Staff Reports
President Donald Trump made waves on his first day back in office by signing an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, igniting what promises to be a heated legal fray. The former president pointed out that the 14th Amendment was never designed to blanket everyone born on American soil with citizenship. It was, in fact, a measure meant to provide citizenship to slaves and their descendants, not an open invitation for anyone and everyone to claim the red, white, and blue simply by popping out a kid while on U.S. soil.
Democrats have predictably cried foul, claiming that Trump is overstepping his bounds with this executive order, framing it as an unlawful reinterpretation of a constitutional right that they believe should apply to anyone born in the U.S. Despite their objections, even some liberal legal scholars are starting to suspect that Trump might have a stronger case than his detractors are willing to admit. It turns out that when it comes to the legal nitty-gritty, things are not as cut and dried as the left might hope.
Law professors are agreeing with common sense view that the 14th Amendment never gave foreign citizens illegally in the US special protections or their offspring born while they were present.
Trump Is Likely to Win the Battle on Birthright Citizenship https://t.co/exLWJWqx5F
— TS Waters (@TSWatersWriting) February 16, 2025
Two law professors, Randy E. Barnett from Georgetown and Ilan Wurman from the University of Minnesota, have jumped into this fray with their assessment that the Supreme Court has yet to take a definitive stance on the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants. They remind us that a landmark ruling in 1898 established citizenship for children of legal permanent residents but left the door wide open on whether the same applies to kids born to those who choose to ignore immigration laws.
They further elaborate that the original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals post-Civil War, suggesting that the same rationale does not extend to those who entered the country unlawfully. The argument follows that these parents didn’t arrive on a friendly visit—they came with no allegiance to the laws of the land, which raises serious questions about whether their children should receive citizenship as a mere implicit right. If allegiance is the cornerstone of citizenship, then these families may not be entitled to the same protections.
With critics insisting that amending the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment should come via a constitutional amendment rather than an executive order, it becomes clear that the debate is far from settled. However, legal experts are turning their attention toward the Supreme Court, where it seems likely that this contentious issue will eventually be addressed. Trump’s likelihood of prevailing in this legal battle appears to be growing, especially as discussions of allegiance and constitutional interpretation suggest that the former president is actually on solid legal ground.
