Fact Check: "Trump's order threatens over 100 years of guaranteed birthright citizenship."
What We Know
The claim that President Trump's executive order threatens over 100 years of guaranteed birthright citizenship is rooted in the legal principle established by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, ratified in 1868, states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" (NPR). This principle has been upheld for over a century, notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are entitled to citizenship regardless of their parents' legal status (New York Times).
In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order aimed at revoking birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully present or hold temporary status (NPR). This order has faced significant legal challenges, resulting in multiple federal judges ruling it unconstitutional and blocking its implementation (AP News). Legal experts largely agree that such a change would require a constitutional amendment rather than an executive order, as the 14th Amendment's interpretation has been well-established (BBC).
Analysis
The assertion that Trump's order threatens over a century of guaranteed birthright citizenship is accurate. The legal foundation for birthright citizenship has been solidified through both constitutional text and judicial precedent for more than 125 years. Trump's executive order directly challenges this established legal framework by asserting that children of undocumented immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, a claim that contradicts the interpretation upheld by the Supreme Court (NPR, New York Times).
The reliability of the sources discussing this issue is high. NPR, the New York Times, and the Associated Press are reputable news organizations known for their journalistic integrity and fact-checking standards. They provide comprehensive coverage of the legal implications of Trump's order and the historical context of birthright citizenship. Furthermore, the legal opinions cited, including those from federal judges and legal scholars, reflect a consensus that Trump's approach lacks constitutional validity and would likely face insurmountable legal hurdles (BBC, AP News).
Critics of Trump's order, including the ACLU and various legal experts, argue that the attempt to revoke birthright citizenship is not only unconstitutional but also contrary to American values (NPR). The potential for this order to disrupt over a century of legal precedent raises significant concerns about its implications for citizenship rights in the U.S.
Conclusion
The claim that Trump's order threatens over 100 years of guaranteed birthright citizenship is True. The executive order challenges a well-established legal principle enshrined in the Constitution and upheld by numerous court rulings. Given the historical context and the current legal landscape, it is clear that Trump's attempt to alter birthright citizenship is not only legally dubious but also fundamentally at odds with American constitutional values.
Sources
- Birthright citizenship: What is it and can Trump end it? : NPR
- How the Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions Case Began
- What to know about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case - BBC
- What to know about the ruling blocking Trump's order on birthright ...
- Supreme Court Rules With Trump On Birthright Citizenship Challenge
- Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: What to Know | TIME
