This is not good at all.
A federal judge recently issued a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a policy that grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This executive order was one of President Trump’s significant efforts to tackle illegal immigration, aligning with his broader agenda to secure America’s borders and ensure that immigration laws are respected.
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour ruled in favor of states like Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, which filed a lawsuit challenging the order. These states argue that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born in the U.S., has been a fundamental part of American law for over a century. The states claim that this long-standing interpretation of the Constitution should not be disrupted by a presidential order.
The case is part of a larger effort, with 22 states and numerous immigrant rights groups filing lawsuits against the executive order. Some of these lawsuits include emotional testimonies, including one from Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who, as a U.S. citizen by birth, expressed deep personal concerns about the implications of stripping citizenship from children born to non-citizen parents. According to the suits, the executive order would harm U.S. citizens, as it could impact hundreds of thousands of births each year.
The executive order, which Trump signed on his first day in office, is slated to take effect on February 19. It aims to prevent children born to illegal immigrants from gaining U.S. citizenship. Trump argues that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and, therefore, should not automatically qualify for citizenship.
Supporters of the president’s position point out that birthright citizenship is not the norm worldwide, with many countries—especially in Europe—relying on other criteria for citizenship, such as descent from citizens. Furthermore, many believe the U.S. should end the practice of granting citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants, as it encourages illegal immigration and places unnecessary strain on public services.
One of the landmark Supreme Court cases on birthright citizenship occurred in 1898, when the Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants was indeed a citizen. This ruling has been cited by those who argue that birthright citizenship should only apply to children whose parents are legally present in the country.
With legal challenges continuing, the outcome of this case could set a crucial precedent on the future of immigration policy in America. While the issue is still being debated in court, one thing is clear: the fight over birthright citizenship is not just about legal technicalities—it’s about the values that shape America’s approach to immigration and who gets to claim the privileges of U.S. citizenship.