The American Council of Immigration does not approve or oppose candidates for elected offices. We aim to provide an analysis of the impact of elections on the US immigration system.
Laila Khan and Raul Pinto
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump aimed to terminate birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrant babies and those with temporary status in US executive order 14,156 An order has been issued. A precedent for attempting to abolish the long-standing US policy of citizenship based on unlimited birthplaces.
The executive order elicited immediate legal challenges that hope for states, immigration rights groups, and mothers. On January 23rd, three days after it was published, U.S. District Judge John C. Cornor in Washington state called it “blatantly unconstitutional” and blocked its implementation for 14 days. On February 5th, Federal District Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a local injunction and halted the implementation of the executive order. The interim injunction will remain current until the final decision. As a result, the executive order was blocked indefinitely until these cases were awarded.
What is birthright citizenship?
Basis-right citizenship is the process by which a baby automatically achieves citizenship in the state at birth. Countries around the world adopt birthright citizenship in two forms: ancestral-based citizenship (jus sanguinis), which derives the status of citizenship of a child based on the citizenship of their parents. The birthplace of the child. The United States, like the vast majority of other Western Hemispheres, adopted citizenship based on unlimited birthplaces. In other words, anyone born within the territory of the United States is automatically a citizen at birth.
14th revision
Article 14 of the Constitution, which was enacted following the end of the Civil War, sought to ensure certain rights of African Americans and amend the Supreme Court’s Scott v. Stanford decision. The first sentence in Section 14 states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to their jurisdiction and are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.” Despite the problematic implementation that led to the adoption of Jim Crow’s law, the goal of this provision of this provision ends the existence of people exposed to American law but excluded from American legal rights. That was it. Born-based citizenship was used to ensure that all people born in the United States, regardless of race, become citizens.
Undocumented immigrant children have historically been protected under the Civil Rights Clause of Article 14. According to most legal scholars, undocumented immigrants come to the United States for employment, contribute to the economy, and live in American society. What makes immigration laws enforceable against them is that they are “subjects of jurisdiction” in the United States. The 14th amendment was the basis for a long-standing Landmark Supreme Court decision to address birthright citizenship, as the line of citizenship clauses in the United States “exposed to jurisdiction” created uncertainty. Ta.
The 1898 ruling in the US vs. Wong Kim Ark states whether a child of a Chinese immigrant born on US territory (who was not entitled to citizenship due to Chinese exclusion) is subject to birthright citizenship? I finally answered the question, “What?” The case confirmed a clear precedent that people born in the United States are citizens at birth, regardless of their parental immigration status.
Executive Order 14156: “Protecting the Meaning and Values of American Citizenship”
President Trump’s executive order diverged significantly from more than a century of precedent as it deviated from the longstanding US policy of citizenship based on unlimited birthplaces. The executive order confirmed that the amendment to Article 14 “justifiedly rejected” Dreadscott’s decision, but the 14th amendment “always from birth citizenship that was born in the United States but is not subject to its jurisdiction.” It has been excluded.”
The order outlined two categories of individuals “born in the United States and not subject to its jurisdiction.” The administration believes that it should not be a US citizen by birth. A permanent resident or mother who is a temporary visitor and a father who is not a citizen or a legal permanent resident. This order made ancestors the norm for citizenship. Children born in US soil must have at least one parent born to a US citizen with US citizenship or green cards.
The order directed US government agencies to cease issuing documents recognizing babies in these categories as US citizens. One potential impact of the directive would be that the US State Department would prohibit is issuing US passports to children in these categories. However, the directive also prohibits the federal government from granting birth certificates issued by eligible state and local governments to children subject to executive orders as US citizens, and to include this at the state level. It would have generated confusion and concern about the impact of the actions.
Legal measures against executive orders
The executive order has raised immediate legal challenges in six lawsuits that bring expectations for 22 states, immigration rights groups and mothers.
According to the lawsuit, the citizenship clause secures citizenship based on unlimited birthplaces for all people born on US territory. This is because when Congress rejected the concept of deriving birthright citizenship when overturning Scott. This issue is further cemented by Wong Kim Ark’s Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, the administrative department does not have the authority to “rewrite or override constitutional amendments.” The branch is also “authorized by other legal sources to restrict those who receive US citizenship at birth.”
Judge Corgenor, whose court was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in a lawsuit filed by Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon, blocked the order’s implementation after calling the executive order for 14 days Orders were awarded. ” On February 5, 2025, the judge issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed for expecting a mother, repeatedly pointing to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bong Kim Ark, and birthrights. Resolving the issue of citizenship, “The US Supreme Court has reverberated and rejected. The President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. In fact, domestic courts have never approved the President’s interpretation. This court is not the first.” This injunction is more permanent than a temporary restraining order, as it will halt the executive order indefinitely until the court resolves the matter.
In his candidacy, President Trump said the executive order was to “stoop a future wave” of irregular migration. However, the lawsuit argued that abolishing birthright citizenship would only “impose second-rate status” on a group of children born in the United States. Future generations of children will have more basic healthcare, voting rights, rights to maintain certain employment, rights to identify, and even if they are born in the US and live anywhere else. You will be denied that you cannot obtain identification. The executive order revives the concept of a “caste-based system” that targets heterogeneous treatment based on the status of parents’ citizenship, and “a decriminal concept of genetic innate citizenship supported by Dreadscott. “Instructs the country at risk.
The legal precedent for ending birthright citizenship is clear and the court must follow as this case works through the legal system.
Submitted below: Trump administration
