Birthright Citizenship Debate Threatens to Divide the Nation

For many years, the birth certificate has served as the fundamental proof of citizenship for Americans. However, this established norm now faces significant challenges.

On the first day of his second term, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to reinterpret the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, aiming to end birthright citizenship as it currently exists. This directive stated that children born in the United States would no longer automatically receive citizenship unless at least one parent was a naturalized citizen or held lawful permanent residency. Consequently, this policy would affect children of Dreamers and other immigrants who have spent their entire lives in the country, denying them citizenship at birth.

Within a day, several lawsuits challenged the executive order. On February 5, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for Maryland issued a nationwide injunction preventing the federal government from implementing this policy, citing its unconstitutionality. Since then, courts reviewing the matter have consistently ruled against enforcing the order.

Much of the media coverage has concentrated on technical legal debates, particularly whether lower courts have the authority to impose nationwide injunctions halting federal policies during litigation. Yet, this legal focus tends to obscure the deeper issue at hand: the very definition of American citizenship and its implications for national identity.

Should this effort to rescind birthright citizenship succeed, it would create a class of newborns without legal status in the United States.

Since the Reconstruction era, the principle has held that any child born on U.S. soil is entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents’ nationality or race.