President Donald Trump has sparked a legal and political firestorm with his executive order aiming to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States. The move has reignited discussions about the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the scope of presidential authority.
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil.
“We are the sole nation globally that follows this practice regarding birthright citizenship. It’s truly absurd. Nonetheless, we are confident in the validity of our stance, as certain individuals have advocated for this change for many years,” remarked Trump while signing the executive order on his inaugural day in office.
Among the approximately 30 countries that confer automatic citizenship to those born within their borders are Brazil, Mexico, and Canada. This principle, known as jus soli (“right of the soil” in Latin), is manifested extensively in the U.S. through the 14th Amendment.
Exploring the Boundaries of the 14th Amendment
Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment was crafted to address citizenship issues post the U.S. Civil War and to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott ruling, which denied African Americans citizenship.
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.”
“This language confirms the traditional notion that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship,” shared John Yoo, a professor at the University of California Berkeley Law School and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute, in an interview with VOA.
However, critics contend that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” suggests that at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen for a child to receive citizenship.
According to Yoo, this interpretation aligns more closely with the European jus sanguinis, or “law of blood,” principle, which links citizenship to parentage rather than birthplace.
“In my view, this interpretation doesn’t align with the language of the 14th Amendment and historical precedents,” remarked Yoo. “The Supreme Court, in cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has consistently interpreted the amendment as guaranteeing birthright citizenship.”
Opponents of Trump’s executive order argue that the 14th Amendment is a cornerstone of civil rights in the U.S.
Conversely, proponents of the executive order argue that a more restricted interpretation of the amendment is necessary.
“President Trump has emphasized the importance of restoring equity to our immigration system and upholding the true intent of the 14th Amendment as central to his vision of revitalizing America,” stated Republican Congressman Brian Babin of Texas during a recent press briefing.
In a 2019 report, Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, advocated for a reevaluation of the long-standing policy of automatically granting citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil.
Swearer contended that the 14th Amendment was crafted to bestow birthright citizenship exclusively upon U.S.-born children whose parents were “similar to the freed slaves, subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. In a contemporary immigration context, this would imply that the Constitution mandates birthright citizenship solely for the U.S.-born children of citizens, nationals, and lawful permanent residents.”
Legal Battles
Trump’s executive order is encountering significant legal opposition, with numerous lawsuits currently in progress. Twenty-two Democratic-led states have filed a lawsuit arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment.
A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily halted the implementation of the birthright citizenship order. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle issued a temporary block, labeling the order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the outcome could reshape the nation’s perception of citizenship.
If the court were to side with Trump, the most immediate impact would affect newborns and individuals awaiting birth certificates and Social Security numbers. Concerns about retroactive application would also arise.
“Determining the retroactive operation of this rule is highly intricate. Would it strip citizenship from individuals historically born here without citizen parents? How far back would it extend? These are precisely the issues the 14th Amendment aimed to address,” explained Yoo to VOA.
While much attention is on the legal challenges, Yoo noted that Congress could resolve the matter legislatively.
“Congress could extend birthright citizenship through legislation, reaffirming the traditional interpretation. However, it remains uncertain how Congress might act in this politically charged environment,” remarked Yoo.
Nonetheless, he remains convinced that the Supreme Court would uphold birthright citizenship.
“The wording of the 14th Amendment, its historical context, and consistent Supreme Court decisions all underscore birthright citizenship,” he concluded.