State Attorneys Twist Old Ruling to Defend Birthright Citizenship Loophole

President Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order targeting birthright citizenship landed like a spark in dry grass. By challenging automatic citizenship for children born to parents without legal status, it provoked a swift backlash from state attorneys general, with California’s Rob Bonta at the forefront. They lean on a century-old Supreme Court ruling to brand the move unconstitutional. Yet, this isn’t about defying the Constitution. It’s about questioning whether a law meant to heal a fractured nation after the Civil War should double as an open invitation to bypass our borders today.

The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, guaranteed citizenship for freed slaves, a noble and necessary act. Its Citizenship Clause, however, includes a critical phrase: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Legal scholars like John Eastman argue this excludes children of parents who owe allegiance to foreign nations, particularly those here unlawfully. Far from a radical notion, this view asks whether automatic citizenship aligns with the amendment’s original purpose.

For decades, the U.S. has granted citizenship to anyone born on its soil, regardless of parental status. This practice, known as jus soli, feels generous but carries consequences. It encourages 'birth tourism,' where foreign nationals arrive solely to secure U.S. citizenship for their children. It also incentivizes illegal immigration, offering a coveted prize—citizenship—that can anchor families. Why should a nation struggling with border security reward those who exploit its laws?

Bonta and his coalition of 19 attorneys general insist Trump’s order disrupts settled law, citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. That case granted citizenship to a child of lawful Chinese immigrants, not undocumented ones. Applying its ruling to every modern context stretches judicial precedent beyond reason. It’s a convenient shield for avoiding tough questions about national sovereignty.

So, what’s at stake? A policy that shapes who we are as a nation demands scrutiny, not blind loyalty to tradition.

Birthright citizenship isn’t just a legal abstraction; it has measurable impacts. By granting citizenship to children of noncitizens, the U.S. creates powerful incentives for illegal immigration. A 2025 poll revealed 28 percent of Americans favor revising this policy, signaling widespread concern. Meanwhile, 'birth tourism' flourishes, with agencies openly advertising U.S. births as a path to citizenship. This practice burdens an immigration system already grappling with a 3.6 million-case backlog.

Trump’s broader immigration strategy—targeting one million deportations annually and tightening border controls—highlights the need for reform. Automatic citizenship undermines these efforts by rewarding unlawful entry. Nations like Australia and the United Kingdom require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident for a child to gain citizenship. Adopting a similar standard could bring clarity without unraveling society, despite what opponents claim.

The coalition of attorneys general argues that ending automatic citizenship would sow chaos, stripping rights from millions. This exaggerates the order’s scope, which focuses on future eligibility, not retroactive denials. Their push for nationwide injunctions, led by states like California, also raises eyebrows. These states gain federal funding tied to population, including noncitizens, yet cry foul when federal policy shifts. Their lawsuits champion state rights while demanding uniform federal obedience—a curious contradiction.

Ultimately, the costs of unchecked citizenship fall on border communities, local schools, and taxpayers. Ignoring these realities in the name of tradition prioritizes sentiment over pragmatism.

The legal fight over Trump’s order extends beyond citizenship to the heart of federal authority. District courts in Washington, Maryland, and New Hampshire issued nationwide injunctions, freezing the policy before it began. On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court tackled a critical issue: should one judge wield the power to halt a president’s agenda nationwide? This debate exposes a growing tension between judicial reach and democratic will.

Nationwide injunctions, once a rarity with just 27 in the entire 20th century, surged to 86 during Trump’s first term. These orders allow judges, often from regions hostile to the administration, to derail policies voters supported. When courts block executive actions like Trump’s citizenship order, they risk usurping the role of elected officials. Doesn’t this undermine the balance of power the Constitution was designed to protect?

The courts’ reliance on Wong Kim Ark to dismiss Trump’s order also deserves scrutiny. That ruling addressed a different era, not today’s complex immigration landscape. Clinging to it without question sidesteps the need for policies that reflect current challenges, from border security to national identity.

Trump’s executive order may face legal hurdles, particularly given skepticism about expansive presidential power among some jurists. The unitary executive theory, which underpins the order, assumes broad authority but struggles against the Constitution’s checks and balances. Still, the policy’s core aim—to ignite a national debate on citizenship—merits serious attention. Congress, not unelected judges, should shape this conversation through legislation or, if needed, a constitutional amendment.

Revising birthright citizenship won’t fix every immigration woe, but it’s a practical step toward fairness. It honors those who pursue lawful pathways and respects the sacrifices of citizens who uphold the nation’s laws. Dismissing the idea outright hands too much power to courts and stifles progress.

The attorneys general opposing Trump represent states with their own agendas, often tied to federal dollars and political optics. Their defense of automatic citizenship ignores the strain on border towns and the message it sends to those who play by the rules. America deserves a policy rooted in today’s realities, not a nostalgic past. Will we seize this moment to redefine who we are, or let inertia hold us back?