021. World | US

Birthright Citizenship in the U.S.: Legal Principles and the Latest Court Ruling

Introduction

Birthright citizenship—a cornerstone of American constitutional law—has recently returned to the spotlight. A U.S. District Court blocked an executive order by former President Donald Trump that sought to redefine who qualifies as a citizen. This legal battle underscores ongoing debates about immigration, constitutional rights, and the meaning of citizenship in America.


What is Birthright Citizenship?

  • A legal doctrine granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on a nation’s soil
  • In the United States, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution
  • Ratified in 1868, the amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States…”

🗽 This principle was rooted in post-Civil War efforts to ensure equality and overturn laws that previously denied citizenship based on race.


Legal Origins of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment forms part of the Reconstruction Amendments, along with:

  • 13th Amendment: Abolished slavery
  • 15th Amendment: Prohibited denial of voting rights based on race

Together, they sought to dismantle racial hierarchies in law. The 14th specifically overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which had denied citizenship to African Americans.


Jus Soli vs Jus Sanguinis

Global citizenship is typically based on two legal doctrines:

PrincipleMeaningUsed by the U.S.?
Jus SoliCitizenship by birthplace✅ Yes
Jus SanguinisCitizenship by blood/descent✅ Yes

The 1898 Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed jus soli, confirming that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are U.S. citizens.


Trump’s Executive Order: An Attempt to Redefine Citizenship

  • The order aimed to deny citizenship to children of:
    • Undocumented immigrants
    • Temporary visa holders
  • It argued these children were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

However, this interpretation contradicted over a century of legal precedent, including Wong Kim Ark.


Potential Impact if Enforced

Had the executive order gone into effect:

  • Millions of U.S.-born children—especially those of undocumented or temporary residents—would lose automatic citizenship
  • Children of Indian nationals on H1-B or other work visas would also be affected
  • Without citizenship, these children would face barriers to basic government services like:
    • 🏥 Medicaid
    • 🥗 SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
    • 🏫 Public education and scholarships

Judicial Response and Constitutional Clarity

In response to legal challenges by four U.S. states, Judge John Coughenour ruled:

  • The executive order was “blatantly unconstitutional”
  • It violated the clear language of the 14th Amendment

⚖️ The case highlights the judiciary’s role in preserving constitutional guarantees, even amid political pressure.


What Comes Next?

  • While a constitutional amendment could theoretically alter the 14th Amendment, it would require:
    • Two-thirds majority in Congress
    • Ratification by three-fourths of U.S. states
  • Alternatively, the case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court for final interpretation

Conclusion

The ruling against the executive order reaffirms the strength and clarity of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. As debates continue, the judiciary has reaffirmed its commitment to constitutional protections, ensuring that citizenship remains a right based on principles of equality, not political expediency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *