The 47th President of the United States of America, Donald Trump on Monday, January 20, signed an executive order vowing to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., despite a broad legal consensus that the Constitution guarantees American citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil.
Newsonspot reports that Trump’s order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the U.S. to mothers who are in the country illegally or there legally on visas, if the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The order would deny U.S. citizenship, including passports, to those children born in the U.S. starting 30 days from now, if at least one parent isn’t an American citizen or green card holder.
The Supreme Court ruled more than a century ago that children born in the U.S. to foreign parents are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. The only legally recognized exception applies when both parents are diplomats with immunity from U.S. laws.
However, some legal scholars who favour a crackdown on immigration contend the 1898 ruling has been interpreted too broadly, and the current Supreme Court could allow the government to set stricter standards for citizenship. It’s also unclear whether the courts will conclude Trump has any power to address the issue without an act of Congress to back him up.
In less than two hours after signing the law, Immigrant rights advocates filed a lawsuit Monday night in federal court in New Hampshire on behalf of a group representing Indonesian migrants in that state, along with other groups representing Latinos and so-called Dreamers – individuals brought to the U.S. as children by parents who entered or remained in the country illegally.
It’s the first of a wave of suits expected to be filed over Trump’s order. State officials from California and Illinois, among others, have indicated plans to sue over the president’s directive, which was widely advertised in advance.
The suit filed in New Hampshire contends that Trump’s order violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment as well as federal law that has been on the books for more than 80 years.
“Neither the Constitution nor any federal statute confers any authority on the President to redefine American citizenship,” the suit says. “By attempting to limit the right to birthright citizenship, the Order exceeds the President’s authority and runs afoul of the Constitution and federal statute.”
The suit also says Trump’s order, if enforced, could render some children stateless.
Birthright Citizenship: What does the current law state?
Under current US law, as enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, anyone born on US soil automatically acquires US citizenship. This provision, ratified in 1868, was designed to grant citizenship to all persons born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The executive order signed by Trump, however, seeks to redefine the scope of the 14th Amendment, excluding children born to parents who are unlawfully present or on temporary visas.
The implications of this change would be significant, particularly for the Indian-American community, one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the US. According to the US Census, over 4.8 million Indian-Americans are living in the US, with a significant proportion born in the country. Once the policy is rolled out, children born to Indian nationals on temporary work visas, such as H-1B or those waiting for green cards, would no longer automatically gain US citizenship.
Loss of automatic citizenship: Currently, a child born in the US to Indian parents, even if they are on H-1B visas, automatically receives US citizenship. Under the new executive order, only children born to US citizens or permanent residents would be eligible for citizenship, creating uncertainty for families who rely on this pathway to secure a future in the US.
Heightened delays for Green Card holders: A significant portion of the Indian-American population is stuck in the US green card backlog, with many waiting for years to gain permanent residency. Children born to Indian nationals on temporary visas, who currently acquire US citizenship, would no longer automatically do so. This change could add years to the process of obtaining US citizenship and create further family separations.
Challenges for family reunification: Family-based immigration allows US citizens to petition for their parents to join them in the country once they turn 21. Without birthright citizenship, many children born to Indian immigrants would no longer be able to sponsor their parents.
Birth tourism impact: The executive order also targets the growing issue of birth tourism, where foreign nationals travel to the US specifically to give birth and gain citizenship for their children. While this change may reduce birth tourism, it will also affect families who are not engaged in such practices but rely on birthright citizenship for family reunification and long-term residency.
Implications for Indian students: Indian students, who make up one of the largest groups of international students in the US, particularly in technology and engineering fields, could also be affected. Children born to Indian students on F-1 visas or other non-immigrant categories would no longer automatically receive US citizenship, creating more complications for students and their families in the future.
Despite the far-reaching implications of the executive order, Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship faces significant legal challenges. The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and any attempt to restrict it would likely violate the Constitution. Furthermore, the order has sparked widespread criticism from immigration advocates and legal experts who argue that it undermines fundamental US values.
The complaint in the case was signed by a total of 26 attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, State Democracy Defenders Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the Asian Law Caucus and lists New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens and Make the Road New York as the plaintiffs in the case.
