close
close

Birthright Citizenship: Can President Trump End It?

Birthright Citizenship: Can President Trump End It?

This story originally appeared on NPR.

President Trump is trying to repeal birthright citizenship, a legal principle enshrined in the Constitution that automatically makes anyone born in the United States or its territories a citizen.

It’s a move first proposed by Trump during his first term most legal experts agree that he cannot do so unilaterally.

Indeed, within days of signing his executive order on Monday, the Trump administration has been hit with at least four separate lawsuits from coalitions opposing it, including nearly two dozen state general prosecutorsgroup pregnant mothers and immigrant rights groups, including American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by our Constitution and is absolutely central to what America stands for,” said lead attorney Cody Wofsey, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project. “Denying citizenship to children born in the United States is illegal, extremely cruel, and contrary to our values ​​as a country.”

On Thursday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the orderwhich was supposed to enter into force on February 19.

Asked about legal challenges to the birthright order — which many expected — Trump acknowledged at the time of the signing that it could be challenged, but said, “We think we have a good case” to move forward.

“We’re the only country in the world that does that” with birthright citizenship, he said.

This is not true: Dozens of countriesincluding Canada, Mexico, and many South American countries offer birthright citizenship.

Here’s what to know about the principle and what it would mean for the US to end it — or at least try.

What does the Constitution say?

Section 1 of Art 14th Amendment The Constitution states that “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 in which they reside.”

Amendment that was ratified in 1868sought to extend citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.

“When the 14th Amendment introduced birthright citizenship, the United States didn’t have the number of unauthorized immigrants we have today,” Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute. told NPR in December.

But it has been applied to immigration for more than a century, beginning with a landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

How was the clause interpreted?

“For more than a century, since a young Chinese-American chef from San Francisco named Wong Kim Ark won a Supreme Court case, birthright citizenship for all—including babies born to immigrants—has been a cornerstone of American democracy.” , — said Arti Kohli. , executive director of the Asian Law Caucus.

Wong, who was was born in San Francisco in a Chinese familywas barred from entering the United States—under the Chinese Exclusion Act—when returning from a trip abroad in 1890.

As a result of the 6-2 decision, the court ruled since Wong was born in the US and his parents did not hold any diplomatic or official position under the Chinese Emperor, the 14th Amendment makes him a US citizen.

Portrait of Wong Kim Ark
A 1904 portrait of Wong Kim Ark, who was recognized as a US citizen by the Supreme Court in a landmark birthright case.
(National Archives/Temporary Archive/Getty Images)

“This case established that anyone born in the United States was a citizen under the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of the immigration status of the parents, and the case has set precedent for more than 125 years,” the statement said. . American Immigration Council.

This decision set the parameters jus solior citizenship by place of birth (as opposed to the form of citizenship by right of birth known as blood juice).

And the Supreme Court confirmed this in subsequent years, including in a 1982 case Plier v. Dow, which held that states could not deny students a free public education based on their immigration status.