By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite repeated attempts by former President Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship via executive order, this is constitutionally impossible. The 14th Amendment explicitly grants citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, a principle affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. Attempts to overturn this would require a constitutional amendment, not executive action. This right applies equally to children of all parents, regardless of immigration status, reflecting a foundational aspect of American equality.
Read the original article here
Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is a cornerstone of American identity. It’s a simple principle: if you’re born in the United States, you’re a citizen. This isn’t just a nice sentiment; it’s a legally binding provision that has been interpreted and upheld by the Supreme Court for over a century. The idea that a president could simply revoke this right ignores the fundamental structure of our government and the checks and balances intended to prevent such overreach.
The claim that a president “can’t do that” concerning the Constitution often misses the point. While legally he may be constrained, the concern isn’t about the letter of the law but rather the willingness of those in power to enforce it. Congress, the courts, and the electorate have all had opportunities to address the issue directly; if these avenues are disregarded, the path for unilateral action, regardless of constitutionality, opens up.
The potential for ignoring legal processes is a genuine concern. Historical precedents show that even Supreme Court decisions have been disregarded. The idea that a president could simply ignore a court ruling, particularly on a matter of national security, is a chilling prospect. This isn’t about whether a president *can* do something illegal but about whether he *will* and whether there’s sufficient willpower to stop him.
The focus often shifts from the legal limitations to the political realities. When one party controls all branches of government, the likelihood of checks and balances functioning effectively diminishes considerably. The very notion that the Supreme Court might reinterpret the constitution to undermine birthright citizenship, based on a narrow interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is deeply unsettling. This reinterpretation could potentially exclude children of non-citizens, leaving their status vulnerable.
The potential consequences are far-reaching. The rounding up and detention of individuals, regardless of their legal status, opens the door to potential human rights abuses. The possibility of detaining large numbers of people in makeshift camps, even temporarily, is alarming. Moreover, the idea that the government might act without accountability is a dangerous precedent that erodes trust in the rule of law.
The fragility of a nation of laws depends on the good faith of those in power. When this faith is eroded, the Constitution becomes merely a document, its meaning subject to manipulation. The historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment is crucial here. While birthright citizenship was intended as an inclusivity measure, the subsequent history of Jim Crow laws shows how easily constitutional rights can be ignored when political will is lacking.
The legal precedent of *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* provided a strong foundation for birthright citizenship. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is not immutable. There have been past cases where the Court’s rulings have altered understanding of the Constitution, as seen in instances affecting Native American citizenship.
Current debates about birthright citizenship often focus on narrowing the scope of *Wong Kim Ark*. There are arguments that the decision’s broader implications weren’t fully considered. Attempts to challenge and potentially overturn this precedent are underway, focusing on legal technicalities and potentially creating a path toward revoking birthright citizenship for certain groups.
This isn’t about abstract legal debates; it’s about the very foundation of American identity. The ability of the executive branch to act unilaterally, especially concerning the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting the Constitution, creates a severe risk. It underscores the importance of vigilance and vocal opposition to any attempt to undermine this fundamental right. Ignoring or downplaying this threat is dangerously naive. The potential for abuse is real, and the need for robust defense of birthright citizenship is paramount. The Constitution is only as strong as the commitment of those in power to uphold it.