Should everyone born on U.S. soil be automatically considered a citizen?

This is the question that lies at the heart of the controversy that President Donald Trump reignited by signing an executive order challenging the long-standing principle of Birthright Citizenship.

Understanding Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship is the principle that everyone born on American soil is a US citizen. This has been seen as a symbol of what America stands for. Birthright citizenship has sparked intense debates; supporters view it as a fundamental right, whereas critics believe it encourages illegal immigration.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, forms the legal basis for birthright citizenship and 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."

This clause was originally intended to give citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. However, its vagueness has led to extreme interpretations that anyone born in the U.S., irrespective of the status of their parents, is automatically a citizen.

Image credits: Tara Winstead from Pexels

Take the Quiz: What Kind of Political Personality Are You?

Ever wondered what role you’d play in the political world? Take this fun quiz to find out!

Trump’s Executive Order and Legal Challenges

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The aim of this order was to define American "birthright citizenship" so that one's child would not be considered a citizen of the United States if born within its temporal borders when the parents of that child were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The Executive Order faced immediate legal opposition as several federal judges granted injunctions preventing its enforcement based on constitutional grounds.

Credits: Forbes Breaking News

• U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle referred to the order as "blatantly unconstitutional" and issued a nationwide order for an injunction.
• Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman blocked the order because it "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment" and "contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent."
• Judge Joseph Laplante from New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction after asserting that the plaintiffs indeed faced great chances of success on the substantive issues of their claim.
• Additionally, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts issued a ruling blocking the executive order, reinforcing the stance that it contradicts constitutional provisions.

These judicial actions underscore the significant constitutional challenges faced by the executive order and highlight the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights.

Image credits: Katrin Bolotsova from Pexels

Why Birthright Citizenship Matters: Arguments for and Against

Arguments in favor of birthright citizenship

Supporters of birthright citizenship argue that it stands for the core American values concerning equality, unity, and integration. There are several key reasons:

• Legality: The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees birth citizenship and so cannot be repealed without an amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling.
• Prevents Statelessness: If birthright citizenship was removed, countless children born in the U.S. could be without nationalities, an affront to the most basic human rights conditions set by international law.
• Promotes Social and Economic Integration: Citizenship allows children of immigrants to integrate into the United States culture by allowing them access to many rights: education, jobs, and even voting.
• Historical Precedent: Birthright citizenship has been a basic tenet of the laws in the United States for well over a century, thereby reinforcing the identity of the United States as a nation of immigrants.

Arguments against Birthright citizenship

Critics of birthright citizenship argue that it can be exploited and may contribute to illegal immigration. Some common reasons include:

• "Birth Tourism": Parents, especially those from other nations, are making the long journey to the U.S. primarily to have their child and grant citizenship.
• A Misinterpretation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: According to certain legal scholars, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was originally designed to offer citizenship to freed slaves rather than undocumented immigrants.
• Comparison to Other Nations: Countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have provided that at least one of the parents must be a legal resident or citizen before birth can concede citizenship to the child.
• Possible Abuse: Some fear that birthright citizenship allows undocumented immigrants to gain legal footholds in the U.S. by having children who become automatic citizens.

How Changes in Birthright Citizenship Affect the Youth

The attempt to change birthright citizenship is very significant for the United States, but particularly for teenagers. Without the executive order, some children will be denied American nationality for life, and could be deprived of their rights to education, work, and many other opportunities, undermining both social unity and economic performance. The fear of being identified as non-citizens may also be very disturbing and unsettling among teenage immigrants in society, therefore impacting their mental health and sense of belonging.

Conclusion

Birthright citizenship has been the foundation of American identity, as it offers equality and stability to those born on U.S. soil. Changing such a policy will not be an easy task and will require both legal and political efforts, which ensures that this debate will continue for years.

What do you think? Should the birthright citizenship legislation should be altered or should it stay as it is?

Image credits: White House Office from Wikimedia Commons