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 Thursday, May 15 over President Donald Trump’s bid to follow through with an executive order that would restrict birthright citizenship in the first broad challenge to the constitutional right in decades.
The top court is set to begin oral arguments at 2 p.m. ET today over whether federal judges went too far when they paused the president’s restrictions on the automatic right enshrined, which gives citizenship to children born in the country. It has become a central focus for the president, underpinning his hardline approach to limiting immigration to the U.S. since beginning his second term in office.
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.
Judges have ruled the policy will likely be found unconstitutional when it’s fully litigated, so Trump can’t enforce it in the meantime.
Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship and what Trump is trying to change.
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.
Which countries have birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship was baked into the United States Constitution, challenged in the 1800s and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Countries in the Americas largely followed the U.S. example, which bucked the restrictions enshrined in Europe, Africa and Asia.
Every country in North America and South America – except Colombia and the Dominican Republic – provides birthright citizenship to any person born within its borders, according to World Population Review, which built a map of birthright citizenship around the globe.
Colombia offers birthright citizenship as long as one parent is a citizen or legal resident; the Dominican Republic restricted birthright citizenship in a way that excludes the children of Haitian migrant workers.
European countries restrict birthright citizenship, including Spain, Italy, France and Germany, as does India, Iran and Sudan, among others, according to World Population Review.
“Granting citizenship to all children born in a country’s territory became more common in the Americas,” according to an American Immigration Council report on birthright citizenship. “After the founding of the United States, other countries in the Western Hemisphere also adopted unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship.”
Contributors: USA TODAY’s Lauren Villgran, Francesca Chambers, Kinsey Crowley, Maureen Groppe, David Jackson, Bart Jansen, Anna Kaufman, James Powel and Terry Moseley; Reuters.