Birthright citizenship under fire

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 23, seeking to challenge the precedent of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, raising questions about the future of immigration policy and the rights of children born on U.S. soil.

Political science assistant professor Carla Angulo-Pasel explained the current system and the immediate effects of the order.

“Right now, under the 14th Amendment, anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen,” Angulo-Pasel said. “This has been the standard since the 1800s and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898 with Wong Kim Ark.”

She said the executive order affects more than just undocumented immigrants.

“This isn’t just about birthright citizenship,” Angulo-Pasel said. “Combined with policies like mass deportations and restrictions on asylum, it’s creating fear among immigrant communities. Here in the [Rio Grande] Valley, where many families are mixed-status, uncertainty about immigration policies is making people scared to go to work, hospitals or even churches.”

Political science assistant professor Alvaro Corral said the executive order, if upheld, would require overturning legal precedent that has been in place since 1898.

“The 14th Amendment was clarified in 1898 with the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark,” Corral said. “Wong Kim Ark was born in California to Chinese immigrants who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship due to racist immigration laws of the time. The Court ultimately ruled that, because Wong Kim Ark was born on U.S. soil, he was a U.S. citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status.” 

He said with the new interpretation of the 14th amendment, there is a lot of uncertainty for immigrants.

“The order could lead to stateless individuals—people who are neither citizens of the U.S. nor their parents’ countries of origin,” Corral said.  “It creates significant uncertainty for families and questions about the citizenship process.”

Mass communication senior Paolo Santiago, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. as residents, said he questioned what the change could have meant for his family.

“If a baby couldn’t have citizenship at birth—then my brother wouldn’t have been a citizen because when my mother and father had him, they were residents,” Santiago said. “They were still on work visas here, and he wouldn’t have had the citizenship that he has.”

He expressed concern for children born in the U.S. to parents without permanent legal status.

“I’m thinking about a child being born, what are they gonna do?” Santiago said. “Immediately check for the parentage and the legality of the parents in the United States? The problem with that is there’s no more DACA, so there’s no protection for that child. What’s going to happen? Is the child going to be deported as well because they’re not a citizen?”

He also pointed to the historical significance of immigration in the United States.

“It feels like a plot to stop illegal immigration, which, understandably, we should try to get in here as legally as possible,” Santiago said. “But again, immigrants are the majority of the workforce and work twice as hard to get just maybe even a smidgen of the same recognition. Immigrants really are the backbone of this country.”

There is currently a temporary restraining order on the executive order implementation until Thursday and, as of press time, 22 states have filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.