Attorney Generals Sue Trump Admin Over Executive Order On Birthright Citizenship


Let’s break this down, folks, because it’s one of those moments where legal debates, political tensions, and constitutional questions collide in a way that gets everybody talking. On President Trump’s very first day back in office, he issued an executive order aimed squarely at ending what has long been a contentious issue: birthright citizenship.

This move would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil if their mother entered the country illegally or if either parent wasn’t a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Needless to say, the backlash was immediate, with 22 Democratic-led states and cities like San Francisco and Washington, D.C., filing lawsuits before the ink was even dry.

Now, here’s the crux of the legal fight: the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The president’s executive order argues that the amendment has been misunderstood, pointing to its language that guarantees citizenship only to those "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

According to the Trump administration, this phrase doesn’t apply to everyone physically present in the U.S., especially those who are here unlawfully or temporarily. That’s a sharp departure from how the amendment has been interpreted for decades, and naturally, opponents see this as an overreach of presidential authority.

Cue New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, who didn’t hold back, saying, “Presidents are powerful, but he is not a king. He cannot rewrite the Constitution with a stroke of the pen.” And let’s not forget the ACLU, which immediately jumped in with its own lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of undermining the Constitution. The White House, of course, fired back, with Harrison Fields labeling these lawsuits as just more “resistance” from the Left.

So, why is this such a big deal? Let’s put it into perspective. According to estimates cited by the National Review, as many as 350,000 to 400,000 children are born each year to mothers who are in the U.S. illegally—nearly one in ten births nationwide.

That’s not a small number. And, as of 2010, there were about 4 million children of illegal immigrants who were U.S. citizens by birth. This has fueled a long-standing debate over what the Fourteenth Amendment actually means and whether the concept of birthright citizenship, as we understand it today, aligns with the original intent of the amendment’s framers.

Legal scholars like Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never meant to include everyone physically present in the U.S. He points out that it’s a question of political allegiance, not geography.

By this interpretation, tourists, diplomats, and those in the country illegally wouldn’t qualify. But opponents argue that the amendment’s language has been clear for over 150 years, and changing it now would require a constitutional amendment—not an executive order.

Previous Trump’s Border Czar Openly Discusses His Policy
Next Senior Career Vacancies Give Trump A Big Opportunity