Trump’s Stance: Ending the Noble Concept of Birthright Citizenship

Prepare for a pivotal Supreme Court battle regarding President Trump’s executive order terminating birthright citizenship—a principle stating that every child born in the United States is granted the same rights, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.

Contrary to the assertions of many commentators and lower court judges, nullifying Trump’s order isn’t a guaranteed win for his adversaries.

Strong arguments and Supreme Court precedents exist on both sides of this debate.

The 1888 case often referenced by Trump’s adversaries, US v. Wong Kim Ark, actually lends support to the president’s stance.

This case dates back 138 years.

On January 20 of this year, Trump announced via executive order that infants born to undocumented immigrant mothers, without a citizen or legal U.S. resident father, shall no longer automatically be granted U.S. citizenship.

Starting February 17, hospitals will be prohibited from issuing U.S. birth certificates for these infants, totaling around 250,000 annually.

Trump has also targeted birth tourism, which concludes automatic citizenship for the 30,000 babies born annually to women who illegally enter the U.S. on temporary visas specifically to have their children here.

From mothers who wade across the Rio Grande to those who fly in first class, both groups seek citizenship for their newborns under the birthright clause of the 14th Amendment.

This clause was originally designed to ensure citizenship for children of former slaves, but during its conception in 1866, Congress broadened the principle to include children of all races and ethnicities born within U.S. territory.

Congress did not deliberate on whether offspring of individuals in the U.S. unlawfully were entitled to citizenship—as the concept of illegal immigration did not exist at that time.

The notorious Chinese Exclusion Act wasn’t established until 1882, and the United States didn’t impose numerical immigration limits until 1921.

Yet, Trump’s executive order has incited lawsuits from 22 states, the city of San Francisco, and several nonprofits.

In just a few days, federal judges began suspending its enforcement.

Judge John C. Coughenour from the Western District of Washington labeled it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Judge Deborah Boardman from Maryland asserted that the Supreme Court has “resoundingly dismissed” the president’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

These assertions are exaggerated: The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling is uncertain.

Not one justice has openly shared a viewpoint on this issue except for Samuel Alito, who remarked during his confirmation hearing that birthright citizenship “might prove to be a complex issue.”

Regarding precedents, there has been only one Supreme Court decision about birthright citizenship in the last 160 years: the Wong Kim Ark case.

In that ruling, the court decided that the rights granted by the 14th Amendment are extended to both citizens and noncitizens alike, “as long as they are allowed by the United States to reside here.”

This phrase is crucial: Justices will need to ascertain whether illegal immigrants are considered “permitted” to reside in the U.S.—a contradictory concept.

Justice Horace Gray, writing for the court in Wong Kim Ark, supported the ruling by referencing an earlier Supreme Court decision, the 1886 case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, which stated that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applies to individuals of all races “who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States.”

Not to those present illegally.

These cases do not substantiate Judge Boardman’s bold assertion that the court has “resoundingly excluded” Trump’s interpretation.

In the absence of precedent, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority will likely refer to foundational principles.

Birthright citizenship is indeed a commendable concept. Advocates caution that denying citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants may create a class of individuals with diminished rights, undermining American values of equality.

However, critics contend that its misuse undermines the idea of citizenship and burdens taxpayers. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, nationwide, 60% of households led by undocumented immigrants access federal benefits such as SNAP nutrition assistance and Medicaid.

Often, a U.S.-born child serves as the pathway for these households to qualify for such benefits.

Illegal border crossings have significantly decreased—down 90% since Trump took office. Nevertheless, executive orders are transient, remaining in effect only as long as the president is in office.

Regardless of the court’s ruling, Congress must take action.

Congress has the authority to restrict household eligibility for federally funded benefits or impose time constraints.

This could alleviate the burden on taxpayers—and equally important, reduce the motivation to enter the country illegally.

Without these measures, uncontrolled immigration and a lavish welfare system could ultimately deplete this nation under future leadership, with or without birthright citizenship.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and co-founder of the Committee to Save Our City.