(Source: AP) — President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a long-standing U.S. policy enshrined in the 14th Amendment. The order, issued late Monday, seeks to remove automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, including those in the country illegally or on temporary visas.
Birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of U.S. law for over a century, ensuring that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically acquires citizenship, regardless of their parents’ status. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, grants this right to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. The new executive order challenges this interpretation, specifically excluding children born to non-citizen parents who are not lawful residents or citizens themselves.
Trump’s order was part of his broader agenda to overhaul immigration policies, an issue he addressed frequently during his presidential campaign. However, the move has drawn immediate backlash, with immigrant rights groups filing lawsuits to block its enforcement. Advocates argue that the order violates the U.S. Constitution and longstanding legal precedents.
Reaction to the Order & Implications
Within hours of the executive order’s release, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other immigrant rights organizations filed a lawsuit in federal court. The plaintiffs argue that the order is unconstitutional and would strip U.S.-born children of their citizenship, creating a permanent underclass of individuals who, despite being born in the country, would not have the rights of full citizens. See complaint here.
The case highlights the situation of “Carmen,” a woman living in the U.S. for more than 15 years, who is pregnant but not yet a U.S. citizen. Under the new order, her child would not be recognized as a U.S. citizen despite being born on American soil. Immigrant rights groups claim that denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. would cause irreparable harm, including the denial of healthcare, education, and the rights to vote or work in the future.
The order’s legality is in question, as the 14th Amendment’s language has been interpreted for more than 150 years to guarantee birthright citizenship. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents were entitled to citizenship. Critics of the new order argue that this precedent is firmly entrenched in U.S. law, and any attempt to undo it would require a constitutional amendment, not an executive order.
Supporters and Opponents of the Order
Trump’s supporters argue that the move is necessary to ensure stricter immigration controls and curb what they describe as “anchor babies” — children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents who may later be able to sponsor their parents for citizenship. Elon Musk, a key Trump adviser, voiced support for the measure, calling for a reduction in federal spending on what he termed “racist/sexist” diversity programs in the government.
On the other hand, opponents, including legal experts and immigrant advocacy groups, argue that the order not only contradicts the Constitution but also undermines American values of fairness and equality. Critics, including those at the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund, assert that this move is an attack on the rights of children born in the U.S. and could have devastating consequences for immigrant families.
Looking Ahead
As the lawsuits move forward, many expect the issue to be settled in the courts. Legal experts suggest the order may face significant hurdles before it can be implemented. Meanwhile, immigrant communities across the U.S. are expressing deep concern about the potential impacts on their families, with many now fearing the uncertainty of their children’s citizenship status.
“This executive order is a direct assault on the constitutional rights of children born in the United States,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “We will fight this unjust and unconstitutional action to ensure that every child born in this country remains a full citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.”
The case promises to have far-reaching implications for U.S. immigration policy, the legal status of U.S.-born children, and the broader debate over citizenship in America.
