Casual poll: does Trump have the authority to cancel birthright citizenship by EO?

It's essentially a ploy to test the legal strength of the decision which established birthright citizenship. It was always meant to end up in court. I've personally always found the reasoning shaky, as the wording is ambiguous with wiggle room in 'jurisdiction thereof'. To err on the side of 'an amendment passed in the aftermath of the Civil War to make it impossible to refuse citizenship to freed slaves and their progeny was meant to let some 8 months pregnant Chinese woman take a flight to Guam and get citizenship for her child' is insane.

If 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes the children of diplomats, why would it not also exclude those on tourist visas or illegal aliens?

As of 2025, the question of whether a president can cancel birthright citizenship by executive order remains a central legal and constitutional dispute currently before the 

U.S. Supreme Court. 

While President Trump signed Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, to end this practice, its legality is highly contested. 

Status of the Authority

1. Broad Legal Consensus: Most legal scholars and experts maintain that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally end birthright citizenship. Because this right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, changing it typically requires a constitutional amendment, which involves a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
2. Constitutional Basis: The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".
3. Judicial Precedent: For over 125 years, the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark has served as the binding precedent, establishing that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are citizens at birth. 

Current Legal Situation (2025)

1. Executive Order 14160: Signed by Trump on his first day back in office, the order seeks to deny citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil after February 19, 2025, if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
2. Court Challenges: The order was immediately challenged by dozens of states and civil rights groups. Multiple federal judges blocked it, describing it as "blatantly unconstitutional".
3. Supreme Court Review: In December 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine the order's constitutionality. Oral arguments are expected in the spring of 2026, with a final ruling likely by summer 2026.
4. Current Effect: The order is not currently in effect due to ongoing court-ordered blocks. Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. 

Trump seems to think that he has the divine authority to do anything.

And gormless Americans don't or didn't seem to care.

Nonetheless, time will tell and Trump's fate will unravel.

It is my opinion based on my interpretation of current current law with regard to birthright citizenship that this law was written for the slaves that were brought to this country and their children. It does not apply to criminal entry into this country in order to give birth in this country so you can establish an anchor baby.

It does not apply to criminal entry into this country…

Last I checked, people who enter the US illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

Trump seems to think that he has the divine authority to do anything.

Yes, to some, like you, who find it impossible to ignore him. That's on you.

And gormless Americans don't or didn't seem to care.

Yes, to some, like you, who find it impossible to ignore him. That's on you.

Nonetheless, time will tell and Trump's fate will unravel.

As for all of us. Meanwhile, that's an issue for all who, like you, find it impossible to ignore him. That's on you. Meanwhile, you seem to have ignored the question. So be it.

... this law was written for the slaves that were brought to this country and their children.

Show that singular justification to me in the constitutional language. Therefore, it amounts, as most other commentary on interpretation, which itself, is not statutory law, is it? Kind of like finding "separation of church and state" in the language of the 1A, or "privacy" or "separation of powers" in any constitutional language. Yes, these, too, are subject to interpretation, and that is officially a task for the Supreme Court, and not necessarily the rest of us, officially. Should we expect to manage our behavior on interpretation, or should we have more succinct constitutional or statutory law? There is the downside of simply abiding by "precedent."

people who enter the US illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

Only in so far as their infractions of immigration law by crossing the border without required clearance from Border Patrol. Otherwise, they remain subject to the jurisdiction of a nation that is not the United States relative to citizenship, either for themselves or their children, unless in addition to crossing the national border illegally, they commit other crime[s] as well.

Otherwise, they remain subject to the jurisdiction of a nation that is not the United States relative to citizenship,

Jurisdiction isn’t an all or nothing proposition; “you’re either subject to country A or country B”, and even if that were the case it would default to the country you’re actually standing in. What you’re arguing is that being subject to another nation’s laws negates US jurisdiction, the implications of which would be absurd.

Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. 

The question is based upon that which you haven't ignored...And that's on you Faux.

He is struggling like Trump to understand Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. 

Jurisdiction isn’t an all or nothing proposition; “you’re either subject to country A or country B”,

You'd best study US immigration law with regard to a person entering the US illegally. Every country has the right to establish its own immigration law, and they do vary. In the US, the national border is sacred relative to a foreigner entering without appearing before US Border Patrol, even if claiming . Every foreigner in the US by this infraction is subject to be deported by federal law, even if claiming refugee status. If the violator continues into the US beyond the border, they are still subject to deportation. In that respect, the violator is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but they retain their foreign nation citizenship, and therefore, jurisdiction. So, there is concurrent jurisdiction, contrary to your claim.

The question is based upon that which you haven't ignored...And that's on you Faux.

As is my privilege, in the limited scope of the topic; the topic is mine, isn't it?

Well, what use would the topic be if no one else joined in.

I occasionally start threads, and hope that others will join me...Which seems to me to be the purpose of the exercise.

So, there is concurrent jurisdiction, contrary to your claim.

Contrary to my claim? That was my claim. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

So what exactly is your position here? You seem to be shifting back and forth, I was about to explain in plain English why “anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens, but you already said in your OP you thought the EO should be tossed, so please clarify cause I’m finding it difficult to tell if we’re even disagree on anything here.

I disagree. When I launch a Forum topic, I hope for, and expect alternate commentary that differs from mine. I detest the thought of group-think. That's just willing Communism, and that philosophy is a proven failure.

Birthright citizenship in the United States is established as a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, not merely an immigration policy

. It is derived from the principle of jus soli (right of the soil) and has been interpreted by the courts for over a century to apply to almost all individuals born within the country, regardless of their parents' legal status or nationality. 

Constitutional and Legal Basis

1. 14th Amendment: The Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
2. Supreme Court Precedent: The Supreme Court affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The only exceptions are generally children of foreign diplomats and occupying forces. 

Relevance to Immigration

Although birthright citizenship affects the legal status of children of immigrants, it is distinct from immigration law. Efforts to restrict birthright citizenship for children of undocumented or temporary-status parents have been blocked by federal courts based on the 14th Amendment. Courts have indicated that altering this right would necessitate a constitutional amendment or a significant reinterpretation by the Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment was enacted to overturn the Dred Scott decision and guarantee equal rights for all individuals born in the U.S.. 

The current legal understanding is that this constitutionally protected right cannot be changed by ordinary legislation. 

I'll be clear: I oppose birthright citizenship. I do not think...

“anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens,

just as I do not think there is "separation of church and state," because in neither case does the constitutional language say those things. In both cases, that thinking is merely Supreme Court opinion - precedent - which, as I've said, is only treated as statutory law, but is not, but merely interpretation of what is as vague commentary. As I've also said numerous times, when the Court makes precedent, Congress ought to step in to formally legislate a Court precedent to make it law, and allow the political back-and-forth to flesh out all the questions that are, legally, merely talked around in a Court precedent. Rarely, however, does Congress take up the gauntlet to do that. That is one reason why there are eight amendments about voting, and the subject is still highly confused, such as if alien persons in the US can vote just because they are here. Women should have been given the right to vote from direct constitutional language, which, at the time, in Europe, was thought heresy, even though women were considered citizens of those countries. The US, then, followed that paradigm when they were allegedly rebelling from the European model. I've never said the Constitution is a perfect document. It is intended, by Madison's words in the Preamble, to be an effort of a continuously improving "more perfect union."

If, as it is claimed by many, including you, that the 14A was intended to be interpreted as addressing the citizenship of former slaves, I find it curious that the text does not once mention slaves or slavery. By the same token, it should have acknowledged by specific wording that women should be allowed to vote, since slaves were not allowed to vote, but that had to wait for over 50 years to stipulate, while slaves [men] were, upon ratification of the 14A, allowed that privilege [with opposition by the Southern states], even though women were always recognized as citizens.

I'll be clear: I oppose birthright citizenship. I do not think...

“anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens,

just as I do not think there is "separation of church and state," because in neither case does the constitutional language say those things. In both cases, that thinking is merely Supreme Court opinion - precedent - which, as I've said, is only treated as statutory law, but is not, but merely interpretation of what is as vague commentary. As I've also said numerous times, when the Court makes precedent, Congress ought to step in to formally legislate a Court precedent to make it law, and allow the political back-and-forth to flesh out all the questions that are, legally, merely talked around in a Court precedent. Rarely, however, does Congress take up the gauntlet to do that. That is one reason why there are eight amendments about voting [the most amendments about any singular subject], and the subject is still highly confused, such as if alien persons in the US can vote just because they are here. Women should have been given the right to vote from direct constitutional language, which, at the time, in Europe, was thought heresy, even though women were considered citizens of those countries. The US, then, followed that paradigm when they were allegedly rebelling from the European model. I've never said the Constitution is a perfect document. It is intended, by Madison's words in the Preamble, to be an effort of a continuously improving "more perfect union."

If, as it is claimed by many, including you, that the 14A was intended to be interpreted as addressing the citizenship of former slaves, I find it curious that the text does not once mention slaves or slavery. By the same token, it should have acknowledged by specific wording that women should be allowed to vote, since slaves were not allowed to vote, but that had to wait for over 50 years to stipulate, while slaves [men] were, upon ratification of the 14A, allowed that privilege [with opposition by the Southern states], even though women were always recognized as citizens.

Well, my views on communism are well documented.

A debate website will inevitably induce both groupthink/agreement and contention....Such would be the nature of the exercise....Bearing in mind that most issues usually work on a pro/con basis anyway.

And I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "alternate commentary"...As I said, agreement and contention are standard practice and commentary inevitably alternates as more people get on board.

How did you get from U.S.birthright citizenship to your views on communism?

#18 Debs.

Ask Faux.

I do not think...

“anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens,

just as I do not think there is "separation of church and state," because in neither case does the constitutional language say those things.

Ok, so let’s go back to what you said in post #14:

If the violator continues into the US beyond the border, they are still subject to deportation. In that respect, the violator is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but they retain their foreign nation citizenship, and therefore, jurisdiction. So, there is concurrent jurisdiction

And let’s cross that with the 14th amendment;

“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.”

Please square this circle.

You ignored the part where I said it was "my opinion" based on how I interpret the law. The law is whatever the person whose in charge of saying what the law is. Their interpretation could be wrong and I think it is. You will never convince me that coming to this country illegally to give birth to child to establish an anchor baby and say the baby is an American citizen so you can bring the rest of your family here is the correct interpretation of the law. Not now not ever.

The law does not question the motives of the parents. It simply states.

”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.”

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

Is the first conditional of two by the 14A to be a citizen. The foreigner, subject to the jurisdiction of another nation as a citizen; being born here of at least one US citizen parent, or a foreign er who is naturalized [i.e., meets all requirements of legal entry into the U.S. and desires to become a US citizen].

A foreigner who crosses the border illegally [explained in my #14] does not meet the first conditional.

The second condition is being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by a US citizenship perspective.

A foreigner who crosses the border illegally [explained in my #14] does not meet the second conditional.

First plus second failure to meet conditions = not a citizen of the US

Therefore, a child born of parents who do not meet the first and second conditions is not a citizen of the US merely by being born here, since neither parent meets these two conditions.

My commentary of my #28 to you, too.

Idk the specifics of the court mechanics and all that.

I know that blind birthright citizenship is a bit stupid, personally. You need at least 1 additional condition to have the baby be a citizen. For instance, having at least 1 parent who's a long-term resident of the US and has paid taxes would make sense. Alternatively, having blood of a US citizen even if they currently don't reside long-term in US could be a justification.

Either way, to unconditionally give birthright citizenship doesn't make much sense to me. It basically allows enemies to pop over to US, have a baby and then their offspring are full citizens from birth based on no other factor than that. From that point, you've basically only screened the parents enough that you know they aren't a known enemy of US. However, here's where it gets really problematic.

So, let's say you had a known foreign criminal woman and her forgeign husband even more so, they're in US. They are under arrest or detained and have a baby. That baby is now a full citizen of US despite the parents being known criminals, having no loyalty to US at all nor residing there anything close to long-term.

Birthright Citizenship as a flat concept is flawed. It needs to be conditional. What's really interesting is nearly the whole world outside of the Americas (meaning outside North and South America both) don't have birthright citizenship how they do.

Online sources seem ignorant of a few exceptions in Africa as well as Pakistan which uniquely, for Asia, offers unconditional Birthright Citizenship (but it has 1 condition, the father can't be a known enemy of Pakistan, that's the only real condition it has).

The approach of 'born here, okay, you are a citizen' is overall specific to the Americas. Part of why it may be a trait inherent to the Americas is they're founded on invaders feeling indigenous to the land. However, this doesn't explain why Australasia doesn't have this policy.