Debate rages over Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship
Washignton — President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. has ignited a legal and political debate, raising questions about the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the extent of presidential power. The amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. “We’re the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know. And it’s just absolutely ridiculous. But, you know, we’ll see. We think we have very good grounds and certain people have wanted to do this for decades,” Trump said while signing the executive order on his first day in office. The United States is one of about 30 countries that grant automatic citizenship to individuals born on their soil, including Brazil, Mexico, and Canada, among others. The practice is known as jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil”). But the U.S. remains notable for its broad application of unconditional jus soli, as enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Are there limits to 14th Amendment? The amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to address citizenship questions following the U.S. Civil War and to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied African Americans citizenship. The text reads: “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.” “This language ratifies the traditional understanding that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen,” John Yoo, a professor at University of California Berkeley Law School and visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute, told VOA in a phone intervie However, critics argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” implies that at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen for a child to be granted citizenship. According to Yoo, this interpretation aligns more closely with the European jus sanguinis, or “law of blood” approach, which ties citizenship to parentage rather than birthplace. “To me, that just doesn’t make sense of the language of the 14th Amendment and historical practice,” Yoo said. “The Supreme Court, in cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has consistently interpreted the amendment to mean birthright citizenship.” Critics of Trump’s executive order say the 14th Amendment is a cornerstone of civil rights in the United States. However, supporters of the executive order argue a more limited interpretation of the amendment is warranted. “President Trump … “Debate rages over Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship” →