The answer involves hundreds of years of legal history and still isn’t fully clear. Donald Trump this week vowed to end so-called “birthright…
The answer involves hundreds of years of legal history and still isn’t fully clear.
Donald Trump this week vowed to end so-called “birthright citizenship,” the loophole (as immigration opponents see it) implied in the Constitution that basically grants citizenship to everyone born on U. S. soil, leading to the matter of so-called “anchor babies.” But while legal scholars and the courts wrangle over whether or not Trump has that authority, many Americans are unclear on what the concept even means.
So what is “birthright citizenship”? The answer is a bit complicated, as it turns out, and it involves weighty legal issues that have been debated, applied, and argued for centuries.
“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.”
The amendment was written in order to grant citizenship rights to freed slaves – immigration, at the time, was just something that happened, and by-and-large wasn’t the complex legal issue that it is now.
Nevertheless, though the Amendment was written with freed slaves in mind, a century and a half later it still applies to all babies born here.
Right away you can probably see a few problems with this situation.
For starters, this can lead to a person being a citizen of two countries. Dual citizenship, as it’s called, is generally considered at best a conversation topic, and rarely has any practical effect on the person claiming it. Things can get tricky, however, when it comes to such things as compulsory military service, tax issues, or legal extradition. But for the most part, the overwhelming majority of people with dual citizenship simply live their lives as if they were citizens of the country where they choose to live.
That question likely has no clear answer, according to CNN. The problem for Trump is that, in the opinion of legal scholars, he’s essentially attempting to use his executive powers to overturn a Constitutional amendment – and that’s not how the Constitution is amended. But since no president has ever tried to use an executive order to tighten up or address birthright citizenship, there’s no precedent in case law that gives him a clear path to do it.
Long story short: unless and until Trump tries it and the matter makes its way through the courts (up to and including the Supreme Court, a process which could take years), there’s no knowing for certain.
