Fact Check: Trump's Suggestion to Strip Citizenship Contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment
What We Know
President Donald Trump, during his second term, issued an executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which aimed to redefine birthright citizenship in the United States. This order proposed that a child born in the U.S. would only automatically become a citizen if at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. This move has been met with widespread criticism and legal challenges, as it directly contradicts the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" (source-1).
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in various rulings, including the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which confirmed that children born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status (source-1). Legal experts and state attorneys general argue that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally alter constitutional provisions or existing federal laws (source-2).
Analysis
The executive order issued by Trump has sparked significant legal debate. Critics, including a coalition of state attorneys general, argue that the order is an overreach of presidential power and violates the established interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit filed by Washington state, joined by several other states, asserts that the President lacks the authority to redefine citizenship as established by the Constitution (source-1).
Legal scholars have pointed out that the Citizenship Clause was specifically designed to ensure that birthright citizenship could not be easily revoked or altered based on political whims. The historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted post-Civil War, underscores its intent to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and their descendants, ensuring that citizenship is not contingent upon the status of one's parents (source-4).
Moreover, the Trump administration's argument that the Fourteenth Amendment "has always excluded" certain individuals from citizenship has been described as a misinterpretation of the amendment's intent and language (source-2). The legal consensus among constitutional experts is that the President cannot simply nullify a constitutional amendment through executive order, which further supports the claim that Trump's actions contradict the Fourteenth Amendment (source-5).
Conclusion
The claim that Trump's suggestion to strip citizenship contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment is True. The executive order issued by Trump attempts to redefine birthright citizenship in a manner that is inconsistent with the established legal framework set forth by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal challenges to this order emphasize that the President does not possess the authority to alter constitutional provisions, reinforcing the notion that citizenship by birth is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
