On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, sparking a series of legal battles across the United States.
President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order marked the start of numerous legal challenges, as state attorneys general, civil rights organizations, and immigrant groups swiftly filed lawsuits. This debate centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, 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.”
The longstanding interpretation of this amendment has consistently affirmed a wide-ranging grant of citizenship. Highlighting this understanding, the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born individuals, including those born to non-citizen parents. Notably, exceptions are rare, applying to cases such as children born to foreign diplomats.
Executive Order 14160, signed by Trump, seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to mothers present unlawfully or temporarily and to fathers who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This would exclude the children of undocumented immigrants and those holding temporary visas, such as student or work visas, from being recognized as U.S. citizens.
The order directs federal agencies to withhold documents confirming citizenship for these children, implying a denial of passports and social security numbers, while potentially still receiving birth certificates.
The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868, was designed to settle debates surrounding citizenship eligibility decisively. Prior to this, the legal stance on citizenship was largely ambiguous, particularly regarding non-white persons born in the U.S. Early legal interpretations generally held that U.S.-born individuals were citizens, but this did not necessarily extend to enslaved or free Black persons, who faced significant legal vulnerabilities.
In the landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, the Supreme Court infamously ruled that Black people could not be U.S. citizens. This controversial decision was later rebuked by Republicans post-Civil War, leading to the inclusion of an unequivocal citizenship guarantee within the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Congressional debate records reveal that the 14th Amendment’s inclusive citizenship guarantee was always intended to cover children of immigrants, regardless of parental legal status. During the 1866 discussions, Senator Jacob Howard clarified that the clause reflected existing national and natural law, affirming the citizenship of all born within U.S. borders. Despite concerns voiced by some lawmakers, Senator John Conness supported the inclusive nature of the language, emphasizing equal civil rights for all native-born individuals.
The Supreme Court reiterated this interpretation in Wong Kim Ark, dismissing claims against citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens.
If implemented, Trump’s executive order could cause widespread issues, potentially rendering hundreds of thousands of children stateless, stripping them of essential rights and protections associated with citizenship. Stateless individuals lack access to crucial services and rights, including healthcare, education, and travel, and might face deportation to unfamiliar countries.
Additionally, the order risks creating severe bureaucratic challenges, as government entities would lose the reliability of birth certificates for citizenship verification, leading to increased potential for discriminatory practices.
Following numerous lawsuits disputing the order’s constitutionality, several federal district courts issued temporary blocks. The matter escalated to the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, where a divided court decided that universal preliminary injunctions are unlawful unless necessary to protect claimants’ rights. This decision led to further deliberations by lower courts without addressing the executive order’s constitutional validity.
While the Supreme Court’s recent decision allows for the potential enforcement of the order, recent lower court rulings have affirmed extensive blocks on its implementation. Despite the current legal ambiguity, many legal experts assert that the order is clearly unconstitutional, anticipating a future Supreme Court decision on the matter.
The question of birthright citizenship remains a contentious topic, with ongoing legal proceedings likely to shape this critical aspect of American citizenship law.
Source: Original article