Trump has vowed to end birthright citizenship. Can he do it?

Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States, has made a bold promise to end the practice of automatic citizenship for anyone born in the US, a policy known as 'birthright citizenship. ' In one of his first actions as president, Trump signed an executive order aimed at changing this long-standing rule. However, implementing this change is proving to be quite challenging. The order has already faced significant legal hurdles and has been challenged in courts, including the US Supreme Court. Trump's executive order seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the US illegally or on temporary visas. Despite his efforts, courts have blocked the enforcement of this order, indicating that the battle over birthright citizenship is far from over. Most legal experts believe that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally alter this law, which is rooted in an amendment to the US Constitution. The concept of 'birthright citizenship' is established in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, 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. ' Critics of birthright citizenship argue that it serves as a 'great magnet for illegal immigration,' suggesting that it encourages pregnant women to cross the border to give birth in the US, a practice derogatorily referred to as 'birth tourism' or having an 'anchor baby. ' On the other hand, supporters of birthright citizenship emphasize that it has been a fundamental part of American law for over a century and that changing it would create a permanent underclass of individuals born in the US who would be denied full rights as citizens. The origins of birthright citizenship can be traced back to English common law and were historically applied to white men in early American society. However, it was not until 1868, following the Civil War, that the principle was enshrined in the Constitution through the 14th Amendment. This amendment was designed to address the citizenship status of freed slaves born in the US. Prior to this, Supreme Court cases, such as Dred Scott v Sandford in 1857, had ruled that African Americans could never be considered US citizens. The 14th Amendment effectively overturned that ruling. In 1898, the Supreme Court further solidified the concept of birthright citizenship in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark. Wong, a child of legal Chinese immigrants born in the US, was denied re-entry after visiting China. He successfully argued that his birth in the US entitled him to citizenship, regardless of his parents' immigration status. The court ruled in his favor, affirming that all individuals born in the US are entitled to the rights of citizenship, with limited exceptions for children of diplomats. Erika Lee, a prominent immigration historian, notes that the court has not revisited this issue since Wong's case. As for whether Trump can overturn birthright citizenship, most legal scholars assert that he cannot do so through an executive order. Constitutional expert Saikrishna Prakash from the University of Virginia Law School stated, 'He's doing something that's going to upset a lot of people, but ultimately this will be decided by the courts. ' While the president can instruct federal agencies to interpret citizenship more narrowly, this could lead to legal challenges from individuals whose citizenship is denied. The Trump administration's argument hinges on a specific clause in the 14th Amendment that states 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof. ' They contend that this language excludes children of non-citizens who are unlawfully present in the US. However, courts have generally disagreed with this interpretation. In the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v Doe, the court ruled that undocumented immigrants are still considered 'persons within its jurisdiction' and are entitled to the protections of US laws. To eliminate birthright citizenship entirely, a constitutional amendment would be necessary, which would require a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as approval from three-quarters of the states. Given the current political climate, achieving such a consensus on a controversial issue seems highly unlikely. The potential impact of ending birthright citizenship could be significant. In 2016, approximately 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the US, a 36% decrease from a peak in 2007. By 2022, there were around 1. 2 million US citizens born to unauthorized immigrant parents, according to Pew Research. If birthright citizenship were to be abolished, it could lead to an increase in the number of unauthorized immigrants in the US, with projections suggesting that the number could rise to 4. 7 million by 2050, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In a recent interview, Trump expressed his belief that children of unauthorized immigrants should be deported alongside their parents, even if they were born in the US. He stated, 'I don't want to be breaking up families. So the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back. ' Currently, Trump has taken his case to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled against his plans. Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state have blocked the nationwide enforcement of his order. While he awaits the Supreme Court's decision, birthright citizenship remains the law of the land. Many countries around the world practice automatic 'jus soli' or 'right of the soil' citizenship without restrictions. However, some countries, like the UK and Australia, have modified versions of this rule, granting citizenship automatically if at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident.