Key Takeaways
• Executive Order 14160 aims to limit birthright citizenship for children born to certain noncitizen parents.
• NAPABA and over 200 House Democrats oppose EO 14160, citing the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark precedent.
• Federal courts blocked the order with preliminary injunctions; ultimate outcome may be decided by the Supreme Court.
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) has taken a clear public stance against Executive Order 14160, an order signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, which tries to limit birthright citizenship in the United States 🇺🇸. Birthright citizenship, sometimes called jus soli, means that any child born in the United States 🇺🇸 is automatically a citizen, no matter what their parents’ immigration status is. NAPABA, joined by many other groups and lawmakers, believes that this new executive order goes against what the U.S. Constitution promises and could hurt several communities across the country for many years to come.
What Is Executive Order 14160 and Why Is It Important?
President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 says that not every child born in the United States 🇺🇸 can get U.S. citizenship. Under this order, those born to mothers who are in the country for a short time or without paperwork, and whose fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (also called green card holders), will not get birthright citizenship. This means children who are born on U.S. soil but whose parents fall into these groups would not be considered citizens at birth.
This order is a big change from how things have worked for over 100 years. The U.S. has followed the idea of jus soli since the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868. That amendment says that any child born in the United States 🇺🇸 and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country is automatically a citizen. Many court cases have used this rule to support fair treatment for all people born in the country. Changing this rule through an executive order is a serious shift that worries many people and groups experienced in immigration law.
To learn exactly what birthright citizenship is and how it has worked for years, you can visit the official U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
NAPABA Opposes the Executive Order
NAPABA is a national organization made up of Asian Pacific American lawyers, judges, and legal scholars. In response to this executive order, NAPABA submitted an amicus brief. An “amicus brief” is a letter to the court from a group that is not directly involved in a case but wants the judges to consider their expert views. NAPABA’s reason for submitting their brief is to remind the courts about cases and laws that have already decided who should get citizenship by birth.
NAPABA’s main point relies on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a Supreme Court case from 1898. In this case, the judges decided that anyone born in the United States 🇺🇸 (even if their parents were not citizens) is a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. NAPABA says this part of the law is still valid and important today, and that no president should be able to change it without going through the long process needed to change the Constitution itself.
Other Groups Stand Against EO 14160
NAPABA is not alone in this effort. Many people and groups believe that Executive Order 14160 is unconstitutional—a fancy word meaning it does not agree with the rules and promises made by the U.S. Constitution.
For starters, the NAACP, one of the oldest civil rights groups in the United States 🇺🇸, filed its own amicus brief. The NAACP’s brief says that taking away birthright citizenship removes important constitutional protections and puts already-disadvantaged groups at even greater risk. If the U.S. stops offering citizenship to everyone born on its soil, many children could end up without a country—sometimes called “stateless”—which can make it hard or impossible for them to go to school, get health care, or have the same opportunities as other children.
In addition to big civil rights groups, elected officials have spoken out. Over 200 House Democrats wrote their own amicus brief, which is basically an official statement to the court. They argue that changing birthright citizenship through an executive order goes against everything U.S. law and the courts have said for more than 100 years. This group of lawmakers says that only Congress, not the president acting alone, can make such a major change to constitutional rights.
Courts Step In: What Happens Next?
After President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, lawsuits began almost right away. Federal courts, which include judges who deal with lawsuits about federal law and the constitution, acted quickly. They put in place what are called “preliminary injunctions.” These are legal orders that stop a law or rule from being used until judges decide if it is allowed under the Constitution. In the case of EO 14160, judges were concerned that not giving citizenship to children born in the United States 🇺🇸 under certain circumstances breaks long-standing constitutional law.
For now, the executive order cannot be used because of these court actions. But the legal fight is still unfolding. Courts may take months or even years to give a final answer, and it’s possible this could end up at the Supreme Court of the United States 🇺🇸. This highest court has the final say on what the Constitution means and whether executive orders like this can become the law.
Why NAPABA and Other Groups Say Birthright Citizenship Is So Important
Birthright citizenship has been part of U.S. law since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the Civil War. This amendment was meant to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their children were considered citizens, with all the rights that go with it. Over the decades, courts and lawmakers have almost always agreed that being born on U.S. soil is enough to guarantee citizenship.
NAPABA argues that birthright citizenship is not just about immigration law. It’s about fairness, safety, and making sure everyone starts out with the same basic rights. In its public statement, NAPABA writes that taking away this right would hurt families, make more children stateless, and lead to a system where some children have fewer rights than others, based only on their parents’ legal status.
NAPABA also points out that policies like Executive Order 14160 remind many Americans of the country’s painful past. There were times in history, such as the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act or segregation, when the government used laws to treat groups of people unfairly. NAPABA suggests that following through with EO 14160 would be a step backwards, moving away from the country’s promises of equal protection for everyone.
How Does Executive Order 14160 Affect Real People?
Laws about citizenship are not just words on a page—they change people’s lives. If Executive Order 14160 were to go forward, thousands, maybe even more, American-born children would lose their citizenship at birth simply because of their parents’ immigration status or paperwork.
For example:
– A child born in the United States 🇺🇸 to a mother visiting on a tourist visa and a father living outside the United States 🇺🇸, neither of whom are citizens or green card holders, would not be considered a citizen.
– Families could be forced to split up, with children having fewer rights than their peers.
– Children could lose access to public schools, health care, and even the right to reside in the U.S. without threat of removal.
This would make daily life much harder for many families and would likely fuel confusion for government agencies, schools, and hospitals trying to make sense of who does and does not have the right to services.
Long-term Effects and Historical Background
Looking back, many experts say the idea behind birthright citizenship was always to avoid having second-class citizens. In the late 1800s, the United States 🇺🇸 faced big questions about who belonged. When the Supreme Court decided United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, it was seen as a strong message that the country wanted anyone born here to be a full citizen, not one who could be treated unfairly because of their parents.
If Executive Order 14160 were allowed to reshape birthright citizenship, experts fear it could lead to more children growing up without a country. Having no official country means children could be at risk of poverty, unable to get jobs, go to college, or feel safe. It could also revive memories of unfair treatment based on race, background, or family history—something the Constitution was changed to prevent more than 150 years ago.
What Do Other Experts Say?
As reported by VisaVerge.com, the legal debate over birthright citizenship is not new but has rarely reached this level of urgency in modern times. Many legal scholars, civil rights groups, and lawmakers agree that changing this rule through an executive order is a major threat to equal rights. They also warn that letting one president decide who is or is not a citizen could erode trust in the country’s laws and prompt more complicated legal battles in the future.
Supporters of EO 14160 argue that the law has not changed to match today’s reality, knowing that some people travel to the United States 🇺🇸 just to give birth and secure citizenship for their children—a practice sometimes called “birth tourism.” But critics say the answer to such cases is not to discard over a century of legal tradition, especially when it would affect many innocent children who did nothing wrong.
The Ongoing Legal Battle
For now, federal courts continue to review Executive Order 14160, weighing each argument and considering how deeply this issue cuts into the nation’s basic promises to its residents. Any final decision could have sweeping effects on how the United States 🇺🇸 counts its citizens and protects its children. NAPABA, along with groups like the NAACP and hundreds of lawmakers, remains active in the courts and in public, determined to defend birthright citizenship.
Key Takeaways and Next Steps
- Executive Order 14160 marks a large and controversial shift in U.S. policy by trying to change who can get birthright citizenship.
- NAPABA’s amicus brief is part of a major legal and community push to keep birthright citizenship rights as they have always been, based on the Constitution and past court decisions.
- Other big groups, like the NAACP and many members of Congress, have joined the fight, stressing the dangers of making some children less than full citizens.
- So far, federal courts have blocked the executive order, but a final answer may take a long time and could go to the Supreme Court.
- The outcome of this fight will shape the meaning of U.S. citizenship and rights for people born in the country for generations.
If you are concerned about how this legal battle might affect you or your family, it is wise to follow updates on official immigration sites and consult with qualified immigration lawyers who keep up with ongoing changes. NAPABA, as well as other groups mentioned, will likely keep advocating in the courts and the public for a fair and equal system.
In the end, the heart of this debate is about what it means to be American and whether the country will continue to keep its promises to every child born on its land—no matter their background or family history. By defending birthright citizenship, NAPABA and its partners say they are defending the very foundation of fairness and equal protection for all.
Learn Today
Executive Order → A directive issued by the President that manages operations of the federal government, carrying the force of law unless overturned by courts.
Birthright Citizenship → A legal principle granting automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents’ immigration status.
Amicus Brief → An official document submitted by a non-party to provide expertise or insight for the court’s consideration in a case.
Fourteenth Amendment → A constitutional amendment, adopted in 1868, guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.
Preliminary Injunction → A court order temporarily preventing the enforcement of a law or action while legal challenges are being resolved.
This Article in a Nutshell
NAPABA stands at the forefront of a major legal fight against Executive Order 14160, which seeks to rein in birthright citizenship. With sweeping implications for U.S.-born children and decades-old legal precedent, the ongoing case tests not just constitutional law, but the country’s foundational promises of fairness and inclusion.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Rescheduling your U.S. citizenship interview now explained
• Maine Challenges Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
• Hundreds join Boston’s Citizenship Day for legal assistance
• Tennessee Schools May Question Citizenship of Undocumented Students
• More Americans consider Canadian citizenship amid political shifts
