Is US birthright citizenship under threat? Can Donald Trump rewrite the rules?

As United States President-elect Donald Trump gears up for his return to the White House, one of the most debated aspects of his immigration agenda is his promise to end birthright citizenship.

This long-standing principle, enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, has been a cornerstone of American citizenship law for over 150 years.

In a recent NBC interview, speaking about his deportation plans, Trump said, “I think you have to do it. It’s a very tough thing to do. It’s — but you have to have, you know, you have rules, regulations, laws. They came in illegally. You know, the people that have been treated very unfairly are the people that have been on line for 10 years to come into the country.”

What is Birthright Citizenship in the US?

The concept of birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli (right of the soil), guarantees that anyone born on US soil is automatically a US citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This principle stems from the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states:

“All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

More from Explainers

How ChatGPT is becoming everyone’s BFF and why that’s dangerous This Week in Explainers: How recovering from Gen-Z protests is a Himalayan task for Nepal

The amendment was crafted in the post-Civil War era to overturn the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. Its framers deliberately included broad language to ensure that all individuals born on US soil, including children of immigrants, would be recognised as citizens.

Legal precedent supporting this interpretation was solidified in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the court ruled that children born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants in the US were citizens under the 14th Amendment.

Why does Trump want to change this?

Trump has consistently called for ending birthright citizenship, terming it a “magnet” for undocumented immigration. During his interview with NBC, he reaffirmed his intention, stating, “I don’t want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

However, constitutional experts widely agree that a president cannot unilaterally modify or revoke a constitutional amendment through an executive order.

Michael LeRoy, a labour and immigration law expert at the University of Illinois, noted in a university article: “No president has the authority to eliminate or modify a constitutional amendment. While an executive order to this effect is possible, it would be blatantly unconstitutional.”

Editor’s Picks

1

Queasy pickings: Trump’s unconventional nominations show America is at war with itself 2

Jaishankar responds to claims of Brics undermining US dollar amid Trump's 100% tariff threat

Despite this, Trump’s allies, including Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, suggest their strategy might involve halting the issuance of federal documents like Social Security cards and passports to children of undocumented immigrants. Such moves could provoke significant legal challenges and further polarise the debate.

Is Trump’s vision to alter Birthright Citizen something new?

Efforts to alter birthright citizenship are not new. Over the years, questions surrounding the amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” have sparked debates. For instance, in 1884, the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans born on reservations were not citizens because they were under tribal jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction.

More recently, American Samoans, classified as “non-citizen nationals,” have sought recognition as citizens under the 14th Amendment, only to be rebuffed by the courts. These cases highlight the complexities of interpreting the amendment’s language.

Additionally, Trump’s proposal contradicts historical precedents. In ancient Rome, Emperor Caracalla’s extension of citizenship to all free men and women of the empire in 212 AD was aimed at fostering economic and political stability — a stark contrast to Trump’s restrictive model.

How will this impact the US workforce?

Trump’s broader immigration agenda includes mass deportations and curbs on both legal and illegal immigration.

His plans to deport undocumented individuals and their US-born children have drawn criticism from labour experts who warn of severe economic consequences . Deporting millions could lead to labuor shortages in industries like agriculture, construction, and healthcare.

Trump has also floated the idea of “denaturalising” citizens. Under current laws, denaturalisation is rare and applies to cases involving treason, fraud, or foreign allegiance. Expanding these parameters would likely face constitutional hurdles and public backlash.

Is an alteration to the 14th Amendment possible?

Most legal scholars, including conservatives, argue that the 14th Amendment’s provisions cannot be altered without a constitutional amendment — a process requiring overwhelming congressional support and state ratification.

The courts have historically upheld birthright citizenship, making significant changes unlikely without judicial reconsideration.

Also Read | Can Donald Trump really implement his mass deportation plan?

However, Trump’s proposal, coupled with vocal support from Republican leaders like US Senators Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn, indicates that the debate over citizenship by birth is far from over.

Should the administration pursue its plans, the issue will almost certainly escalate to the Supreme Court, potentially redefining a core tenet of American identity.

With inputs from agencies