Trump’s Executive Order Targets Birthright Citizenship Amid Growing Global Debate
The U.S. is joining several other nations—including Ireland, India, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, and the Dominican Republic—in reexamining the concept of birth tourism and the practice of birthright citizenship. Former President Donald Trump has taken a decisive step by signing a contentious executive order aimed at limiting citizenship for specific children born on American soil, igniting intense discussions surrounding constitutional rights and immigration policies. This action reflects a broader trend as countries worldwide reassess their citizenship laws in the context of an interconnected global landscape.
Understanding Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship
On a recent Monday, Donald Trump issued an executive order that seeks to curb birthright citizenship for certain newborns in the United States. This initiative directly challenges a fundamental aspect of American law: the right to citizenship based on place of birth, irrespective of a child’s parental status.
Trump attributes this move partly to the rising number of undocumented immigrants. As of July 2023, the estimated undocumented population in the U.S. reached approximately 11.7 million, an increase of about 800,000 from the previous year. Although this figure remains below the 2008 peak of 12 million, it underscores a renewed emphasis on immigration issues.
Opponents of the policy argue that it risks creating a lasting underclass that disproportionately affects communities of color. Civil rights organizations are gearing up for legal challenges, asserting that the executive order contradicts both the Constitution and established legal precedent dating back over a century.
Defining Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship adheres to the principle of jus soli, translating to “right of the soil.” This principle guarantees citizenship to almost any individual born on U.S. territory, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The Legal Basis for Birthright Citizenship
The concept of jus soli is rooted in English common law, which recognized anyone born within the territory as a subject. In the United States, this principle is codified in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to address injustices following the notorious Dred Scott decision of 1857 that denied citizenship to Black descendants of enslaved individuals.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment explicitly 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 clause serves as the foundation for contemporary birthright citizenship laws.
Case Law Supporting Immigrant Children’s Citizenship
The principle of birthright citizenship was reinforced in 1898 by the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was a U.S. citizen irrespective of his parents’ immigration status. This ruling remains a cornerstone of birthright citizenship today.
Exceptions to Birthright Citizenship
Although most individuals born in the U.S. qualify for birthright citizenship, there are notable exceptions:
- Indigenous individuals were not granted citizenship until a law was enacted in 1924.
- Individuals born in American Samoa, a U.S. territory, do not automatically acquire citizenship unless Congress designates it.
- Children born to foreign diplomats and those of hostile occupying forces are also excluded from birthright citizenship.
Global Comparisons on Birthright Citizenship
Trump’s assertion that the U.S. is uniquely positioned in granting birthright citizenship is misleading. Various countries in the Western Hemisphere, such as Canada and Mexico, adhere to similar principles, though numerous nations have modified their citizenship laws to deter birth tourism or tighten eligibility criteria:
- Ireland: In 2005, amendments to the constitution mandated that at least one parent be an Irish citizen or legal resident for a child to acquire citizenship at birth.
- New Zealand: Law changes in 2006 stipulated that children born in New Zealand gain citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident.
- Australia: Since changes in 2006, children born in Australia can only acquire citizenship if they have at least one parent who is a citizen or permanent resident.
- United Kingdom: The UK revoked unconditional birthright citizenship in 1983, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or settled resident.
- France: In 1993, legislation allowed children born to foreign parents to obtain citizenship later under certain criteria.
- Dominican Republic: In 2013, the country rescinded birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented foreign parents.
- India: Since 2004, children born in India receive citizenship at birth only if both parents are Indian citizens or one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal immigrant.
Implications of Trump’s Executive Order
The executive order targets children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither lawful permanent residents nor citizens, impacting children of both undocumented immigrants and those living in the U.S. on temporary visas. Additionally, the order instructs federal agencies to refrain from issuing citizenship documentation for these individuals.
Is Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship Feasible?
Legal experts largely agree that birthright citizenship cannot be rescinded through an executive order. The protections provided by the 14th Amendment are robust, and legal scholars assert that neither executive mandates nor legislation can contradict the Constitution. The Wong Kim Ark case presents a significant precedent, suggesting that altering this interpretation would necessitate a radical reassessment of the 14th Amendment—an unlikely outcome.
While amending the Constitution presents another possibility, achieving the necessary political consensus is improbable given the contentious nature of this issue.
Potential Alternative Actions
Even if the executive order is unsuccessful, the administration could explore alternative strategies, such as imposing stricter visa regulations for pregnant travelers to limit births on U.S. soil.
A Nation Divided Over Citizenship’s Future
Trump’s initiative to modify birthright citizenship poses profound constitutional questions and sets the stage for fierce legal and political battles. This measure challenges long-established principles, compelling the nation to confront its identity and approach to immigration in the 21st century.
Join our Channel...