President-elect Donald Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to ending birthright citizenship — and it’s something he’d like to accomplish on Day One. 

“We’re going to have to get it changed,” he recently said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it. ... Yes, we’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.” 

For Trump and other prominent Republicans, eliminating automatic citizenship for individuals born within U.S. territory irrespective of the legal status of their parents is a crucial component of solving the illegal immigration crisis and securing the southern border. Proponents of repeal believe it motivates migrants to cross illegally and give birth to “anchor babies” so that they become unremovable. Opponents, however, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), warn of the threats to the human dignity of the innocent children involved. In particular, opponents argue that ending birthright citizenship will create an underclass of “stateless” children. Many legal experts are doubtful that ending the practice will succeed, but the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court makes repeal a possibility, however remote.  

In a statement to the Register, Chieko Noguchi, spokeswoman for the bishops’ conference, reiterated the USCCB’s commitment to comprehensive immigration reform. 

“We’re aware of various proposals being discussed related to immigration,” she said. “The USCCB remains committed to a just reform of our broken immigration system that promotes both the common good and the dignity of the human person.” 

 

What Is Birthright Citizenship? 

Individuals are commonly granted citizenship by countries in one of two ways — and sometimes both. The first is known as “citizenship by descent,” which confers citizenship to individuals based on the citizenship of his or her parents. The other, which Trump is seeking to end in the U.S., is “citizenship by birth,” which is granted to individuals born within a country’s territorial boundaries.  

Birthright citizenship is currently guaranteed through the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The clause, passed following the Civil War in 1868, was meant to reverse the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied birthright citizenship to U.S.-born persons of African descent.  

In the proceeding century and a half, courts have upheld an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that grants persons born within the nation’s boundaries with automatic citizenship, including the children of unauthorized immigrants and foreign nationals. 

According to a 2020 study from Syracuse University, roughly 250,000 children are born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrant parents each year.  

 

The Case for Repeal 

However, Trump and his allies hold that the 14th Amendment is being misapplied in this instance. Illegal immigrants, they believe, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and, as such, their children should not be granted birthright citizenship. Vice President-elect JD Vance co-sponsored a Senate bill in June that would make children of illegal immigrants, terrorists and foreign spies ineligible for birthright citizenship. They also contend that the promise of birthright citizenship serves as a magnet for illegal immigration, which further exacerbates the crisis.  

According to Ken Cuccinelli, former deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), repealing birthright citizenship is a matter of practical necessity for a country already containing tens of millions of undocumented aliens. 

“Ending birthright citizenship eliminates an extremely important motive for illegal aliens to violate our laws and come here so their children born here will be American citizens,” Cuccinelli told the Register. “In turn, they hope to benefit from those children as ‘anchor babies’ so they will, they hope, be unremovable.” 

Other “America First” thinkers have argued that birthright citizenship poses a significant national security threat. A 2019 case in which a Chinese national pled guilty to operating a “birth tourism” scheme that charged wealthy Chinese clients, some of whom were government officials, tens of millions of dollars in exchange for helping them give birth on U.S. soil, is often cited as just cause for ending the practice.   

“Any nation that purports to be based on the rule of law simply cannot allow itself to be so terribly abused by foreign invaders breaking our laws for so long,” said Cuccinelli. 

 

Moral Challenges 

The question of ending birthright citizenship — and of reforming America’s broken immigration system in general — presents moral dilemmas for American Catholics. On the one hand, the rule of law must be ensured, while, on the other, human dignity must always be respected and the interests of the family must always be considered.  

According to the USCCB, ending birthright citizenship is morally problematic because it would potentially punish innocent children.   

“The Church opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship because it would render innocent children stateless, depriving them of the ability to thrive in their communities and reach their full potential,” the USCCB website reads. “The Church believes that a repeal of birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass in U.S. society, contravening U.S. democratic tradition; undermining the human dignity of innocent children who would be punished though they did nothing wrong; and ultimately weakening the family.” 

But for Cuccinelli, who is an outspoken Catholic, the U.S. already fulfills its moral obligation regarding immigration irrespective of birthright citizenship. He also believes that illegal migrants should be held morally responsible for violating American laws and customs.  

“From my perspective, America is already arguably the most generous nation on earth in terms of the legal immigration we allow, as the Catechism calls on nations like ours to be. We fulfill that moral expectation,” he said. “However, the millions of illegal aliens invading our country violate the Catechism’s other half of that bargain, namely, that they respect the laws and customs of this country.” 

Kristin Heyer, professor of theological ethics at Boston College, believes that, in addition to being morally dubious, repealing birthright citizenship won’t have the desired effect on illegal immigration. She also believes the efforts come from a rise in “nativist populism” and “an opportunistic politics of exclusion.” 

"The framing of birthright citizenship as an incentive for undocumented immigration does not reflect the reality that most immigrants come to the United States seeking labor opportunities or freedom from violence,” Heyer told the Register. “The Catholic commitment to universal human dignity supports equal treatment for all born on U.S. soil and conflicts with the scapegoating or stigmatizing of so-called ‘anchor babies.’” 

 

Possible Routes 

Despite Trump’s insistence that “we’re the only country that has” birthright citizenship in his interview on Meet the Press, many countries around the world offer it, including Canada, France, and nearly every country in South America.  

Reports indicate that Trump’s team is preparing a plan to restrict the practice through executive orders, which will inevitably be challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. Through executive order, Trump could direct the State Department to withhold passports from children of undocumented aliens and the Social Security Administration to withhold Social Security numbers.  

According to Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, Trump’s plan to act through executive order will ultimately fail despite the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court. That’s because the language of the Citizenship Clause in question — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — includes both persons of legal and illegal status. A different interpretation of the clause would mean that the U.S. government didn’t have legal power over tourists or illegal immigrants, which he believes it certainly does.  

When asked what Trump would need to do from a legal standpoint, Nowrasteh told the Register that he “would need a constitutional amendment to overturn 400-plus years of common law and about 150 years of the 14th Amendment. Then Congress would need to pass a law on only that. Trump may try with an executive order, but he’ll fail if he does.” 

But not all experts agree. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal and judicial studies fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described the likely course of events to Politico in the following way:  

“What will happen is, the government will get sued, and it’ll go up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll finally get a final decision on this issue,” he said. “The last case on this was 1898, so it’s a very long time ago. And I actually think when the Supreme Court looks at this, they will realize and uphold what Trump does.”