America for Whom?

Feb 10

Trump’s Attack on Birthright Citizenship

The United States of America has often been referred to as “a nation of immigrants,” a sentiment famously expressed by John F. Kennedy. With the exception of those of Native American descent, nearly every American has roots that trace back to other parts of the world. Central to the United States’ identity as a nation of immigrants is the principle of birthright citizenship. This idea, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, guarantees that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’

Ratified in 1868, this amendment was a direct response to the injustices of slavery and the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which denied citizenship to African Americans. It was a promise of inclusion at a critical moment in American history. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that birth and place–not race and ancestry–would determine who could claim the full rights of American citizenship.

Today, that promise is under direct attack. President Donald Trump has unveiled plans to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, targeting children born in the United States to undocumented parents. If implemented, Trump’s proposal would fundamentally alter how citizenship is determined in the United States, dismantling a principle that has endured for more than 150 years. The automatic right to citizenship for children born on American soil—a cornerstone of the nation’s identity—would be stripped away, leaving countless individuals in legal uncertainty.

Ending birthright citizenship would have profound consequences, not just for individuals but for the nation as a whole. One of the most immediate consequences would be the creation of a stateless population—children born on U.S. soil who, despite their birthplace, would be denied the protections and opportunities afforded to citizens. Without the legal recognition, these individuals would face barriers to education, healthcare, employment, further deepening economic and social inequalities. This exclusion would ripple through society, creating significant challenges for public institutions. Schools and healthcare providers would struggle to accommodate a growing population without legal status, while families, many of whom lack access to legal resources, would be left to navigate an increasingly complex and burdensome system to prove citizenship eligibility. At a bureautic level, ending birthright citizenship would demand an extensive overhaul of the processes used to determine and verify citizenship. Such a system would inevitably result in delays, errors, and the potential for systemic discrimination. The strain on already stretched public resources would only intensify, fostering distrust and further alienating immigrant communities.

Because if a president can unilaterally alter such a fundamental right, what other constitutional guarantees could be next? How far can executive power go before it begins to erode the checks and balances that define a democracy?

This effort to dismantle birthright citizenship not only threatens the rights of millions but also tests the boundaries of executive power. The Constitution, not presidential authority, has always defined the parameters of citizenship. To allow a single leader to alter such a fundamental right through executive action would set a dangerous precedent, calling into question the integrity of other constitutional protections.

The attempt to bypass this cornerstone of American democracy is not without historical context. Over a century ago, the Supreme Court addressed this very issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The case revolved around Wong Kim Ark, a San Francisco native born to Chinese immigrant parents, who was denied re-entry to the U.S. under the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act. In a decisive ruling, the Court reaffirmed the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This landmark decision has stood unchallenged for more than 125 years, solidifying the principle that birthright citizenship is not subject to interpretation but a constitutional right.

If a president can bypass this precedent with a unilateral action, it raises an unsettling question: What prevents future leaders from targeting other constitutional guarantees? The erosion of such a foundational right signals a shift away from the democratic principles that have defined the United States, replacing them with a more exclusionary vision of citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is more than just a legal doctrine–it is a symbol of the nation’s promise of inclusion and equality.