An opinion piece by Jennifer Yoo (Y12)
On the first day of his second term – the same night he swore to uphold the constitution – President Trump issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. This blatantly unconstitutional order is in direct violation of more than a century’s worth of Supreme Court law.
Birthright Citizenship Defined
Birthright citizenship or jus soli states that anyone born on American soil is granted citizenship, irrespective of the immigration condition of their parents. The U.S. is one of only 33 states that grant citizenship unconditionally to anyone born within its territory.
This privilege is provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 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.”
The Fourteenth Amendment was initially enacted after the Civil War to provide citizenship to the formerly enslaved people, overturning the Dred Scott case in 1857 which ruled that enslaved people could never be American citizens. Anyone born on American soil, including children of undocumented migrants, free or enslaved people, American ancestry or not: they were considered American.
Past Legal Battles
The debate over birthright citizenship is not a new one. While many argue for change, the legal foundations of this principle have been firmly established by the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the most important rulings that has shaped this debate was made more than a century ago in 1898.
In the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents, even if those parents were not legally allowed to stay, were U.S. citizens.
This decision came after a man named Wong Kim Ark, born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents, went to China and was denied re-entry under the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Court decided he was still a U.S. citizen because he was born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents’ immigration status.
Building on English common law and the Fourteenth Amendment, the ruling was meant to correct the injustice in the Dred Scott case. It made clear that anyone born in the U.S., even if their parents were in the country on work or student visas, as tourists, or without legal permission, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen.
The landmark decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark continues to have a lasting impact on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It sets a strong legal precedent, one that has been respected and upheld for generations. However, challenges to this principle persist, and the discussion about birthright citizenship remains as relevant as ever today.
Trump’s Stand and Legal Arguments
Trump’s opposition towards birthright citizenship is constitutionally riddled with controversy. While the policy is politically advantageous for him in consolidating some voter support amongst those concerned with illegal immigration, it also holds damaging implications.
The annulment of birthright citizenship may cause greater divisions in the country, complicating an already politically charged citizenship framework and thereby further chipping away at the fabric of society itself.
Birthright citizenship is a long established law, being in place for well over a hundred years, and to seek to change it by executive order as opposed to legislative means could conceivably plunge the nation into a lengthy period of judicial tugging. Such undertakings would damage public perception of executive authority.
All children deserve a future.
If children born in the U.S. are denied citizenship, it would create a group of people who face legal discrimination and social exclusion, which no child deserves. Children should be given the help and support they need to succeed, not face additional obstacles. Ending birthright citizenship would unfairly discriminate against them.
“In so many ways, children are the most silent and invisible victims of statelessness. And without a doubt, children have the most to lose by statelessness as well. They represent futures denied. Potential denied. A wealth of amazing contributions to society denied… All children deserve a future.”
Greg Constantine
We need to ask ourselves if we’re really willing to put the health, education, and well-being of an entire generation at risk just for a policy that goes against the values our country was built on. It’s in everyone’s best interest to protect the equality and freedom promised by the Fourteenth Amendment and make sure all kids born and raised in the U.S. have the chance to reach their potential and contribute to the country’s future.
Consequences beyond undocumented immigrants
If the United States were to end birthright citizenship, there could be far-reaching effects beyond just undocumented immigrants.
For one, such a change would add layers of bureaucracy to an already complex system. Right now, a birth certificate is (in most cases) enough to prove citizenship. But with new policies, parents might have to go through lengthy and expensive processes to establish their child’s status, possibly incurring legal fees and waiting months for documentation. This could impose unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on families, making it harder for children to access the services they are entitled to.
Additionally, it would create major legal complications for children of LGBTQ+ couples and those born through assisted reproductive technologies (ART), such as surrogacy. Currently, birthright citizenship automatically recognizes children born on U.S. soil as citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. However, with a change in this policy, families relying on ART could face significant legal challenges when it comes to proving their children’s citizenship.
One problem would be the disconnect between federal and state definitions of parentage. As it stands, states typically define who counts as a legal parent, and this could be complicated further under the new rules. Some children born through ART might not be biologically related to their parents, especially in the case of surrogacy. The change would leave these children at risk of being denied citizenship and might even make them stateless in some cases. This could cause serious problems, including potential separation from their intended families and lack of access to vital services like healthcare and education.
Lastly, the surrogacy market, which the U.S. leads globally, could be severely affected. As one of the largest industries in the world, with over $20 billion in value, the U.S. is a popular destination for international families seeking surrogacy. If birthright citizenship is revoked, the process for securing U.S. citizenship for children born through surrogacy would become much more complicated, deterring many families from choosing the U.S. for their surrogacy arrangements.
Last Words
Ending birthright citizenship would have far-reaching consequences, not just for children born in the U.S., but for the country as a whole. By creating unnecessary barriers for vulnerable populations, it undermines the core values of equality and opportunity that define democracy and the American nation.
Ensuring that all children, regardless of their parents’ status, have the right to citizenship is essential for their well-being and the future prosperity of the U.S. As we move forward, it is crucial that we uphold the rights of every child to achieve their fullest potential.
Finally, I would like to add a quotation from Mr. Thomas Wolf, who published an article on January 30th, 2025 on the Brennan Center of Justice Website, which I felt summarises the sentiments of this article perfectly:
“When we ratified the 14th Amendment, we rejected the idea that some people born here are less than others in the eyes of the law. We reject that idea again today.”
Sources:
- https://theconversation.com/ending-us-birthright-citizenship-could-have-consequences-for-lgbtq-couples-lower-income-parents-and-the-surrogacy-market-250846
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/presidents-cant-end-birthright-citizenship
- https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision
1 Comment