PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
The White House – January 20th, 2025
Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth 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.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.
But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Among the many Executive Orders President Trump signed on day one, the President enacted an order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” in which he challenges the validity of birthright citizenship, as promised by the Fourteenth Amendment. As any challenge to our rights should be, the order was met with immediate criticism, both social and legal.
As stated above, directly quoted from the order listed on The White House official website, this order attempts to invalidate birthright citizenship that would be promised to a child:
- Whose mother is living illegally in the United States and whose father is not a US citizen or legal resident at the time the child is born.
- Whose mother was legally present in the United States, but on a temporary basis, and whose father is not a US citizen or legal resident at the time the child is born.
The Associated Press reported on April 17th, 2025 that the Supreme Court decided to keep in place restrictions placed on this order after over 150 lawsuits were filed and multiple judges ruled against the Administration, forcing pauses against the executive order, and decided to hear arguments from both parties over the ability of lower courts to issue these injunctions. This morning, May 15th, debate begins in front of the Supreme Court. The hearing is unfortunately not to discuss the constitutional validity of the order itself, though pending lawsuits may make their way to the Supreme Court if the results of the Fourteenth Amendment suits are challenged by the Trump Administration, as they often do.
I would never claim to be an expert of law, but it seems many judges, who I would see as experts of law, have rallied against the administration’s newest attempts at invalidating the citizenship of children born in our Country, and those who have lived their lives as naturalized citizens. This comes at a time where people in the US, more frequently those on the Right, express their distain for those who are in the US illegally.
The first line of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “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.” Taken at face value, this should mean that even children of illegal residents ARE citizens of the United States, because they were born in the United States. It should take an act of Congress and amending the Constitution to remove this right.
Multiple administrations have argued against the ability of individual federal judges to challenge and halt inaction of lawsuit results that have consequences to many across the country. Two conflicting points of view demonstrate the complexity of these national injunctions: those who believe the ability to issue national injunctions is an overstep in the balance of powers between the Justice and Executive branches, and those who believe Donald Trump specifically has overstepped by issuing multiple executive orders that fundamentally alter the structure of our democracy and erode the rule of law with their questionable constitutionality. Therein is the issue being argued in front of the highest court, today. Additionally, the administration is challenging the ability of states to sue over executive orders.
I fully intend to touch on this topic again once the Court has ruled on the matter at hand, which typically rules on all cases from this session by the end of June. However, multiple sources are stating that this particular decision may come sooner due to following impacts of the case, namely whether emergency appeals made by the administration can narrow, or end, the lower courts’ injunctions as the lawsuits over Fourteenth Amendment violations proceed.
The implications of ruling against these national injunctions would mean that individuals who are not participating in federal lawsuits would continue to be subjected to the legislated order. As argued this morning by Justice Kagan, this means that many citizens who could not afford to retain a lawyer in order to prevent our government from violating their rights would have to live with the implications of those orders. The Sixth Amendment only guarantees counsel to criminal defendants, not civil suit defendants.
I don’t know how that sounds to you, but as someone who would not be able to afford a civil defender, I would be in peril as my rights were stripped away. Does that sound like a democracy? Those with the resources to defend their rights would retain them, yet the average American will have to stand back and watch while their lives are fundamentally altered. I hate to speculate, but those with the resources to infinitely defend their rights, and not yours, could potentially have the resources to infinitely enact further legislation to take away those rights, and couldn’t be stopped until every person filed suit against that legislation.
We simply do not have the procedures in place to combat removal of federal injunctions. There aren’t enough pro bono lawyers in the world to defend each and every person in our country, legal or illegal, against the tyranny that could be enacted before the courts are able to act.
Even now, the Trump administration continues to barrel ahead with orders to detain and deport individuals before immigration courts can act, then shrug their shoulders when the President’s intentions and actions are deemed unlawful, as with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Andry Hernandez Romero, and multiple children, one with Stage 4 cancer that was sent away without medications. In the case of these children, as reported in the BBC article linked above, “border czar” Tom Homan called these cases deportations, but also said it was the two mothers’ choice to take their children with them, while they had been detained during an immigration appointment. In this case, there is a hearing scheduled next week to discuss if the mother had even received her due process when ordered out of the country. This is just one story of so many men, women, and children being removed from the country under questionable procedures, and in many cases, a lack of due process.
Cited:
The White House. (2025, January 21). Protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
Sherman, M. (2025, April 17). Supreme Court keeps hold on Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship but sets May arguments | AP News. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-6f0cb929c4604ec1d9bf9fea99765b61
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868). (2024, March 6). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
Dwyer, D., Charalambous, P., & Mallin, A. (2025, May 15). What to know about birthright citizenship as Supreme Court weighs blocks on Trump’s order to end it. ABC News. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-weigh-blocks-trumps-order-end-birthright/story?id=121710507
Finley, B. (2025, April 8). Who is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man ICE mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison? | AP News. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportation-salvador-maryland-abrego-garcia-7b17b702b77a24d92a28dd4be5755fdd
Vega, C., Chasan, A., & Montoya-Galvez, C. (2025, May 6). Trump administration deports gay makeup artist to prison in El Salvador. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/venezuelan-migrants-deportations-el-salvador-prison-60-minutes/
Halpert, M. (2025, April 28). Three US citizen children, one with cancer, deported to Honduras, lawyers say. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo
Empathy in Progress 
How do you feel?