The legal battle surrounding the controversial executive order by President Donald Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship in the United States is entering a new and decisive phase.
Although the Supreme Court issued a ruling that represents a tactical victory for the Republican government, it has not yet commented on the legality of the proposal.
For now, the order remains blocked, and its fate will depend on what happens in the lower courts in the coming weeks.
The ruling of the highest court, issued last Friday, did not assess whether Trump's order is constitutional or not.
Instead, it limited the power of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which represents a significant change in the way federal policies have been blocked in the past.
This shift in jurisprudence was celebrated by the Trump administration as a necessary limitation on the judiciary and a victory against what it sees as judicial overreach that obstructs its immigration policies.
What comes next?
The judges returned the cases related to the executive order to the lower courts, which will now have the task of reinterpreting and adjusting their decisions in light of the new criteria set by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Trump's order remains blocked for at least 30 days.
In response to the ruling, immigrant advocacy groups quickly filed new class action lawsuits in courts in Maryland and New Hampshire, hoping to halt the enforcement of the order through legal measures that could have a national impact.
However, this path is difficult: class action lawsuits face numerous obstacles, and recent history of judicial decisions shows that obtaining a ruling with national reach is increasingly complicated.
"Birthright citizenship has been a constitutional law established for over a century," recalled Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, executive director of Global Refuge, an organization that supports migrants and refugees.
"By denying the lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has fostered chaos, inequality, and fear," he emphasized.
Critics of the order warn that the new legal landscape could create a mosaic of contradictory state policies, sowing confusion and chaos throughout the country due to the lack of a unified national criterion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion, urged lower courts to act swiftly in resolving these cases and to allow the Supreme Court to review them promptly, stating that they involve "manifestly illegal and harmful" policies.
What is Trump's order aiming to achieve?
Signed in January of this year, the executive order aims to deny U.S. citizenship to babies born in the country to parents who are in the United States illegally or on a temporary basis.
The measure is part of the hardline approach of the leader regarding immigration, under the argument that birthright citizenship acts as a "magnet" for illegal immigration.
Trump and his supporters base their argument on a specific interpretation of the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction," included in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. They claim that this expression allows for the denial of citizenship to children born to individuals without legal status in the country.
However, numerous federal judges have rejected that interpretation.
In Seattle, District Judge John Coughenour deemed the order "flagrantly unconstitutional," while Deborah Boardman in Maryland wrote that "no court in the country has ever supported" that interpretation of the Constitution.
The origin of citizenship by birth
Birthright citizenship is a principle established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. It was designed to guarantee citizenship to Black individuals, including those who had been enslaved.
The relevant clause states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States."
This right was reinforced in 1898 by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Wong Kim Ark, a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. Upon returning to the country after a trip, he was denied entry, which led to a historic ruling that determined that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Since then, this principle has been regarded as an integral part of the American legal system, with a few exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats.
Uncertain ending
For now, the future of birthright citizenship, as it has been understood for over 150 years, is in the hands of lower court judges and, eventually, the Supreme Court.
Although Trump's order is not in effect, his attempt to reinterpret a historic constitutional amendment continues to generate intense legal and political debate that could have profound repercussions on the lives of millions of people born on U.S. soil.
The elimination of jus soli in the United States would directly impact the children of undocumented immigrants, including hundreds of Cuban families, who have turned to U.S. soil as an escape from political repression and the economic hardship of the Cuban regime.
The measure could leave thousands of minors in a legal limbo, without automatic access to citizenship or associated rights, such as medical care, education, or legal protection.
Which countries recognize birthright citizenship?
The jus soli is not universal. Although it was widely adopted in America in previous centuries, today only a minority of countries uphold this principle without restrictions.
Countries that recognize citizenship by birth unconditionally:
Argentina
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiyi
Granada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Lesotho
Mexico
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Lucia
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
In Europe, the majority of countries do not automatically recognize citizenship by birth, but rather apply jus sanguinis (right of blood), meaning nationality is transmitted through the parents, not by the place of birth.
Frequently Asked Questions About Citizenship by Birth in the United States
What is citizenship by birth in the United States?
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli, is a legal principle that automatically grants nationality to anyone born within a country's territory, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. In the United States, this right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States."
What does Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship aim to achieve?
Donald Trump's executive order seeks to eliminate automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants born in U.S. territory. The Trump administration argues that birthright citizenship has been misinterpreted and has become an incentive for illegal immigration. The proposal aims to restrict citizenship to those born to citizen or legal resident parents.
What is the current status of Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship?
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is currently blocked in lower courts, although the Supreme Court has allowed for partial progress. The Supreme Court's ruling limits nationwide injunctions that were blocking Trump's plan, allowing restrictions on birthright citizenship to begin being implemented in certain states. However, the legal debate continues in the courts, and the constitutionality of the order has not yet been definitively resolved.
What impact would the elimination of birthright citizenship have on the children of immigrants?
The elimination of birthright citizenship would directly impact the children of immigrants in irregular situations, leaving them in a legal limbo. Without automatic access to citizenship, these minors could encounter difficulties in accessing basic rights such as healthcare, education, or legal protection. In particular, this would affect families who have turned to U.S. soil as an escape from difficult situations in their home countries.
Filed under:
