Politics
Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship could be decided by the Supreme Court
Donald Trump’s team is crafting an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, a monumental move the president-elect’s allies say is a key step in their long-term strategy: getting the issue before the Supreme Court.
The effect of Trump’s order would be to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors to the U.S. from the right to citizenship by birth that is established under the 14th Amendment. And while there are few details on what exactly he would do and how sweeping the action would be, immigration restrictionists say Trump could do several things, including directing the State Department to refuse to issue passports to children without proof of the parents’ immigration status or the Social Security Administration to withhold Social Security numbers.
He could also direct agencies providing welfare and public benefits to U.S. citizens to deny these benefits to those claiming birthright citizenship, whose parents are in the country illegally. Details of the plan remain unclear, but it would deliver on a promise Trump has made over his entire political career: to restrict birthright citizenship.
Implementation would be no easy feat, but the Trump administration likely wouldn’t get far anyway — at least at first. Any move Trump makes to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented parents will be immediately challenged by pro-immigration groups and civil rights organizations. And conservative immigration groups are optimistic that the issue could eventually wind up before the nation’s highest court, which they hope will rule in their favor.
“What will happen is, the government will get sued, and it’ll go up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll finally get a final decision on this issue,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal and judicial studies fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “The last case on this was 1898, so it’s a very long time ago. And I actually think when the Supreme Court looks at this, they will realize and uphold what Trump does.”
Already, Trump’s talk of ending birthright citizenship is setting the stage for one of the first major legal battles of his second term. And his effort could be one of his first major actions to drastically reshape the immigration system upon returning to office.
When asked about the plans, Trump’s transition team referred Blue Light News to the president-elect’s comments during his interview with NBC News last weekend.
The president-elect has repeatedly said he plans to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. on Day One — reiterating this promise during the interview that aired Sunday — while providing no details about how he would get around the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Birthright citizenship stems from the year after the Civil War ended when Congress wanted to ensure that children of formerly enslaved people were granted U.S. citizenship. The amendment reads that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The accepted interpretation today, backed by a multitude of legal scholars on both sides of the political aisle, is that a child born in the United States is automatically a citizen, even if the parents do not have legal status (this excludes foreign diplomats working in the country).
But conservative immigration groups have argued that this should not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, which they argue has been misinterpreted.
The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the question, but that could change if the high court takes up any potential legal challenges. The last time justices examined the issue was during an 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, when the court ruled that a man born in San Francisco to parents from China — who were lawfully admitted into the country — was a U.S. citizen. Restrictionists interpret this ruling to mean that only those residing in the U.S. with permission meet the 14th Amendment requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Immigration to the U.S. has surged in recent years, with DHS estimating that 11 million people are in the U.S. without legal authorization. Trump used fears over illegal immigration throughout the 2024 presidential campaign, both with his base and voters overall, and both Democratic and Republican state leaders have struggled to manage the influx of migrants coming to their states. When Trump said his administration may seek to end birthright citizenship in 2018, a Pew Research Center analysis of government data found that about 250,000 babies were born to undocumented immigrants in 2016, a decline from the early 2000s.
“It’ll be good to get it back in front of the Supreme Court, have it relitigated,” said Michael Hough, director of federal relations at NumbersUSA, a group that works to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. “The intention wasn’t for the system we have now, and the urgency to is that, whatever number you accept — 10 million, 15 million illegal immigrants come across — well, all the children that they’re having are going to become citizens of the United States.”
While there’s no guarantee the Supreme Court will back restrictionists’ interpretation of the 14th Amendment, conservatives hope the bench, filled with three Trump-appointed justices, would restore what they view as the intended meaning. And they’re bracing for a potentially yearslong battle in the courts to get that answer.
“In the end, this is going to be a long-term process. It’s probably one that will have to extend into the [JD] Vance administration,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a restrictionist group. “I mean, this is not going to be all resolved in the first 100 days.”
During Trump’s interview Sunday — in the same breath as vowing to end birthright citizenship — the president-elect also suggested he’d look for ways to allow people brought to the U.S. illegally as children to stay in the country. He tried to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program protecting them from deportation during his first term, but the Supreme Court blocked that effort.
Immigration advocates say the interview shows how the incoming president’s stance on immigration is riddled with contradictions. Over the last year, pro-immigration groups have been preparing for a second Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, analyzing Trump’s proposals, drafting legal briefs, coordinating messages and organizing aid for immigrants and asylum-seekers — and they don’t buy the idea that Trump is looking for compromise.
“We take Trump at his word and his track record,” said Beatriz Lopez, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub. “We recognize this set-up: It’s Lucy and the football where citizenship for Dreamers is a possibility if Democrats are willing to change the constitution to end birthright citizenship and deport the parents of Dreamers and millions of other undocumented people. That’s not a compromise; that’s a ransom letter.”
Brazil has won a record five World Cups, but the most important match it has ever played may have been an exhibition match against Haiti that was meaningless in sporting terms but has had a long influence on each country’s politics.
On Aug. 18, 2004, Brazil’s players drove through the streets of Port-au-Prince in armored personnel carriers, World Cup champions greeted like liberators. Two months earlier, Brazil’s military had arrived to lead a multinational peacekeeping force established by the United Nations following a bloody coup d’état.
“We’ve only seen such joy in the eyes, the exuberance of the eyes, when we paraded in Brazil after winning the World Cup,” coach Carlos Alberto Parreira said afterwards. “I will never forget this moment.”
The team was accompanied to the U.N.-hosted friendly match that followed — “They play, peace wins,” went the slogan — by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then in his first term as Brazil’s president. More than two decades later, Lula is back in office, now cemented as the most accomplished leader the world’s left has seen in the 21st century. His approach to foreign policy, say observers, was shaped partially on the soccer pitch that day in Port-au-Prince.
“It showed he was trying something different as a diplomatic tool,” said Mauricio Savarese, an Associated press political reporter in São Paulo who has researched the legacy of the 2004 game. “That match at the time was a symbol of Brazil’s soft power. You really showed how Brazil could win hearts and minds with a policy that was not exactly bowing to the United States or to the China or to Russia, but independent.”
The match, designed to build goodwill between a shell-shocked population and its benevolent occupiers, began after players from the two national teams unfurled a pre-match banner that read “Social Justice is the True Name of Peace.” The peacekeeping mission represented an early commitment to “continental solidarity,” as Lula defined it in a speech the following year to up-and-coming diplomats where he cited the Haiti mission as an example of “non-indifference.”
Lula was feeling his way toward a foreign policy centered around South-South Cooperation and the BRICS alliance of emerging markets. Lula has used that role as de-facto leader of the democratic developing world to, with mixed results, position Brazil as a leader on climate change — it hosted last year’s COP30 in the Amazon city of Belém — and a mediator when thorny international conflicts arise. It has a position of official neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine war, so as to serve a potential role as mediator, as it did when partnering with Turkey in 2010 to broker a nuclear-fuel swap with Iran.
That same year, an earthquake hit Haiti, killing over 100,000 people while injuring and displacing millions more. It also destroyed the headquarters of the U.N. Stabilisation Mission in Haiti, even as Brazil led a post-disaster humanitarian relief effort. The experience further deepened ties between the two countries, as Brazil introduced a humanitarian-visa program for the first time to welcome Haitians fleeing the devastation; it has since been extended to Syrian war refugees, as well. One historically Italian neighborhood in São Paulo is now known as Little Haiti.
The broader peacekeeping mission began to resemble a military quagmire in humanitarian garb: Brazilian troops were blamed for human-rights violations and a cholera epidemic, while doing little to improve the overall security situation. For Lula and his protegée Dilma Rousseff, the Haiti project became a political liability, in both Haiti and Brazil.
As the two nations prepare to face off against one another in Philadelphia on Friday, Lula is not expected to be in attendance. Instead his travel schedule this week was built around the G7 summit in France, in which Brazil participated as one of five “partner countries” — a reflection of its increased global standing over the past few decades. If Lula shows up at one of Brazil’s matches later in the World Cup, it will likely be with a domestic audience in mind rather than a foreign one: he is in the midst of a reelection campaign for his fourth term, against a son of his longtime antagonist Jair Bolsonaro.
“I doubt that anyone is going to vote for him just because he’s recognized abroad as a key leader,” said Savarese, Brazilian political journalist who wrote the book “Dilma’s Downfall.” “But of course that helps with some moderates, which are a very thin part of Brazil’s electorate, and they’re going to be decisive in October’s election, that is also one of the things that tips the balance in his favor, as is being seen as this pragmatic leader who can also be respected even when he’s speaking about issues that clearly don’t affect as much in Brazil’s daily life.”
That day in Haiti, not yet a global figure, Lula confronted one limit on his power. He reportedly asked his team not to score too many goals, in the interests of goodwill. The players did not oblige, winning 6-0, including an astonishing solo effort from Ronaldinho.
Blue Light News has been crunching the numbers to see how all 48 of this year’s World Cup participants rank in several other off-field categories, which we’ll share more of over the weekend.
In today’s item, we look at whether GDP per capita has any connection to soccer performance. As you can see, the chart does show some positive correlation — note, for example, wealthy tournament contenders such as France, the Netherlands and Germany all in the upper right corner.
But it’s not a perfect indicator. By this metric, Qatar is the wealthiest country in the tournament — and it lost 6-0 to Canada on Thursday …
CANBERRA — It was disappointment from start to finish around the USA vs. Australia match in the Bush Capital, won comfortably by the American side.
Neither of Canberra’s Socceroos made the starting lineup and the local government failed to provide an outdoor watch site for the match, despite a heavy social media campaign from locals. With federal politicians out of town and back in their districts this week, the campaign lacked star power and fell on deaf ears.
That left thousands to fill inner city pubs and the University of Canberra, which were allowed special trading hours for the match, from 4.30 a.m.
Australia’s politicians — vocal in their support in the lead-up to the match — went silent quickly, after Australia’s own goal 11 minutes minutes into the game.
If the Aussies’ lackluster performance left the crowd subdued, they found energy to boo Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a notably unpopular figure in Australia, which embraced harsh Covid lockdowns and vaccines — when he appeared on the match broadcast.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words