BNCL Law Firm - Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy

The End of Birthright Citizenship: What Trump’s Executive Order Means for America

January 21, 2025

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump began his second term with a controversial start, signing 26 executive orders, including one that reinterprets the Fourteenth Amendment to end birthright citizenship in the United States. This bold move has already sparked widespread debate, legal challenges, and uncertainty for millions of Americans. At Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry, and Lacy (BNCL), we stand ready to defend civil rights and inform the public of the facts.

 

 

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Birthright citizenship refers to the guarantee under the Fourteenth Amendment that all individuals born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship, regardless of their parent’s immigration status. Specifically, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

“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 clause has long been interpreted to mean that children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, with few exceptions (e.g., children of foreign diplomats). However, Trump’s executive order reinterprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children of immigrants who are in the country without legal status or on temporary visas.

The Impact of the Executive Order

This reinterpretation dramatically alters the framework of citizenship in the U.S. Key provisions of the order include:

  1. Exclusion of Children of Undocumented Immigrants: Babies born to parents in the U.S. without legal status will no longer be granted citizenship.
  2. Restrictions on Temporary Visa Holders: Children born to individuals on work, student, or tourist visas will also be excluded.
  3. Retroactive Implications: Although the executive order’s full scope is unclear, its language has raised concerns about the status of individuals previously granted birthright citizenship under existing interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

These provisions have far-reaching consequences, creating potential legal limbo for millions and setting the stage for constitutional challenges.

Legal Challenges Ahead

The order’s constitutionality is already being questioned. The Fourteenth Amendment’s language has been upheld in numerous court cases, including the landmark Supreme Court decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for children born to immigrant parents.

Critics argue that Trump’s executive order oversteps presidential authority by attempting to unilaterally reinterpret the Constitution, a power traditionally reserved for Congress and the courts. Legal experts expect swift litigation, and the issue may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

Potential Social and Economic Impacts

  1. Increased Statelessness: Millions of individuals could find themselves without legal citizenship, leading to barriers in accessing education, healthcare, and employment.
  2. Family Separation Risks: Children born to non-citizen parents may face heightened risks of deportation or separation from their families.
  3. Administrative Challenges: Implementing the executive order will require significant changes to how birth certificates and citizenship documentation are issued, potentially straining government resources.

BNCL’s Commitment to Defending Civil Rights

At BNCL, we are dedicated to standing up for individuals whose rights are threatened by unconstitutional actions and violations of an individual’s civil rights.

We have a proven track record of taking on high-profile cases to protect marginalized communities and ensure equal protection under the law. This executive order is an affront to the principles of fairness and justice.

Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A)

1. If I am the first-born child of undocumented parents, does this mean I can now be deported?

No, your citizenship status cannot be retroactively revoked. If you were born in the United States and previously recognized as a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, your status remains intact unless Congress or the courts decide otherwise. However, this executive order creates uncertainty for future cases and could lead to legal challenges.

2. Will this executive order affect children born to U.S. citizens traveling abroad?

No, the executive order targets individuals born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents. Under existing laws, children born to U.S. citizens abroad are typically granted citizenship through their parents.

3. Does this executive order apply to children already born to temporary visa holders?

The executive order’s language does not clearly address retroactive application. However, it primarily targets future cases. Individuals already recognized as citizens are likely to retain their status unless subsequent legal challenges alter the interpretation.

4. What does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean?

This phrase historically includes all individuals born within U.S. borders, with limited exceptions (e.g., foreign diplomats’ children). Trump’s executive order reinterprets this phrase to exclude certain groups, such as children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. Courts will ultimately determine the validity of this reinterpretation.

5. What should I do if my family is affected by this executive order?

If you or your loved ones are concerned about the implications of this executive order, consult a qualified immigration or civil rights attorney immediately.

What’s Next?

The fight over birthright citizenship is just beginning. Trump’s executive order faces significant legal hurdles, and its implementation may be delayed or blocked by the courts. In the meantime, BNCL remains committed to protecting the rights of all individuals and advocating for justice.

 

Together, we can stand against unconstitutional actions and uphold the principles that define our nation.

Case Results

Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

Read More
Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
John Burris
Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

Read More
Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
Rodney King
Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

Read More
Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
FEATURED News & Updates

Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

Watch our video
Share via
Copy link