Born in the USA: The Legal Case for Birthright Citizenship

Just hours after President Trump was inaugurated on January 20th [1], he signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which declared that children born in the United States to parents who were not citizens or lawful permanent residents would no longer have the right to citizenship [2]. This is particularly concerning as it undermines long standing constitutional precedent and threatens to create a population of stateless individuals. Furthermore, and most shockingly, he also used the 14th Amendment to justify the order—stating that its original intent was never to grant automatic citizenship to the children of noncitizens, despite over a century of legal interpretation affirming otherwise [3]. In this article, I argue that in no way does the 14th Amendment deny citizenship to those born to noncitizen parents, and that birthright citizenship is not only constitutionally sound, but also essential to upholding the principles of equal protection and civic inclusion.

The 14th Amendment unequivocally establishes birthright citizenship, directly contradicting Trump’s assertion that its protections do not apply universally. The amendment states, “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” [4]. This clause was explicitly designed to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)—which denied citizenship to African Americans—and to ensure that citizenship could not be arbitrarily withheld based on ancestry [5]. Trump’s argument hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” suggesting that this limits birthright citizenship. However, this interpretation misrepresents both the historical and legal understanding of the clause.

The citizenship clause was intended to exclude only a narrow group: children of foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, and certain Native American tribes that, at the time, maintained separate political sovereignty [6]. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), ruling that a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents was still a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment [7]. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are expected to uphold such established rulings unless there is a compelling reason rendering the concern impracticable [8]. By overturning Wong Kim Ark, there would be a severe destabilization of American justice regarding the principle of jus soli that has guided U.S. citizenship law for over a century. Trump’s executive order clearly disregards this well-established precedent by attempting to redefine jurisdiction in a way that has never been recognized by the courts or Congress. While he cites 8 U.S.C. § 1401 as supposedly supporting his interpretation, this statute merely reaffirms the 14th Amendment’s written text and does not alter its scope [9]. Evidently, birthright citizenship is not a privilege granted at the government’s discretion, but a constitutional guarantee that protects all individuals born on U.S. soil, preventing the creation of a hereditary caste system based on lineage rather than law.

Even if Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment was legally sound, the alternative model of citizenship by genetic parentage presents significant issues that undermine its viability. At face value, citizenship based on lineage may seem like a reasonable approach, as it is used in many other countries and can strengthen national identity by tying citizenship to familial heritage. Additionally, proponents may argue that it could address concerns over “birth tourism” and unauthorized immigration by ensuring that citizenship is passed down through legal residents and citizens rather than being automatically conferred by birthplace.

However, in practice, a system based on genetic parentage introduces serious legal, ethical, and bureaucratic complications. First, it risks creating a large class of stateless individuals, particularly children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary-status parents who may not have citizenship in any other country. This could lead to widespread exclusion and instability, contradicting the very purpose of citizenship laws, which is to provide clear legal status to individuals. Furthermore, requiring proof of parental citizenship would add a heavy bureaucratic burden, forcing individuals to undergo complex documentation processes that could disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Historically, countries with restrictive citizenship policies have also faced significant discrimination issues, reinforcing societal divisions rather than promoting national unity. Ultimately, while citizenship by genetic parentage may seem like a controlled and intentional system, it fundamentally undermines the principles of equality, inclusion, and legal clarity that birthright citizenship ensures.

Birthright citizenship not only provides legal certainty, but also fosters a more stable and inclusive society. By ensuring that all individuals born on U.S. soil are recognized as citizens, it prevents the creation of a permanent underclass of stateless individuals who lack access to basic rights and protections. This inclusivity strengthens national cohesion, as citizenship is based on shared civic values rather than ancestry, reinforcing the idea that American identity is defined by participation rather than bloodline. Additionally, birthright citizenship promotes economic mobility by allowing individuals to fully contribute to society without the fear of losing legal status. Removing birthright citizenship would introduce bureaucratic chaos, forcing individuals to prove their parents’ citizenship—an arduous process that could disproportionately affect marginalized communities and lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Ultimately, birthright citizenship is not just a legal principle, but a fundamental pillar of democracy, ensuring that all those born in the United States are granted the same rights, opportunities, and protections.

Unsurprisingly, the executive order faced immediate legal challenges, with critics arguing that it violated both constitutional precedent and established statutory law. Civil rights organizations, immigration advocates, and legal scholars swiftly challenged its legitimacy in federal court, contending that the executive branch lacked the authority to unilaterally alter the meaning of the 14th Amendment [10]. Several federal courts ruled against the order, issuing injunctions that blocked its enforcement [11]. In their rulings, judges emphasized that the Supreme Court had long upheld birthright citizenship, as seen by the Wong Kim Ark case, and that any change to this doctrine would require a constitutional amendment, not an executive action [12].

Beyond the immediate legal battles, Trump’s executive order carried significant implications for immigration policy and national identity. Had it been upheld, it could have rendered thousands of children stateless, creating legal uncertainty and deepening divisions within immigrant communities. Additionally, it set a dangerous precedent by suggesting that core constitutional rights could be reinterpreted through executive fiat, raising concerns about the stability of other long-established legal protections. More broadly, the order reflected a shift toward an exclusionary vision of American identity—one rooted in ancestry rather than civic participation—challenging the country’s historic commitment to being a nation of immigrants. While the federal court rulings ultimately blocked the order, its attempt to redefine citizenship underscored the ongoing political and legal battles surrounding immigration and belonging in the United States.

Bibliography

[1] The White House, “The Inaugural Address,” January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025/01/the-inaugural-address/.

[2] United States, 2025, Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” Federal Register.

[3] Ibid.

[4] U.S. Const. amend XIV.

[5] Scott v. Sanford, U.S. 9 (1857).

[6] National Constitution Center, “Constitution 101 Resources - 14.4 Primary Source: United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) | Constitution Center,” https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/14.4-primary-source-united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898.

[7] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

[8] American Bar Association, “Understanding Stare Decisis,” American Bar Association, last modified December 16, 2022, accessed March 8, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/understand-stare-decisis/

[9] United States, 2025, Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” Federal Register.

[10] American Civil Liberties Union, “Federal Court Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order,” last modified February 10, 2025, accessed March 8, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.