Trump's Order to End Birthright Citizenship Raises Concerns for AA+PI Communities

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

The January 20, 2025, executive order seeks to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens or non-residents.
A January 23, 2025, court ruling blocked the order, calling it unconstitutional; legal challenges will likely continue for years.
AA+PI communities face risks of increased statelessness, racial profiling, and reduced access to rights if the policy takes effect.

On January 20, 2025, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship in the United States. This measure seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and aims to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the country if their parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. If implemented, this order would fundamentally alter a longstanding principle of American law that has been in place for over 150 years. The legal, social, and human effects of this initiative are already a flashpoint of debate, especially in Asian American and Pacific Islander (AA+PI) communities, which could be deeply impacted.

Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, guarantees that all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The amendment was ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals. For decades, though, this principle has extended to anyone born in the country, creating a vital pathway to inclusion and opportunity for immigrant families, including the AA+PI population.

The executive order’s terms, if enacted, would go into effect on February 19, 2025. Under this policy, children born in the U.S. would no longer automatically gain U.S. citizenship unless at least one parent is a lawful permanent resident or a U.S. citizen. This move has faced swift legal opposition. On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle issued a temporary restraining order against its implementation, declaring it “blatantly unconstitutional.” This decision was in response to a lawsuit filed collaboratively by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The order is expected to face months or years of legal challenges that will shape its ultimate fate.

For AA+PI communities across the country, the stakes are particularly high. Historically, these communities have faced systemic exclusion and barriers to inclusion, often enshrined in law. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, for example, prohibited Chinese immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens, and for years, similar laws barred immigrants from many Asian nations from fully integrating into American society. Birthright citizenship became one of the few guarantees of inclusion for AA+PI communities, particularly after the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, fought for his citizenship rights and won. The court ruled decisively that children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status, are U.S. citizens. This case has been foundational in ensuring the citizenship rights of generations of AA+PI families.

Echoing the significance of this ruling, Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, noted that birthright citizenship has underpinned democracy in the U.S. for over a century. She emphasized its critical role in enabling AA+PI communities to thrive and warned that attempts to dismantle this principle could cause inequity and discrimination to grow. Indeed, many fear that the executive order would create a permanent underclass—individuals born in the U.S. but denied citizenship solely because of their parents’ immigration status.

The ramifications of such a policy could be far-reaching. SangYeob Kim, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Hampshire, emphasized that the order could result in a “multigenerational subclass of people” denied access to full rights and protections. Citizenship is key for accessing basic rights such as public education, healthcare, and employment, as well as political participation. Without it, individuals are at risk of marginalization, disenfranchisement, and limited economic opportunity.

This policy change could also lead to heightened racial profiling and the questioning of citizenship status, even among documented individuals and families. Many in AA+PI communities already endure forms of discrimination due to stereotypes and biases. Adding the uncertainty of citizenship status into this mix could exacerbate issues significantly. Moreover, numerous immigrants arriving on temporary visas to study or work in the U.S., many of whom are part of the AA+PI immigrant population, could find their U.S.-born children denied citizenship. This could deter skilled professionals and students from pursuing opportunities in the U.S., reversing benefits derived from immigration.

Proponents of the executive order argue that the 14th Amendment was designed to guarantee the rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, not to extend citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson stated that the amendment was “never meant to be a loophole” for those seeking to bypass immigration laws. The Department of Justice, defending the order, suggested that birthright citizenship creates a “perverse incentive” for illegal immigration by allowing undocumented parents to remain in the U.S. through their U.S.-born children. They cite the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” included in the 14th Amendment, as grounds for excluding certain groups from automatic citizenship.

However, constitutional scholars and civil rights advocates have strongly pushed back against these interpretations. They argue the language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous: all people born in the United States are citizens, irrespective of the legal status of their parents. If these longstanding interpretations were overturned, millions of individuals, particularly from immigrant communities, could face legal and social ramifications.

The potential for creating stateless individuals is another significant issue raised by critics of the order. Statelessness refers to the condition of not being considered a citizen by any country. If children born in the U.S. are denied citizenship and their parents cannot confer their citizenship to them, some children may end up stateless. Stateless individuals often live on the margins of society, denied basic identification documents or legal protections.

International legal norms frown upon policies that lead to statelessness. Global treaties, such as the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, encourage countries to prevent such outcomes. If the U.S. adopts policies creating stateless individuals, it could face international criticism and legal challenges. Impacts on diplomacy, international relations, and human rights commitments would likely follow.

Despite these far-reaching implications, the ultimate fate of the executive order remains uncertain. Discussions about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship could eventually land in front of the Supreme Court, which now has a 6-3 conservative majority. Legal experts believe that how this court interprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” could fundamentally redefine citizenship laws in the U.S.

As legal battles continue, advocacy groups and community organizations are taking steps to mitigate potential harm to AA+PI communities. The ACLU, alongside state affiliates and immigrant rights organizations, has challenged the executive order in court, seeking its invalidation. These groups argue it runs afoul of constitutional protections and risks long-lasting harm to immigrant populations. Community leaders are also stressing the importance of documenting family histories, obtaining legal advice, and staying informed about rights through trusted sources like VisaVerge.com.

Practical effects of the policy, if implemented, could further burden AA+PI families, making it harder to obtain documentation, enroll children in schools, or access public services. With potential deportations and family separations looming, the emotional and social strain on affected families would be profound.

The challenges facing AA+PI communities in the midst of these legal and policy shifts highlight the urgency of safeguarding constitutional principles like birthright citizenship. These principles have enabled immigrant families to integrate, contribute, and flourish in the U.S. for decades. As this issue unfolds, the future of these communities—and of American citizenship itself—remains in the balance.

For official updates on citizenship policies and rights, readers can refer to resources provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) at uscis.gov.

Learn Today

Birthright citizenship → A legal principle granting citizenship to anyone born on a country’s soil, regardless of parents’ legal status.
14th Amendment → A U.S. constitutional amendment ensuring citizenship to all born or naturalized in the U.S., ratified in 1868.
Statelessness → The condition of being unrecognized as a citizen by any country, often leading to lack of legal protections and rights.
Temporary restraining order → A short-term legal ruling to prevent the enforcement of a policy or action pending further court decisions.
Chinese Exclusion Act → An 1882 U.S. law prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming citizens, symbolizing historical discrimination against Asian immigrants.

This Article in a Nutshell

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order challenging birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. If enacted, millions—particularly in immigrant communities—could lose automatic citizenship. Critics warn of statelessness, inequity, and legal chaos. As court battles mount, this policy tests America’s commitment to its core principles of inclusion and equality.
— By VisaVerge.com