“Is It Possible for a Government Official to Revoke Citizenship?
In one of his initial actions as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump signed an executive order with the goal of discontinuing automatic citizenship rights for nearly all individuals born on US soil, commonly referred to as “birthright citizenship”. This shift in policy was a long-standing promise of his, though its implementation has proven to be challenging. The order has faced legal opposition and has been brought before the US Supreme Court by Trump.
The executive order aims to withhold citizenship from the offspring of individuals who either reside in the US unlawfully or hold temporary visas. However, this measure has encountered early obstacles and has been halted by courts in what is likely to be a protracted legal fight. Legal experts generally assert that the President does not possess the authority to unilaterally alter the law concerning this matter, which is grounded in an amendment to the US Constitution.
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution establishes the concept of birthright citizenship: “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.” Proponents of birthright citizenship underline that it has been a fundamental legal principle for more than a century and eliminating it would create a marginalized group of individuals born in the US who are deprived of full American rights.
The notion of birthright citizenship, also known as “jus soli” in legal terms, has roots in English common law and was traditionally applied to white men in the early history of America. However, it was not enshrined in the Constitution until 1868, through the passing of the 14th Amendment following the US Civil War to clarify the citizenship status of freed, American-born former slaves. Notably, previous Supreme Court cases such as Dred Scott v Sandford in 1857 had denied African Americans US citizenship, a decision overridden by the 14th Amendment.
In 1898, the US Supreme Court ruled in US v Wong Kim Ark that birthright citizenship extended to the children of immigrants. Wong, born in the US to legal Chinese immigrants, successfully argued for his citizenship even though he was initially denied re-entry after a trip to China. The court’s decision in Wong’s case affirmed that regardless of race or parents’ immigration status, all individuals born in the US were entitled to full citizenship rights.
While President Trump has attempted to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, many legal scholars contend that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. The ultimate decision on this matter is expected to be determined by the courts rather than the President acting alone.”
In a contentious battle over the interpretation of citizenship laws, the Trump administration’s attempts to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship face legal challenges and robust debate. The President’s authority to direct federal agencies in redefining citizenship criteria, particularly affecting entities like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has sparked a heated confrontation with critics raising concerns over potential denials of citizenship rights.
At the heart of the debate lies the 14th Amendment’s language referring to individuals born in the United States being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The administration argues that this clause excludes children of non-citizens residing unlawfully in the country. However, this interpretation clashes with historic legal precedents, as evidenced by the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v Doe, which affirmed undocumented migrants’ standing as “persons within its jurisdiction” entitled to legal protections.
While the administration’s stance challenges the traditional understanding of birthright citizenship, the prospect of amending the Constitution to alter this fundamental principle faces significant hurdles. Such a monumental change would necessitate a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by approval from three-quarters of all US states—an arduous process, given the current political landscape’s polarisation.
Statistics from Pew Research shed light on the demographic impact of birthright citizenship, revealing that a significant number of US citizens are born to unauthorised immigrant parents annually. The potential implications of revoking birthright citizenship extend beyond legal debates to practical considerations, with projections indicating a substantial increase in the unauthorised immigrant population if such a policy were to be implemented.
President Trump’s uncompromising stance on immigration, exemplified by his call to deport the children of unauthorised immigrants, has faced staunch opposition and legal setbacks. Despite his efforts to advance the issue to the Supreme Court, lower courts have rebuffed his directives, characterising them as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
As the legal battle rages on, the future of birthright citizenship in the United States hangs in the balance, with multiple stakeholders, including lawmakers, activists, and legal experts, weighing in on the implications of potential policy changes. The global context of citizenship laws further complicates the debate, with varying practices across different countries reflecting diverse approaches to determining nationality.
In the midst of this complex legal and political landscape, one thing remains certain—birthright citizenship continues to be a cornerstone of American identity and a subject of intense debate and scrutiny. The clash between presidential authority, legal precedent, and public opinion underscores the multifaceted nature of the citizenship discourse, highlighting the enduring relevance and significance of this foundational principle in shaping the nation’s future.
