Wednesday, 22 January, 2025
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants.
The controversial move is expected to face immediate legal challenges, as it contradicts over 150 years of constitutional interpretation under the 14th Amendment.
The executive order, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, stipulates that children born in the U.S. after 19 February 2025 will not be granted citizenship if their mother is either unlawfully in the country or temporarily authorised to reside in the U.S., and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident.
As he signed the order in the Oval Office on Monday, President Trump declared, “This is a big one. People have been wanting to do this for decades.” He expressed confidence in the administration’s legal position, asserting that they have “very good grounds” to defend the policy.
The move, however, represents a significant departure from the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States” are citizens. Legal experts have long upheld this clause as the foundation of birthright citizenship, regardless of parental status.
The policy’s potential consequences have sparked widespread concern. Critics argue that it would leave newborns in legal limbo and force undocumented parents—many of whom are already vulnerable—into even more precarious situations.
“This executive order undermines the very principles enshrined in the Constitution,” said Sarah Miller, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. “It’s not just an attack on undocumented families; it threatens to destabilise the legal fabric that binds American society.”
Immigration advocates have vowed to challenge the order in court, with several organisations already preparing lawsuits. They contend that altering birthright citizenship through executive action is unconstitutional, and any such change requires an amendment to the Constitution—a process that demands significant legislative and state-level support.
Trump signed the order just hours after taking office, signalling his administration’s prioritisation of hard-line immigration policies. During his campaign, he repeatedly criticised what he termed the “abuse” of birthright citizenship, framing the issue as a matter of national security and sovereignty.
The executive order is likely to deepen partisan divides in Washington, with Democrats and some moderate Republicans opposing it as an overreach of presidential authority. Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters argue that the policy addresses long-standing concerns about immigration.
As the nation braces for a protracted legal battle, the future of birthright citizenship remains uncertain. For now, the executive order adds yet another layer of complexity to the already fraught immigration debate in the United States.
It remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the administration’s attempt to redefine a constitutional guarantee that has been a cornerstone of American citizenship since 1868.
The day after President Trump signed an executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship, a group of 18 Democratic state attorneys general joined the legal fight to block the move, describing it as unconstitutional.
"What the president did yesterday is unlawful, unconstitutional and it will not stand," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in an interview with NPR.
"We are a state of immigrants. Millions of people in our state have obtained their citizenship through birthright citizenship," Platkin said. "It's the story of our state and the story of America, and it's enshrined in our [U.S.] Constitution for a reason.
Democratic state attorneys general from New Jersey to California signed on to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in Massachusetts. The city of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., also are suing.
During a press conference Tuesday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta described Trump's order as "a terrifying tone to set for his second term," adding, "I have one message for President Trump, I'll see you in court."
On Monday, in a separate legal action, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking Trump's order. "Denying citizenship to U.S.-born children is not only unconstitutional — it's also a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU's executive director, in a statement.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, stipulates that all persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are automatically citizens.
The language was crafted and added to the Constitution to establish full citizenship rights for Black Americans, but it's been interpreted for more than a century as also granting rights to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parent's immigration status.
In his executive order, however, Trump interpreted the amendment's language as excluding babies born in the U.S. to parents who are "unlawfully" present or who have "lawful but temporary" status.
Source: With inputs from agencies
Comments
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants.
The controversial move is expected to face immediate legal challenges, as it contradicts over 150 years of constitutional interpretation under the 14th Amendment.
The executive order, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, stipulates that children born in the U.S. after 19 February 2025 will not be granted citizenship if their mother is either unlawfully in the country or temporarily authorised to reside in the U.S., and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident.
As he signed the order in the Oval Office on Monday, President Trump declared, “This is a big one. People have been wanting to do this for decades.” He expressed confidence in the administration’s legal position, asserting that they have “very good grounds” to defend the policy.
The move, however, represents a significant departure from the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States” are citizens. Legal experts have long upheld this clause as the foundation of birthright citizenship, regardless of parental status.
The policy’s potential consequences have sparked widespread concern. Critics argue that it would leave newborns in legal limbo and force undocumented parents—many of whom are already vulnerable—into even more precarious situations.
“This executive order undermines the very principles enshrined in the Constitution,” said Sarah Miller, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. “It’s not just an attack on undocumented families; it threatens to destabilise the legal fabric that binds American society.”
Immigration advocates have vowed to challenge the order in court, with several organisations already preparing lawsuits. They contend that altering birthright citizenship through executive action is unconstitutional, and any such change requires an amendment to the Constitution—a process that demands significant legislative and state-level support.
Trump signed the order just hours after taking office, signalling his administration’s prioritisation of hard-line immigration policies. During his campaign, he repeatedly criticised what he termed the “abuse” of birthright citizenship, framing the issue as a matter of national security and sovereignty.
The executive order is likely to deepen partisan divides in Washington, with Democrats and some moderate Republicans opposing it as an overreach of presidential authority. Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters argue that the policy addresses long-standing concerns about immigration.
As the nation braces for a protracted legal battle, the future of birthright citizenship remains uncertain. For now, the executive order adds yet another layer of complexity to the already fraught immigration debate in the United States.
It remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the administration’s attempt to redefine a constitutional guarantee that has been a cornerstone of American citizenship since 1868.
The day after President Trump signed an executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship, a group of 18 Democratic state attorneys general joined the legal fight to block the move, describing it as unconstitutional.
"What the president did yesterday is unlawful, unconstitutional and it will not stand," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in an interview with NPR.
"We are a state of immigrants. Millions of people in our state have obtained their citizenship through birthright citizenship," Platkin said. "It's the story of our state and the story of America, and it's enshrined in our [U.S.] Constitution for a reason.
Democratic state attorneys general from New Jersey to California signed on to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in Massachusetts. The city of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., also are suing.
During a press conference Tuesday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta described Trump's order as "a terrifying tone to set for his second term," adding, "I have one message for President Trump, I'll see you in court."
On Monday, in a separate legal action, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking Trump's order. "Denying citizenship to U.S.-born children is not only unconstitutional — it's also a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU's executive director, in a statement.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, stipulates that all persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are automatically citizens.
The language was crafted and added to the Constitution to establish full citizenship rights for Black Americans, but it's been interpreted for more than a century as also granting rights to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parent's immigration status.
In his executive order, however, Trump interpreted the amendment's language as excluding babies born in the U.S. to parents who are "unlawfully" present or who have "lawful but temporary" status.
Source: With inputs from agencies
Comments
