SC Attorney General Supports Move to End Birthright Citizenship

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Executive Order 14160, signed on January 20, 2025, seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of unlawfully present or temporary visa holders.
• The order challenges the 14th Amendment and legal precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), prompting immediate legal opposition.
• A preliminary injunction was issued on February 5, 2025, blocking the order’s implementation; Supreme Court review is widely expected.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, an action aimed squarely at ending birthright citizenship for specific groups of individuals born in the United States. This decision has reignited fierce national debates on immigration, constitutional law, and the rights of individuals under the 14th Amendment. The executive measure has drawn both applause and condemnation, highlighting the sharp divides within the country on questions of national sovereignty and inclusivity. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has emerged as one of the most ardent defenders of this order, joining a growing chorus of conservative voices pushing for its implementation.

A Look at Birthright Citizenship in America

SC Attorney General Supports Move to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), is a cornerstone of American immigration law, enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Ratified in 1868 during the Reconstruction era, the amendment was primarily intended to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. The Citizenship Clause explicitly reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This clear language sought to ensure that no individual born on U.S. soil could be excluded from the privileges of citizenship.

The legal foundation for birthright citizenship was cemented by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In this landmark judgment, the Court ruled that the children of non-citizens born in the United States were entitled to U.S. citizenship, except for limited cases such as those of foreign diplomats. This precedent has remained largely uncontested, forming the backbone of citizenship law for more than a century.

Executive Order 14160 challenges this legal fabric, proposing significant restrictions on who is eligible for automatic citizenship. The order stipulates that children born to parents who are unlawfully present in the U.S., or those residing temporarily on visas such as student or work permits, will no longer obtain citizenship by birth. If implemented, this directive would strike at the heart of the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, reshaping the way citizenship is granted.

The Trump Administration’s Arguments

President Trump’s administration has justified Executive Order 14160 as a necessary reform to maintain the integrity of U.S. citizenship laws. The administration contends that the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment serves as an incentive for unauthorized immigration. Critics of birthright citizenship often characterize it as facilitating what they call the “anchor baby” loophole, creating a pathway for undocumented immigrants to secure a foothold in the country through their U.S.-born children.

Advocates of the executive order argue that the wording “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment provides room for redefinition. They assert that Congress or the executive branch can further clarify its scope, arguing that automatic citizenship should not extend to children of individuals who lack lawful status or reside in the U.S. on temporary grounds. Proponents believe this reinterpretation would lead to a more controlled immigration system, helping to uphold the principles of fairness for legal residents and taxpayers.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s Backing

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has positioned himself as one of the staunchest allies in support of Executive Order 14160. On February 3, 2025, Wilson joined 17 other state attorneys general by filing a legal brief in favor of the executive action. He argued that the current application of the 14th Amendment has strayed from its original intent, which was solely to provide citizenship to the formerly enslaved and their descendants.

Wilson emphasized that extending birthright citizenship to individuals on temporary visas or without legal status is a misuse of the amendment’s provisions. His remarks referenced the amendment’s historical roots, arguing that the challenges of modern immigration have turned birthright citizenship into a tool for exploiting the U.S. immigration system, rather than ensuring equality. Wilson’s strongly worded public statements reflect the growing sentiment among conservative leaders that legacy interpretations of the 14th Amendment are due for a change.

Sharp Divisions Emerge

The introduction of Executive Order 14160 has triggered heated reactions on both sides of the political spectrum. Supporters, many of whom are from conservative states, have praised the measure as a bold step toward reforming an immigration system they view as broken. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham lauded President Trump for addressing what he called an “outdated” policy, arguing that the modern application of birthright citizenship invites abuse and jeopardizes the rule of law.

However, opposition to the order has been swift and resolute. Legal experts, civil rights groups, and Democratic leaders have denounced it as an unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has vowed to challenge the executive order in court, asserting that it infringes on constitutional guarantees and misinterprets over a century of legal precedent. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have criticized the measure as discriminatory, warning that its enforcement could leave thousands of U.S.-born children stateless.

Legal Challenges: An Uncertain Path Ahead

As expected, Executive Order 14160 has faced immediate legal obstacles. On the very day the order was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, arguing that the directive violates the 14th Amendment’s explicit language and Supreme Court decisions like Wong Kim Ark. Just weeks later, on February 5, 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the order. In her decision, Boardman emphasized that the order contradicts established constitutional law and is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.

The legal battle over Executive Order 14160 is now moving through the federal court system, and experts widely anticipate that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually hear the case. If it reaches the high court, the outcome could have seismic effects on not only immigration policy but also the scope of executive power in interpreting constitutional provisions.

Broader Consequences of the Debate

The controversy surrounding Executive Order 14160 highlights the multifaceted implications of altering birthright citizenship. Legally, it raises profound questions about the durability of constitutional precedent and the limits of executive authority. Could a president unilaterally reinterpret core constitutional rights? The resolution of these questions will influence America’s legal framework for generations.

Socially, the impact of restricting birthright citizenship could be devastating. Critics warn that such a policy could create a class of stateless individuals—children born in the U.S. but denied legal recognition either in America or their parents’ home countries. This could lead to restricted access to vital services, fostering inequality and social instability.

Politically, the push to redefine birthright citizenship has intensified divisions over immigration and national identity. For some, it signals a reclaiming of national sovereignty and a step toward reforming flawed immigration policies. For others, it represents a betrayal of fundamental American values, including inclusivity and equal rights for all.

Final Thoughts

As South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s strong support of Executive Order 14160 demonstrates, the fight over birthright citizenship is more than a legal dispute—it is a reflection of deeper ideological divisions within the United States. The outcome of the lawsuits, and possibly a future Supreme Court ruling, will not only determine the fate of this particular executive order but also shape how America views citizenship, migration, and constitutional limits in the years ahead. For accurate, up-to-date details on legal matters affected by this issue, readers can refer to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) official website. Analysis from VisaVerge.com underscores that this legal battle is among the most pivotal in shaping modern immigration policy, ensuring its reverberations will be felt far beyond 2025.

Learn Today

Birthright Citizenship → Automatic granting of citizenship to individuals born within a country’s borders, irrespective of parents’ immigration status.
Executive Order → A directive issued by the U.S. President that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law.
14th Amendment → A constitutional amendment guaranteeing citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the U.S., ensuring equal legal protections.
Jurisdiction → Legal authority or control over individuals or matters; in this context, determines eligibility for U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Stateless → A condition in which an individual is not recognized as a citizen by any country, lacking legal rights and protections.

This Article in a Nutshell

The Birthright Citizenship Debate: Redefining America’s Identity

Executive Order 14160 challenges birthright citizenship, sparking legal battles and fierce debates on immigration and constitutional rights. Its outcome could reshape U.S. citizenship laws, creating stateless individuals or redefining national identity. As legal experts and leaders clash, the stakes are high—balancing sovereignty, inclusivity, and the enduring promise of the 14th Amendment.