Who gets to be American

For more than 150 years, birthright citizenship has meant that almost every child born on American soil begins life as an American citizen, regardless of where their parents came from.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly attempted to change that principle as part of a much wider effort to restrict immigration. But after the Supreme Court rejected his broader attempt to end birthright citizenship in June, his latest, narrower effort has now also been blocked by a federal judge.
The principle comes from the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that people born or naturalised in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that children born in the US to parents who are undocumented or temporarily in the country are citizens at birth. Trump later issued narrower orders targeting certain circumstances, including so-called “birth tourism”, but US District Judge Deborah Boardman blocked the latest attempt, writing that a presidential executive order cannot undo what the Supreme Court has already decided.
The issue goes far beyond a legal disagreement over the Constitution. Removing birthright citizenship would create a system in which two babies born in the same hospital could have completely different rights because of their parents’ immigration status.
It could also leave some children facing uncertainty over their nationality and, in particular circumstances, the risk of statelessness. Citizenship determines access to some of the most fundamental rights a person has: the right to live permanently in a country, obtain a passport, vote as an adult and participate fully in civic life. Children have no control over how their parents entered the United States. Making their citizenship dependent on their parents’ status would effectively make them carry the consequences of decisions they did not make.
The birthright citizenship battle also needs to be viewed alongside the administration’s broader immigration crackdown. The State Department is preparing to revoke B1 and B2 business and tourist visas issued between 2016 and 2026 to people who subsequently applied for asylum. Up to 200,000 people could potentially be affected, which would make it the largest mass visa revocation in US history.
The administration argues that people who entered as temporary visitors and subsequently sought asylum may have misused visas intended for tourism or business. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau has also criticised what the administration considers frivolous asylum claims. Supporters of tougher immigration controls argue that the government has a legitimate responsibility to prevent fraud and ensure that immigration rules are respected.
But seeking asylum after entering on a visitor visa does not itself prove that the asylum claim is fraudulent. Circumstances can change. Governments collapse, wars erupt, political opponents become targets and people can face persecution because of their religion, ethnicity, or political beliefs. Someone who originally intended to return home may later have genuine reasons to fear doing so.
Revoking a B1 or B2 visa does not automatically cancel an asylum application or mean immediate deportation. Nevertheless, a mass revocation sends a troubling message to people relying on a system specifically designed to assess individual claims of persecution.
People fleeing Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria, or other countries affected by war and instability do not all have identical circumstances, and economic hardship alone generally does not qualify someone for asylum under US law. But those facing qualifying persecution deserve to have their individual claims examined fairly rather than being treated with suspicion simply because they entered the country through another legal route.
The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship therefore matters beyond immigration politics. It reinforces a basic limitation on presidential power: citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution cannot simply be rewritten through an executive order. America can debate how many immigrants it accepts and how its asylum system should operate. But deciding which American-born children deserve to be Americans is a very different matter.