Attorneys general from 22 states have filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump to block his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a longstanding immigration principle. This constitutional guarantee, part of the 14th Amendment, ensures that individuals born in the United States are granted citizenship regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Trump’s Executive Order and Legal Challenges
The executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, aligns with Trump’s campaign promises but faces significant legal challenges. Critics, including Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights groups, argue that the order contradicts settled law and exceeds presidential authority.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin stated, “The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period.” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, himself a birthright citizen, emphasized that the amendment’s language is unequivocal: “If you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period.”
White House Defense of the Order
The Trump administration defends the order as a reflection of public will. White House Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields dismissed the lawsuits as political resistance, urging opponents to cooperate with the administration instead of opposing the “overwhelming will of the people.”
Understanding Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli or “right of the soil,” is applied in approximately 30 countries, primarily in the Americas. In contrast, most nations base citizenship on parental status (jus sanguinis or “right of blood”) or restrict automatic citizenship to specific conditions.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, 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 order contends that children of noncitizens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and are therefore excluded from automatic citizenship.
Implications of the Executive Order
Scheduled to take effect on February 19, the order would bar federal agencies from recognizing citizenship for affected individuals. It remains unclear if the policy would retroactively impact existing birthright citizens.
Historical Context and Legal Precedents
The debate over birthright citizenship has historical roots. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a man born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants was a citizen. Advocates of the executive order argue that the case applies only to children of legal immigrants, while critics contend it reinforces the broad protections of the 14th Amendment.
Broader Opposition and Specific Cases
The lawsuits against the order involve a coalition of states, cities, and advocacy groups. Plaintiffs argue that the executive order would harm families and communities, as illustrated by cases like that of “Carmen,” a pregnant woman with longstanding U.S. residency but no formal immigration status.
The Road Ahead
The legal battle over Trump’s executive order is set to become a landmark case in defining the future of birthright citizenship in the United States. With 22 states, Washington, D.C., and advocacy groups pushing back, the decision will have profound implications for immigration policy and constitutional rights.
Keep up with the legal battle of the birthright citizenship executive order on QueOndaMagazine.com.
