialize.
Even if Trump persuaded Congress to pass legislation ending birthright citizenship, the law would almost certainly face legal challenges for violating the 14th Amendment.
Ending birthright citizenship would have far-reaching consequences for American society. Critics warn that repealing this policy could lead to the creation of a large, stateless population, exacerbating social inequality and division.
The Migration Policy Institute estimates that in 2019, about 5.5 million children under 18 lived with at least one parent who was in the U.S. illegally. Most of these children were U.S. citizens. Repealing birthright citizenship, the Institute cautions would significantly increase the number of undocumented individuals in the U.S., leading to a marginalized population excluded from societal participation.
Proponents of birthright citizenship argue that it has facilitated the assimilation and integration of immigrants, contributing to a more cohesive society. Alex Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute highlights its importance, stating, “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens. This ensures better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children.”
While Trump has not provided specific details on how he intends to end birthright citizenship, he has suggested multiple approaches. In his Meet the Press interview, he mentioned the possibility of executive action or legislative changes, though he acknowledged the challenges involved.
In his 2023 campaign announcement, Trump outlined a plan to issue an executive order on his first day in office. This order would direct federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born to individuals in the U.S. illegally or on short-term visas.
However, such an order would almost certainly face legal challenges, with opponents arguing it contradicts constitutional protections. Even during his previous term as president, Trump did not take significant steps to advance this agenda, leading some to question the sincerity of his commitment to the issue.
This promise to end birthright citizenship comes with grave complexities, providing flame to the long-standing debate about the definition of American citizenship and immigration policies. While the president-elect remains committed to pursuing this controversial agenda, the legal, societal, and constitutional hurdles are substantial.
As the nation grapples with this contentious issue, the future of birthright citizenship remains uncertain. The outcome of this debate will not only shape immigration policy but also redefine what it means to be an American in the 21st century.