Jan 22, 2025 Story by: Editor
Attorneys general from 22 states filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, opposing President Donald Trump’s executive order to end the long-standing practice of birthright citizenship. This policy guarantees citizenship to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The approximately 700-word executive order, signed late Monday, represents Trump’s campaign promise to address immigration issues. However, its success is uncertain as it faces an anticipated protracted legal battle over the president’s immigration policies and constitutional guarantees.
Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights advocates argue that the principle of birthright citizenship is well-established and cannot be overturned by unilateral presidential action.
“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin.
The White House has expressed readiness to defend the executive order in court, dismissing the lawsuits as politically motivated.
“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump,” stated Harrison Fields, deputy press secretary for the White House.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, himself a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American attorney general, expressed personal stakes in the matter.
“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says — if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” Tong declared. “There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”
Understanding Birthright Citizenship
The issue centers on the constitutional guarantee of citizenship to individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ legal status. Supporters cite the 14th Amendment, while Trump and his allies dispute its interpretation, advocating for stricter citizenship criteria.
Approximately 30 countries, primarily in the Americas, recognize birthright citizenship under the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.” In contrast, most other nations grant citizenship based on jus sanguinis or “right of blood,” or impose restrictions requiring at least one parent to have legal status.
Details of Trump’s Executive Order
The order challenges the automatic extension of citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. It 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.”
Trump’s directive excludes automatic citizenship for children of noncitizens, including cases where mothers are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily, and fathers are neither citizens nor lawful residents. It also directs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for individuals in these categories.
The order’s implementation, set for February 19, leaves uncertainties about its retroactive impact. It mandates federal agencies to withhold citizenship documentation for affected individuals.
Historical Context
Birthright citizenship was not always universal. Native Americans born in the U.S. were not granted citizenship until 1924. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that children born in the U.S. to legal immigrant parents are citizens. However, the application of this precedent to children of undocumented parents remains debated by immigration restriction advocates.
The issue has surfaced in previous legislative attempts, such as Arizona’s 2011 proposal to challenge automatic birthright citizenship, which ultimately failed.
Reactions to the Executive Order
The lawsuit against the order has garnered support from 22 states, the District of Columbia, and cities like San Francisco. Immigrant rights groups, including chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, have also filed suits, arguing that the order is unconstitutional.
One lawsuit highlights the case of “Carmen,” a non-citizen pregnant woman who has lived in the U.S. for over 15 years and has a pending visa application. The lawsuit states, “Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury. It denies them full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.” States such as California, Massachusetts, Colorado, and New York, among others, have joined the legal challenge. Meanwhile, Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington have filed a separate lawsuit. Source: AP News
