In the United States, the idea of sovereignty rests with the people, flowing from a divine source down to us. We grant our authority to both federal and state governments via a framework known as the U.S. Constitution.
This concept stands in stark contrast to England, from which many fled. In England, the monarchs hold sovereign power and disperse bits of that power based on certain documents, like the Magna Carta, to cater to their subjects. For us, a key aspect of our sovereignty involves managing our borders and determining who belongs here. This power was never meant to be in the hands of unelected judges. Historically, that was never the intent during the framing of the Fifth Amendment or even after the Civil War with the Fourteenth Amendment. It certainly wasn’t meant to apply post-election. Judges shouldn’t have the authority to dictate our borders or the sovereignty concerning our population—including matters surrounding birthright citizenship.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which originated after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, states that anyone under U.S. jurisdiction at birth is a citizen. Over time, the interpretation of “jurisdiction” has become rather convoluted, often fostering illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants, much like foreign diplomats or children of invading forces, aren’t truly under U.S. jurisdiction; instead, they remain citizens of their home countries. This means they cannot enlist in our military or hold government positions. What happens instead? Many work in the shadows, seeking employment that pays in cash to avoid drawing attention.
Notably, the Supreme Court previously ruled in Elk vs. Wilkins (1884) that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend to Native American children until Congress legislated that they could claim it. So, if Native Americans are excluded from this clause, how can it apply to illegal immigrants? It simply doesn’t.
If illegal immigrants are not truly under U.S. jurisdiction, then their children cannot be either. In contrast, kids born abroad to American parents still retain their citizenship. For instance, military families often have their children born overseas, and logically, the principle should apply consistently.
President Trump, aligning with this common-sense approach, signed an executive order on January 20th. This order stipulates that children born to illegal immigrant mothers—unless their fathers are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents—won’t receive citizenship. Importantly, this doesn’t impact those already born; it takes effect only for births occurring after a 30-day window.
However, implementation is stalled due to several courts temporarily blocking the order. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court limited the issuance of injunctions nationwide. Amidst this, a district judge maintained that the executive order could be legally contested, not only by states but also by plaintiffs with a common interest in challenging its validity. The administration is seeking a review from the Supreme Court before the appeals court offers its ruling. Such a filing is rare, as typically the Court prefers to let cases follow standard procedures. Yet, given the exceptional nature of birthright citizenship discussions, the Supreme Court may need to entertain this petition.
Aside from legal justifications, there are significant policy considerations at hand. Many illegal immigrants aim to have children in the U.S. to ensure those children have access to citizenship benefits. This pursuit often comes at a perilous cost, with many risking their lives crossing dangerous terrain or paying smugglers, who may be violent and put lives at risk. The current birthright citizenship policy inadvertently promotes illegal crossings, creating multiple hazards—not only for the immigrants but also for border agents. Hence, a change in this policy is essential, and President Trump should be acknowledged for striving to rectify it.
Critics, mainly from left-leaning platforms, argue that Trump’s order is patently illegal. Yet, the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on whether children born to illegal immigrants qualify as American citizens. Past cases, like USA vs. Won Kim Ark (1898), considered the citizenship rights of children born to lawful residents—who show loyalty and thus fall under U.S. jurisdiction. Trump’s executive order, however, pertains to illegal immigrants and those under temporary protective status. Thus, previous rulings don’t apply directly here. Contrary to claims from the left, President Trump is not flouting established precedent; in fact, it seems that some judges are infringing on the core sovereignty of the American people concerning border control.
The country grapples with a significant illegal immigration crisis, exacerbated by President Biden’s ineffective border policies, which have resulted in the entry of millions of illegal aliens. Administration figures—including Kamala Harris and Alejandro Mayorkas—have faced criticism for their management of this situation over the last four years, which has overwhelmed various U.S. cities. Some of these undocumented individuals have committed serious crimes against Americans, while others may be linked to drug trafficking or organized crime. President Trump’s attempts to situate relief at the border have met resistance from lower courts. Consequently, there’s an urgent need for the Supreme Court to endorse his order and restore a semblance of order to our immigration policies. The issue of controlling our borders is vital, and the Court must prevent judicial overreach in this realm.
