Birthright Citizenship Debate Sparks Deep Division Across the U.S.

For generations, a birth certificate has served as the fundamental proof of American citizenship. However, this standard is now facing potential, dramatic change.

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at rewriting the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, seeking to end birthright citizenship as it has been traditionally understood. The order stipulated that children born to migrants would only receive U.S. citizenship if one parent was already naturalized or held a green card. This shift would exclude children of Dreamers and many other long-term migrants from citizenship by birth.

Within 24 hours, multiple lawsuits were filed to challenge the order. On February 5, District Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland issued a nationwide injunction blocking the federal government from implementing this unconstitutional policy. Since then, every court to review the matter has ruled that the executive order should not take effect.

Recent coverage has largely concentrated on technical legal questions, such as whether lower courts can issue nationwide temporary injunctions to halt a federal policy during ongoing litigation, and under what conditions. Yet, this focus has overshadowed the core issue: the very definition of citizenship in the United States and what it means to be American.

Should the administration succeed in overturning birthright citizenship, it would create a population of newborns without legal status.

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

As immigration increased, some challenged the right of children born to migrants to claim citizenship. In 1898, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that children of migrants are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. This issue was considered settled—until now.

In the recent Supreme Court hearing, the government sidestepped the central question of birthright citizenship, focusing instead on the narrower issue of whether judges should have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Consequently, the case will not resolve the constitutional question definitively. The birthright citizenship debate may return to the Court next year, challenging the executive order on constitutional and legal grounds, potentially leading to a ruling that invalidates its basis.

Even if the government prevails, this reinterpretation of the Constitution would apply across 28 states for now, suspending birthright citizenship for a period that, though possibly brief, would have profound implications.

While the plaintiffs remain protected by the injunction, all families would need to prove their children’s legal right to reside in the U.S., a process that could prove costly and stressful. Even U.S. citizens might have to present identification to verify their children's citizenship or prove their own legal status, as a birth certificate alone would no longer suffice.

Newborns denied U.S. citizenship could face obstacles obtaining other forms of identification, complicating access to essential vaccinations or social security numbers. Medical insurers might deny coverage to these stateless infants, potentially leaving premature babies in urgent need without care. Hospitals could also be forced to verify parents’ citizenship status in delivery rooms, increasing the risk of discrimination against those mistakenly perceived as migrants.

Children without legal status could become vulnerable to deportation. This prospect is particularly alarming amid reports that the government is paying millions to El Salvador to indefinitely detain men without due process.

The order would affect all migrants, including those the government lacks legal authority to deport. This includes individuals with temporary protected status, Dreamers, and others with approved immigration benefits but trapped in procedural limbo. Even parents with lawful status could face the threat of their children being deported. It is conceivable that the government might pay another country to take in the growing number of stateless children, whether accompanied by their parents or not.

If the Supreme Court ultimately examines the substance of the executive order and deems it unconstitutional, the federal government will be required to establish a process ensuring these potentially stateless children can obtain U.S. citizenship. A refusal to do so could create a subclass of children with limited rights, the long-term consequences of which remain uncertain.

Meanwhile, if the Court allows the order to take effect, even temporarily, it could embolden the executive branch to pursue further efforts to undermine constitutional rights that uphold the nation’s fragile democracy.