Democratic AGs are suing over the legality of Trump’s order

The 14th Amendment and the Birthright of Citizenship: Trump’s stance on the idea of changing the 14th amendment with the stroke of a pen

The idea of doing away with the constitutional right to birthright citizenship was floated by Trump. His critics argued that the move would need a constitutional amendment since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship at an infant’s birth. “No president can change the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” Beth Werlin, then-executive director of the American Immigration Council, said at the time. To get around this, Trump’s executive order attempts to reinterpret the 14th Amendment rather than amending or repealing it altogether.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, stipulates that all persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are automatically citizens.

If Trump wants to change the wording of the phrase, it would mean that the government wouldn’t recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status.

Details about who might be impacted or how he plans to move forward remain to be seen. He is expected to sign executive orders and actions Monday afternoon.

Birthright citizenship for children of non-relative parents in the U.S. is illegal and it will not stand, as argued by the president during the 2024 election

Over the last several decades, the number of babies born to parents without legal status to be in the U.S. has dropped. The Pew Research Center estimated that 1.3 million U.S.-born adults are children of unauthorized immigrants, according to 2022 data, the latest available.

“Blocking people from citizenship and even U.S. born children from citizenship could really threaten that integration and threaten how much children of immigrants can contribute to the country,” Gelatt said.

Children of immigrants can really support their integration in the United States by having a sense of belonging and full rights.

A growing coalition of conservatives have begun promoting a different interpretation of the 14th Amendment in an effort to limit the number of migrants without legal status in the country.

The amendment’s language excludes babies born in the US to parents who have “lawful but temporary” status, as was interpreted by Trump in his executive order.

Immigration re-emerged as a top issue as he campaigned during the 2024 election, with Trump vowing to voters that he would end birthright citizenship. He said that goal in his first cable TV interview after the election.

During the GOP primary in 2023, Ron DeSantis and others advocated for an end to the practice of birthright citizenship for children of parents without legal status.

Lawmakers debated the issue. In 2015, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing on the issue of limiting birthright citizenship after Florida’s Matt Gaetz introduced legislation.

The president doesn’t have the authority to reverse the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship at that level. “There are many, many questions that will pop up and confusion and chaos that will be developed.”

It doesn’t mean that a person born in the United States doesn’t have the right to be if their parents were not legal residents at the time of their birth.

Stein and other advocates said that the executive order will probably be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Two lawsuits have already been filed. Hours after the order was announced, a group of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit in a New Hampshire federal court. A group of 18 attorneys general from 18 states and San Francisco filed a suit in Massachusetts on Tuesday.

“What the president did yesterday is unlawful, unconstitutional and it will not stand,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in an interview with NPR.

The story of our state and the story of America: the case of California, the U.S. Attorney General Rob Bonta, tweeted on Monday night

We are a state of immigrants. Millions of people in our state have obtained their citizenship through birthright citizenship,” Platkin said. “The story of our state and the story of America is included in our U.S. Constitution for a reason.”

Several state attorneys general signed on to the lawsuit in Massachusetts. The city of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., also are suing.

During a press conference Tuesday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta described Trump’s order as “a terrifying tone to set for his second term,” adding, “I have one message for President Trump, I’ll see you in court.”

The language was added to the constitution in order to grant citizenship rights to black Americans, but it hasn’t always been seen as granting such rights to all children born on US soil.

It’s ridiculous. We’re the only country in the world that does this [grants automatic citizenship], as you know,” Trump said Monday night while signing the order. Canada and Mexico both have forms of citizenship similar to that in the U.S.

“I don’t think it’s going to be resolved in this administration, frankly, because I think the Supreme Court probably is going to rule in favor of the current practice,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that also supports strict controls on immigration.

Changing the U.S. Constitution wouldn’t be easy, and a growing number of Democratic leaders were against it. “This is unconstitutional” was the statement released Monday by the California governor after Trump signed the order.