Why Trump’s Order Is a Threat to Birthright Citizenship
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/afreon-elements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
A major legal battle is unfolding at the highest level of the American government. President Trump has issued an executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. This move has sparked immediate action from civil rights organizations. The NAACP, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), is now pressing the Supreme Court to block this order (naacp.org). These advocates warn that the order could shrink the definition of who is considered a born American, potentially leaving millions in a state of legal limbo.
The conflict centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This amendment has served as the bedrock of American identity for over 150 years. By challenging this principle, the current administration is forcing a re-evaluation of a century-old precedent. Critics argue that this executive action is an attempt to rewrite the Constitution without following the proper legal process. The outcome of this case will determine whether citizenship remains a birthright or becomes a privilege granted by the state (aclu.org).
The Shadow of the Dred Scott Decision
To understand the current fight, one must look back at the dark history of American law. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The court decided that Black people, whether they were enslaved or free, could never be U.S. citizens (supremecourthistory.org). This ruling created a system where race determined legal belonging. It was a period of deep exclusion that the nation eventually sought to dismantle after the Civil War (zinnedproject.org).
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 specifically to kill the ghost of the Dred Scott decision. It guaranteed that all persons born in the United States are citizens. This was a revolutionary change that included formerly enslaved people in the American family. However, the struggle for true inclusion continued long after the ink was dry. History shows that even after the Civil War, many felt that Reconstruction failed to protect the rights of Black Americans from state-level discrimination (brennancenter.org).
Children at Risk of Losing Citizenship
Source: Migration Policy Institute (2022 Data)
The Landmark Case of Wong Kim Ark
The modern understanding of birthright citizenship was solidified in 1898. A man named Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. When he returned from a trip to China, the government tried to deny him re-entry. They claimed he was not a citizen because his parents were not citizens. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor with a 6-2 decision (supremecourthistory.org). The court held that the 14th Amendment applies to children of immigrants regardless of the legal status of the parents.
Justice Horace Gray wrote that the amendment affirms the ancient rule of citizenship by birth on the soil. This decision is the primary target of the current executive order. By attempting to deny citizenship to children of undocumented parents, the administration is essentially asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Wong Kim Ark precedent (scotusblog.com). This legal tradition has protected children of all backgrounds for over a century, ensuring that they are not punished for the actions of their parents.
The Demographic Impact on Black Immigrants
While the conversation often focuses on other groups, Black immigrants are deeply affected by these changes. Black immigrants are one of the fastest-growing groups in the United States today. There are over 5 million Black immigrants currently living in the country (naacp.org). Many of these individuals come from nations like Haiti, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. They often face higher rates of detention and deportation compared to other immigrant populations.
Ending birthright citizenship would create a new class of people who are stateless. These children would be born in America but would have no legal standing. They would not have access to social security numbers, legal employment, or federal student loans. Throughout history, family patterns within the Black community have been a source of resilience against such legal threats (childrensdefense.org). However, the loss of citizenship would strip away the most basic legal shield these families possess.
How the Executive Order Reinterprets Law
The legal argument for the executive order relies on a specific phrase in the 14th Amendment. The amendment says citizens must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Modern critics of birthright citizenship argue that “jurisdiction” means more than just being physically present. They claim it requires a “sole allegiance” to the country. They suggest that children of undocumented parents do not meet this standard because their parents owe allegiance to a foreign power (scotusblog.com). This is a narrow interpretation that most legal scholars reject.
Historically, this phrase was only meant to exclude a few groups. These groups included children of foreign diplomats and invading enemy armies. For everyone else, being born on U.S. soil meant they were under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore citizens (pbs.org). The NAACP argues that changing this definition by executive decree is an unconstitutional power grab. It bypasses the role of Congress and the amendment process, threatening the stability of the entire legal system (naacp.org).
Projected Growth of Unauthorized Population
Effect of ending birthright citizenship over time.
The Patchwork of Legal Rights
The legal battle has created a “patchwork” of rights across the country. In some states, lower courts have blocked the executive order. These courts have called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” (scotusblog.com). However, the Supreme Court recently limited the power of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This means that a ruling in one state might not apply in another (scotusblog.com). For families, this creates a dangerous situation where their children’s citizenship could depend on which side of a state line they are born on.
This legal uncertainty is exactly what the NAACP and its partners want to stop. They are using amicus briefs to explain these dangers to the Supreme Court. An amicus brief is a way for outside groups to provide expert information to the judges (naacp.org). By filing these documents, the NAACP highlights the real-world impact of the order. They are showing that this is not just a technical legal debate. It is a matter of survival for millions of families, including many with deep Afro-Latin history who have lived in the borderlands for generations (migrationpolicy.org).
The Significance of Amicus Briefs
The use of amicus briefs has a long history in civil rights advocacy. These documents allow organizations like the NAACP to present sociological and historical evidence that might otherwise be ignored. For example, during the fight against school segregation, the NAACP used these briefs to show the psychological harm of “separate but equal” policies. Today, they are using them to show the harm of creating a permanent underclass of non-citizens (naacp.org).
The Legal Defense Fund is a critical player in this strategy. Although it was started by the NAACP, the LDF has been a separate organization since 1957. It focuses specifically on litigation and impact cases in the courts. By working together, these groups can address both the grassroots organizing and the complex legal arguments needed to win (aclu.org). Their current goal is to convince the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment is an irrevocable promise that the president cannot break with a single signature.
The Practical Consequences for Children
If the Supreme Court allows the executive order to stand, the consequences for children will be immediate. A child born in a U.S. hospital to undocumented parents would leave that hospital with no legal identity. They would be ineligible for a birth certificate that grants citizenship rights. This lack of status would follow them for their entire lives. They would be unable to obtain a driver’s license or open a bank account in most states (childrensdefense.org).
Furthermore, these children would be ineligible for most forms of government assistance. This includes health programs like Medicaid. While they can currently attend public schools, their path to higher education would be blocked because they cannot receive federal financial aid. They would live in constant fear of being deported to a country they have never seen (migrationpolicy.org). This policy would effectively punish children for the legal status of their parents, a concept that contradicts the basic principles of American justice.
A Second Founding Under Attack
Historians often refer to the Reconstruction era as the “Second Founding” of the United States. During this time, the country tried to rebuild itself on the principle of equality before the law. The 14th Amendment was the centerpiece of this effort. It was a promise that the government would protect the rights of every person born on this soil (zinnedproject.org). Modern challenges to birthright citizenship are seen as a direct attack on this historical legacy.
By framing this as a Black history issue, the NAACP is reminding the public that citizenship was once a tool of racial control. The struggle for immigrant rights today is connected to the struggle of Black Americans 150 years ago. Both groups have had to fight against a system that tries to define them as “outsiders” even when they are born here. Protecting birthright citizenship is about more than just immigration policy. It is about defending the constitutional protections that ensure everyone is treated as a full member of society (brennancenter.org).
Public Sentiment and the Future
Despite the aggressive moves by the administration, public opinion remains largely against ending birthright citizenship. Recent polling shows that 53% of Americans oppose the measure, while only 28% support it (ipsos.com). This indicates that the majority of the country still views the right of the soil as a fundamental American value. However, the executive branch is moving forward regardless of this sentiment, setting up a high-stakes showdown in the courts.
The Supreme Court now holds the future of American citizenship in its hands. If the court follows the precedent of Wong Kim Ark, the executive order will be struck down. If the court chooses to re-interpret the 14th Amendment, it could fundamentally change what it means to be American for generations to come. The NAACP and its partners will continue to argue that citizenship is an irrevocable right. They believe that the soil of the United States should always be a place where new citizens are born, free from the exclusions of the past (naacp.org).
Conclusion: The Battle for the American Soul
The fight over birthright citizenship is a battle between two different visions of the United States. One vision sees the country as a closed circle based on parentage and heritage. The other vision sees the country as an open society where anyone born on this land is a full and equal participant. For the Black community, this fight is deeply personal. It is a reminder that rights once gained can still be threatened if they are not defended with vigor.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments, the nation watches closely. The outcome will resonate far beyond the borders of immigrant communities. It will affect the legal certainty of every person whose status is anchored in the 14th Amendment. By pressing the court to act, civil rights groups are standing up for the principle that citizenship should never be a weapon used to exclude vulnerable populations. The history of the 14th Amendment shows that America is at its best when it expands the circle of belonging rather than shrinking it (supremecourthistory.org).
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
