American citizenship: the story behind the ‘birthright’ that Trump now wants to overturn

Donald Trump REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz The Supreme Court of the United States returns to analyze this Wednesday (1st) a central theme of the American Constitution: the right to citizenship for those born in the country. The justices will hear arguments about the legality of an executive order from President Donald Trump that seeks to end automatic citizenship for children of immigrants without permanent legal status. The measure was signed in January 2025, on the first day of Trump’s new term, as part of a broader package to combat immigration. Today, this right is textually guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, in force for more than 100 years. The text establishes that every person born on American soil is a citizen — with very limited exceptions. The main one involves children of foreign diplomats. ✅ Click here to follow the g1 international news channel on WhatsApp UNDERSTAND: Can Trump really end automatic American citizenship for those born in the USA? See the videos that are trending on g1 Historical precedent The understanding was consolidated in 1898, in a case that became a reference in American justice. At the time, the government tried to prevent the entry of Wong Kim Ark, a young man born in the United States, after a trip to China, his parents’ country of origin. Authorities claimed he was not entitled to citizenship. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and ruled that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to people born in the country, even if their parents are foreigners. Now, more than a century later, the case has returned to debate. Wong Kim Ark’s great-grandson, 76-year-old Norman Wong, fears that this principle is under threat. “Wong Kim Ark knew he was American. And he demanded that his citizenship be recognized. He was willing to speak out,” he said in an interview. “Wong Kim Ark didn’t create the rule. He stated it.” The Trump administration is presenting “false arguments and reasons” to achieve a dangerous goal contrary to the American dream, the retired carpenter said. Trump’s Supreme Court battle “was resolved 128 years ago,” Wong said. “We’re just revisiting it.” Arguments in dispute The Trump administration claims that automatic citizenship encourages irregular immigration and so-called “birth tourism”, when foreigners travel to the country to have children and guarantee American citizenship for them. Critics say the measure is unconstitutional, rooted in anti-immigration views and discriminatory. If it comes into force, the order would prevent recognition of the citizenship of children whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily — such as students or workers on a visa. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has repeatedly allowed Trump to expand mass deportation measures on an interim basis while legal challenges play out. This is what happened with the end of humanitarian protections for migrants or the permission for them to be deported to countries with which they have no ties. Last year, the court granted Trump an early victory in the context of birthright citizenship. The ruling restricted the power of federal judges to limit presidential policies nationwide. But that decision did not resolve the question of the legality of Trump’s action — something Wednesday’s case may do. Uphill battle Many legal experts have said that given the country’s long tradition regarding birthright citizenship, in addition to the precedent involving Wong Kim Ark, the government faces an uphill battle in trying to reinterpret the 14th Amendment. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th 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.” The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, following the Civil War of 1861-1865, which ended slavery in the United States. It overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, who had declared that people of African descent could never be American citizens. “All methods and sources of constitutional interpretation confirm that it applies to everyone born in the United States, with extremely narrow exceptions in common law,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia. The main exception concerns the children of foreign diplomats, who would not have citizenship by birth. Trump’s Justice Department argues that for generations, the U.S. government has wrongly granted citizenship to people who do not qualify — that is, those who are present illegally or temporarily. Potential impact If the Supreme Court validates the measure, the impact would be enormous. Estimates indicate that up to 250,000 babies per year could be affected. Furthermore, families of millions of children could be forced to prove their children’s citizenship. While Trump’s directive specifically targets babies born after it took effect, critics have expressed concern that it could be applied retroactively. “While the order is formally forward-looking… the arguments the administration is making about what it claims the Constitution means cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions of other people who have lived their entire lives as American citizens, potentially going back generations,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing challengers to Trump’s directive. “Furthermore, I think a ruling in favor of the government in this case would signal the beginning of a season of challenges to the citizenship of other Americans, even those whose parents are not non-citizens in these specific categories” of people targeted in Trump’s directive, Wofsy said. The lawsuit under review at the Federal Supreme Court, which challenges Trump’s order, was filed in New Hampshire by the ACLU on behalf of parents and children whose citizenship would be threatened. District Judge Joseph Laplante allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the lawsuit as a class action, making it possible to block Trump’s order nationwide. The saga of Wong Kim Ark When Wong Kim Ark, a cook in his early 20s, returned from a months-long trip to China in 1895, San Francisco customs officials declared him a non-citizen. Although he was born in the city’s Chinatown neighborhood, officials said that because his parents were Chinese, he was ineligible for citizenship due to an 1882 law called the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted Chinese immigration and citizenship. Wong challenged the measure in court — and the case reached the Supreme Court. In the 1898 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the attempt to impose limits on citizenship based on the language of the 14th Amendment, which confers citizenship only on those born in the United States and who are “subject to its jurisdiction.” This last sentence was intended to exclude from citizenship by birth in American territory the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders — which did not apply to Wong Kim Ark — and “not to impose any new restrictions on citizenship”, stated the court, in a decision by 6 votes to 2. Since then, the consolidated understanding is that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to practically all people born in American territory, regardless of the nationality of their parents. To hold otherwise, according to the court, “would be to deny citizenship to thousands of people of English, Scottish, Irish, German or other European ancestry, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.” In 2025, the Trump administration argued that its directive complies with both the 14th Amendment and the 1898 decision because it allows citizenship for some immigrants with legal “domicile” in the United States, including permanent residents. At the time of his birth, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were domiciled and permanently resident in the United States, the government said, citing the court ruling in the case. Those who are in the United States only temporarily or illegally do not meet this requirement, according to the government. “I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the Wong Kim Ark case (as a legal precedent) decided the issue of citizenship for children born to temporary visitors or people illegally staying in the country,” said Ilan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota. That precedent, “strictly speaking, focused on legally domiciled parents,” Wurman said, adding, “There are good arguments in this case that support both sides of this issue.” Family Legacy Norman Wong, who like his ancestor was born in San Francisco, is now taking the opportunity to warn others about the Trump administration’s attempt to limit citizenship. “I didn’t see the executive order as an end. I saw it as a beginning, that they were going to undermine the citizenry until they get rid of the people they don’t want. And they’re always going to have a reason, you know?” Wong said. “We’re talking about the soul of America, about who we are as a people.” See more: Video shows new angle of crash between helicopter and plane in the USA

Source link