The Fight for Birthright

James Pan • May 23, 2025

Immigration has always been a defining aspect of American history. It plays an undeniably significant role in every aspect of American life, with many arguing that it was integral to its foundation. However, the topic has become increasingly fraught over the years, with the locus of attention shifting away from undocumented immigration toward immigration as a whole. This is reflected in the data: a majority of Americans would now like to see immigration decrease as a whole, the highest percentage since 2001 (Gallup). President Donald Trump has certainly benefited from this change, having taken an even more aggressive stance toward immigration in his second term (American Civil Liberties Union). Since his inauguration last January, Trump has already implemented a number of anti-immigration policies, from revoking protective status in schools and churches to expediting deportations (American Immigration Council). Out of the 10 executive orders and proclamations Trump issued, the one attempting to unilaterally end birthright citizenship remains the most controversial. The law currently faces a litany of lawsuits attempting to halt its implementation, with a number of interest groups and state governments citing overt unconstitutionality and deleterious effects on immigrant populations throughout the nation (TIME). Despite this, the order still represents a considerable source of anxiety regarding immigrant families’ legal status, if they are to have any (American Immigration Council). Trump’s executive order is not only blatantly unconstitutional but also represents a deep-seated sentiment of xenophobia and racism in American immigration politics.

The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” (National Archives). This provision has long been applied in support of birthright citizenship, which is supported by over a century of Supreme Court precedent stating that anyone born in the country is a citizen, irrespective of background. Trump’s executive order argues that the children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore excluded by the amendment’s extension of citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” (The White House). There are many evident issues with this line of reasoning. Undocumented immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. — they still must follow the law. When they commit crimes, they receive punishment for them. Additionally, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that the son of two undocumented immigrants from China was a U.S. citizen. The court stated that “every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States” (The Washington Post). Trump’s rejection of common interpretations of the 14th Amendment fundamentally undermines the guiding principles that undergird American democracy.

“I feel overwhelmed [regarding] what the future may look like,” senior William Wei said. “[Trump] is already willing to skip over the Supreme Court’s [precedent] and set a new [interpretation] of the Constitution. It makes me wonder what other extreme policies he may establish later regarding immigration. It is [imperative] that we protect the basic rights of children.”

Specifically, Trump’s executive order would create a dangerous precedent for stripping away rights for certain groups. This would disproportionately affect people of color, who have historically been the target of anti-immigrant attacks against birthright citizenship (The Atlantic). Independently, this policy reinscribes a deeply prejudiced logic that some populations are less American and thus less deserving of legal protection than others. It perpetuates a harmful notion that immigrants, especially those who are people of color, are not as welcome in American society. It would require millions of Americans to prove their citizenship over and over again, which opens up the possibility for administrative errors that could have an irrevocable effect on legal status. These bureaucratic obstacles could exacerbate existing inequalities that many immigrants face, making them more vulnerable to loss of legal status or deportation.

“It is all kind of dystopian for me,” senior Aaron Yi said. “People who are non-white will [likely] have to carry things that are important to them. It [may] erase [diversity] as people will try to be as American as they can be to avoid the risk of deportation or [loss] of legal status.”

While anxiety regarding the policy is undeniable, it is not entirely worth despairing over. Trump’s executive order has already been challenged in the courts as unconstitutional by many, including a coalition of immigrant rights groups and the attorney generals for 22 Democratic states (TIME). In addition, it attempts to rewrite the Constitution by fiat, which the states argue the president does not have the authority to do (The Atlantic). Amending the Constitution is complicated, even without the robust legal opposition. It requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of all state legislatures and ratification by three-quarters of all states (The Guardian). While undeniably counterproductive to downplay the danger posed by policy, Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship will certainly be an uphill battle given extensive historical precedent to the contrary and fierce opposition from states.

President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is not only incoherent from a legal standpoint but also represents an overt attempt to make the nation more exclusionary. While despondency regarding the policy’s implications is a reasonable reaction, the robust legal opposition stands as a testament to the importance of standing up for the marginalized. In a chapter of such political and social turmoil, now is the time to fight for a more just, inclusive America.

“I [believe] it is increasingly important for young people to [spread awareness] about issues like [immigration], whether it be [via] social media or contacting a [representative],” sophomore Alex Wilner said. “Considering the [potential] impacts of Trump’s policy, it is important that everyone do as much as they can to make sure the [affected] feel safe and included.”