United States President-elect Donald Trump pledged during his election campaign to abolish the right to citizenship. Trump announced that he would sign an executive order on the first day of his presidency guaranteeing that children born to parents without legal status in the United States would not be granted birthright citizenship, in order to fulfill his campaign promises to deport the greatest number of immigrants and redefine what it means to be American?
Birth tourism
In the United States, between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrant parents each year, according to data from the Center for Immigration Studies. Despite the parents’ foreign citizenship and illegal status, the executive branch of the U.S. government automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens at birth. The same goes for children born to tourists and other foreigners in the United States with legal but temporary status.
The center’s estimates also indicate that the volume of birth tourism in America amounts to approximately 37,000 births per year, for women on tourist visas who give birth and leave the United States.
Birth tourism in the United States is enjoyed by people from all over the world, including citizens of China, Taiwan, Korea, Nigeria, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico.
Although obtaining citizenship at birth is not a widespread practice and Canada and the United States are among the most important developed countries in automatically granting citizenship to children born to foreign parents, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States”, meaning that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a US citizen.
This is what President-elect Trump considers “absurd.” In May last year, Trump released a campaign video in which he reiterated his call to end this years-old constitutional right, saying the United States is among the only countries in the world that says even if neither parent is a citizen or even legally present in the country, their future children are automatically citizens.
Trump has suggested that at least one parent must be a citizen or legal resident for a child to be granted citizenship at birth.
Trump said the executive order would also address “birth tourism,” in which women travel to the United States late in their pregnancy to ensure the child is born as a U.S. citizen.
Executive Order
Trump pledged to end birthright during his first presidential campaign in 2015, and he raised the issue again in 2018, but never issued an executive order.
To ensure that Trump is able to make an executive decision, this time, that achieves what he promised, according to NBC News, instructions will be given to US federal agencies to refuse to provide basic documents proving the children’s identity, such as passports. and social security numbers.
Despite the decisive nature of this decision, it raises a significant legal controversy, because the decree is directly contrary to the Constitution. Therefore, this policy is expected to face significant legal challenges, and the case could be taken to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of changing this right by presidential decree.
UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky confirmed that Trump cannot change the constitution by executive order and therefore cannot revoke the right of citizenship for those born on the soil American. Chemerinsky pointed out in an article published on the website “Fox” that the question frequently raised during the opening of this debate is that people born in the United States are supposed to have citizenship, regardless of the status of their parents. .
The case, known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, took place in 1898, in which the court ruled that the man, born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese, was an American citizen, emphasizing that he “could not change the Constitution.” »
Misinterpretation and radical transformation
Critics of legal citizenship point out that the current policy of granting legal citizenship is based on a historical myth and a misinterpretation of the law, as it does not address the legal status of parents or their legal entry or not in the country.
Mark Krikorian, a prominent anti-immigration policy figure and director of the Center for Immigration Studies, supports Trump’s plan to issue executive orders requiring federal agencies, such as the Social Security Administration and the State Department, to impose restrictions on the issuance of essential documents to newborns whose parents cannot prove their legal status in the United States.
Krikorian explains in a report on NBC News that this approach is politically and legally distinguishable because it does not require congressional approval. In other words, Trump will bypass the usual legislative procedures and rely on his executive powers as president to force this change.
However, Krikorian realizes that this policy will result in immediate legal action, which he expects and considers an implicit goal. Krikorian believes that filing such suits would quickly send the case back to the Supreme Court, where the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution regarding automatic birthright citizenship could be reconsidered.
Currently, the amendment is interpreted to guarantee citizenship to any child born on American soil, regardless of the legal status of their parents. Thus, this approach amounts to a “legal test” aimed at challenging the traditional interpretation of the Constitution before the Supreme Court.
Lawyer Emma Wenger of the American Immigration Council considered, in the same previous report, that if Trump’s decision comes into force, it will be a radical change because the current system is based on a simple and well-established rule, “Birth on American soil. automatically means obtaining citizenship and associated documents”, because a birth certificate alone is sufficient, but with the decision, additional procedures will be necessary to verify the child’s eligibility to obtain a social security number or a passport, which will make the process more difficult. complicated for all families, regardless of their legal status.
Changing that rule would undermine trust in the existing process, Wenger said, and impose a new bureaucratic burden on every family with a newborn. “This would be a radical change, even if citizenship was not automatically abolished,” Wenger said.