Amid plans to reshape a fundamental aspect of American citizenship, President-elect Donald Trump faces a thorny path through legal challenges and internal party debate.

According to the Hill, Donald Trump has declared his intention to terminate birthright citizenship, a move that could significantly alter U.S. immigration policy and the application of the 14th Amendment.

Trump's proposal targets the constitutional provision granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. This stance has ignited discussions across political and legal spectrums, emphasizing the historical gravity of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

Legal experts and historians underscore that the amendment clearly allows birthright citizenship, making the president-elect's goal to change it via executive order a complicated endeavor. Critics argue that such a move would require a constitutional amendment.

In an interview with NBC, Trump highlighted his belief that merely setting foot on U.S. soil should not automatically confer citizenship. He proposed seeking a constitutional change or exploring other legislative avenues to amend the current practice.

Republican Figures Show Varied Support for Trump's Citizenship Plan

While some Republican figures, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, have voiced support for ending birthright citizenship, concerns about its legality persist. They stress the potential for extensive legal battles should Trump proceed without congressional approval.

Additionally, the notion of birthright citizenship is not unique to the United States; nations such as Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Peru share similar policies, raising questions about the implications of such a significant policy shift.

Debate also surrounds the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, with some claiming it has been misapplied to children of undocumented immigrants. However, substantial legal consensus holds that the amendment's language is explicit and inclusive.

Legal Scholars Firm on Constitutional Clarity

Jessica Levinson, a respected law professor, firmly stated, "You can't ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order." Her position is echoed by Ilya Somin of the Cato Institute who remarked that the protection of birthright citizenship extends to all children born in the U.S., irrespective of their parents' immigration status.

Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, initially supported birthright citizenship through his judicial opinions. However, he later nuanced his stance to exclude scenarios involving war or invasion, illustrating the complexities of the issue.

Trump has indicated a readiness to work across the aisle, particularly regarding legislation for Dreamers—immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. He acknowledges their profound ties to America, noting many do not speak the language of their countries of origin.

Internal GOP Debate Over Citizenship and Dreamers

The Republican party remains divided on the issue of birthright citizenship and how to address the legal status of Dreamers. This division reflects broader discussions about immigration policy and constitutional rights within the party.

Mike Howell from the Heritage Foundation argued in 2020 that the president could indeed modify birthright citizenship practices through an executive directive to federal agencies, concerning the issuance of passports and government benefits.

On the other hand, former Bush administration officials and Senator Mike Lee have suggested that Congress could clarify the terms under which birthright citizenship is granted, specifically regarding children born to undocumented immigrants.

Political and Legal Implications of Changing Citizenship Laws

The potential political ramifications of altering birthright citizenship are significant. Observers note that any changes could influence voter perceptions and impact the political landscape, particularly among immigrant communities and their advocates.

Legal challenges are anticipated if Trump attempts to enact his plan without constitutional amendments. These challenges could set precedent-setting legal battles, with implications for the interpretation of constitutional rights and the scope of executive power.

As the debate unfolds, all eyes will be on how Trump navigates these legal and political hurdles, with the future of U.S. citizenship and immigration laws hanging in the balance.