The Trump administration’s attempts to undermine birthright citizenship fly in the face of America’s ideals
If being born in this country does not make you an American, what does?
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD — opinion@theaggie.org
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case over President Donald Trump’s attempts to severely restrict birthright citizenship to those born to United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, excluding the children of undocumented immigrants and those living in the U.S. on a temporary basis. The restrictions, signed into law as an executive order on Trump’s first day in office, faced almost immediate challenges and injunctions from lower courts.
We often take it for granted that anyone born on American soil has the right to be an American citizen, but that was not always a given. It was the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in post-Civil War reconstruction, which established that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Birthright citizenship was later affirmed in the 1898 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, which concluded that "The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."
But the Trump administration has argued that the Wong Kim Ark ruling is limited to apply to those “domiciled” in the U.S. permanently and legally. Trump, in a first for a sitting president, attended oral arguments at the court. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the government, also decried “birth tourism” — the practice of non-U.S. nationals coming to the country and giving birth to ensure citizenship for their children — and said that its existence warranted limitations to citizenship.
“We're in a new world now,” Sauer said. “8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.”
The high court, April 1, seemed skeptical of the federal government’s positions. Conservative members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed criticism of the administration’s arguments.
“Well, it's a new world,” Roberts said. “It's the same Constitution.”
The president’s attempts to redefine citizenship are not surprising. On the campaign trail for his second term, Trump repeatedly made promises to end birthright citizenship outright. His immigration policies since retaking office have included enforcement crackdowns nationwide, and his rhetoric toward migrants has only become more virulent.
In 2023, some 300,000 babies were born to undocumented parents, according to the Pew Research Center. The administration has yet to clarify what their legal status would be if the president’s argument that they are not eligible for citizenship holds up.
Also worrying is the fact that, if the order was to be ruled legal, the restrictions on birth right citizenship may not only be limited to future births.
“This executive order applies only prospectively,” Sauer said in session.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned that position.
“You asked us to concentrate only on the prospective nature of the executive order, but the logic of your position, if accepted, is that this president, or the next president, or a Congress, or someone else, could decide that it shouldn’t be prospective,” Sotomayor said. “There would be nothing limiting that, according to your theory.”
The court is not expected to release their decision until late June or early July, and most observers believe that the outcome will not be in the president’s favor. However, Trump's challenge to one of the most foundational tenants of our understanding of citizenship is concerning enough without having taken effect.
The right to call oneself an American is not limited to those who are citizens or those from here, nor should it be. President Ronald Reagan once summarized this core ideal by noting that, “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”
But even acknowledging the fluidity and broadness of the American identity, almost everyone can agree that having legal status as a citizen is an important right. If the belief that America is a land for anyone who holds its values and rules dear, then what would it mean to deny the right to be an American to those born on its soil?
Being a citizen of this country affords many privileges (and responsibilities), but crucially those rights are determined by the Constitution and clarified by Congress and the Courts, not the Executive. That identity and status is too important to be left up to any one person, or any single administration, to change so drastically and outright.
Written by: The Editorial Board — opinion@theaggie.org