President Donald Trump has sparked intense debate by proposing an end to birthright citizenship in the United States, a policy that has been in place for nearly 160 years. This practice is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all individuals born on American soil are U.S. citizens. However, Trump’s effort to dismantle this long-standing tradition is facing significant legal obstacles. The administration argues that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment excludes the children of undocumented immigrants and those born to foreigners on temporary visas. Despite this claim, the proposal has been met with strong resistance, including a nationwide preliminary injunction from a federal judge and lawsuits from over 20 states, civil rights groups, and expectant parents. These legal challenges argue that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally override a constitutional amendment.
The concept of birthright citizenship, known as jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil”), is a principle that grants citizenship to anyone born within a country’s territory, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status. The United States is one of many countries, particularly in the Americas, that adhere to this principle. However, not all nations apply it without conditions. For example, Spain requires at least one parent to be born in the country for a child to gain citizenship, while Chile denies citizenship to children born to foreigners on temporary visas. The U.S., on the other hand, has historically embraced unconditional birthright citizenship, a policy that has been upheld by the Supreme Court since an 1898 landmark case.
The Trump administration’s push to end birthright citizenship is rooted in the interpretation of a specific clause in the 14th Amendment: “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.” The administration contends that children born to undocumented immigrants or foreigners on temporary visas are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., and therefore do not qualify for citizenship. This argument has been met with skepticism by legal experts and judges, who point out that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been interpreted broadly to include almost everyone born on U.S. soil, excluding only a narrow category of individuals, such as foreign diplomats’ children.
The legal battle over Trump’s order has already begun to unfold. In addition to the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge, another judge previously blocked the order with a temporary restraining order, describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.” More than 20 states, led primarily by Democratic attorneys general, have filed lawsuits in federal courts, arguing that the president cannot unilaterally alter a constitutional amendment. Civil rights organizations and expectant parents have also joined the fight, asserting that the order violates fundamental principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could set a major precedent for immigration policy and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The potential impact of Trump’s order is significant, particularly for the millions of immigrants living in the U.S. While the order would not strip citizenship from children already born in the U.S., it could affect millions of migrants who have children in the future. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were approximately 22.9 million non-naturalized immigrants in the U.S. as of 2023, including green card holders, temporary visa recipients, and unauthorized migrants. These individuals make up nearly 7% of the population, with a majority hailing from Latin America. Statistics also highlight the growing role of immigrants in U.S. demographics. For instance, in 2023, 86% of children under 18 in immigrant families were U.S.-born, and the number of such children has more than doubled over the past three decades. Additionally, while total births in the U.S. have declined in recent years, the drop has been steeper among U.S.-born mothers than foreign-born mothers, further underscoring the importance of immigrant families to the nation’s population growth.
Despite the legal and political challenges, the debate over birthright citizenship has broader implications for the future of immigration in the U.S. Critics of the policy argue that it incentivizes unauthorized immigration and creates unnecessary strains on public resources. Proponents, however, emphasize the importance of birthright citizenship as a fundamental aspect of American identity and a reflection of the nation’s history as a melting pot of cultures. Public opinion on the issue is divided, with recent polls showing that only about one-third of Americans support ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. As the legal battle continues, the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the fate of this policy, potentially reshaping the meaning of citizenship in the United States for generations to come.
