What we know: How far can immigration officials go under new laws?
From executive orders on birthright citizenship to deputizing federal agents, how far can immigration laws go? Here’s what we know.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next month over President Donald Trump’s efforts to enforce his executive order limiting birthright citizenship and maintaining his hardline approach toward immigration.
The justices did not immediately act on a request by Trump’s administration to rule on three federal injunctions that halted his Jan. 20 order, but oral arguments on the case will be heard May 15.
Following his inauguration, the president directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States without at least one parent who is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
What does the 14th Amendment say about citizenship by birth?
The 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1868, following the Civil War, and granted citizenship and freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. The amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
How has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 14th Amendment in the past?
An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark is considered the historical standard that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China, despite being born within U.S. territory. In a 6-2 decision, the court held that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because of his birth in the United States, regardless of his parents’ Chinese citizenship.
Trump’s Justice Department has argued that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
What is the Trump administration’s view on birthright citizenship?
According to Reuters, the administration contends that the 14th Amendment does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.
Trump’s Agenda47 policy platform states that he wants to clarify the amendment so that it is understood that “U.S. Citizenship extends only to those both born in AND ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.” USA TODAY previously reported that the clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” most commonly excludes children born to foreign diplomats.
Some 11 million immigrants were in the U.S. illegally in January 2022, according to estimates by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security − a figure that some analysts now place at 13 million to 14 million. Their U.S.-born children are considered by the government to have U.S. citizenship.
Trump has complained about foreign women visiting the United States to give birth and obtain U.S. citizenship for their children.
Who is challenging Trump’s order?
In a series of lawsuits following the order, plaintiffs, including 22 Democratic state attorneys general and immigrant rights advocates, argued that Trump’s order violates a right protected by the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment: anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is helping to lead one of the lawsuits challenging Trump’s order, said his office looks forward to presenting arguments in the case.
“Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War, is backed by a long line of Supreme Court precedent and ensures that something as fundamental as American citizenship cannot be turned on or off at the whims of a single man,” Platkin said in a statement to Reuters.
Contributors: USA TODAY’s Francesca Chambers, Kinsey Crowley, Maureen Groppe, David Jackson, Bart Jansen, Anna Kaufman and James Powel; Reuters