The story so far:

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld birthright citizenship provided under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The SCOTUS struck down President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (E0) 14160, which sought to end unconditional birthright citizenship that the U.S. grants. With the 6-3 judgment, anyone who is born on U.S. soil becomes a citizen, regardless of the status of their parents. Exceptions include children of foreign diplomats and invading militaries.

What did Trump’s executive order say?

Mr. Trump’s EO directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship-recognising documents — social security numbers and passports — to children born after February 19, 2025 (i) to mothers unlawfully present when the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, or (ii) to mothers lawfully but temporarily present (students, tourists, guest workers) when the father was not a citizen or permanent resident.

What provisions of the U.S. legal system allow and protect birthright citizenship?

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, says “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 1952, is the foundational body of U.S. citizenship and immigration law, which draws from the above constitutional provision with regard to birthright citizenship. The INA declares that a person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen “at birth.” Among the questions that SCOTUS examined was whether birthright citizenship is only a statutory guarantee or both statutory and constitutional. One of the judges who struck down the EO — Justice Brett Kavanaugh — limited it as a statutory question.

How and when did birthright citizenship become a political issue in the U.S.?

It was Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign that put the spotlight on birthright citizenship as a question of population management. This was in the broader context of the anti-immigration politics, a central concern of the politics of the ‘Make American Great Again’ (MAGA) movement. In fact, when the Court heard the oral arguments in the case on April 1, 2026, Mr. Trump was personally present. This showed how critical this was to his politics of influencing the population composition of the country.

But before it was adapted by Mr. Trump, birthright citizenship was more a concern of Democrats, who are traditionally more anti-immigrant than Republicans. Democratic Senator Harry Reid’s 1993 Immigration Stabilization Act proposed a narrower reading of the 14th Amendment. The argument against birthright citizenship is based on the assumption that a large number of non-citizens — both authorised residents (such as visa holders) and unauthorised residents (including illegal immigrants) — were having children who would automatically become citizens at birth.

What do numbers suggest about children born to non-citizens in the U.S.?

It has been estimated that births to unauthorised immigrant mothers rose from roughly 1.2 lakh in 1990 (about 3% of all U.S. births) to a peak of approximately 3.7 lakh-3.9 lakh in 2006-2007 (roughly 9% of all U.S. births.) This growth mirrored the tripling of the unauthorised immigrant population between 1990 and 2007.

After the 2008 financial crisis, the trend reversed. By 2016, births to unauthorised immigrant mothers had fallen about 36% from the 2007 peak, to roughly 2.5 lakh (about 6% of that year’s U.S. births in total).

Pew Research Center’s most recent analysis found that births to unauthorised or temporary-status immigrant mothers grew rapidly again between 2019 and 2023, reaching an estimated 9% of all U.S. births in 2023.

What is the argument against birthright citizenship?

Apart from its place within the broader anti-immigration politics of the MAGA movement, opposition to birthright citizenship is also rooted in allegations of its misuse. An entire industry of ‘birth tourism’ facilitates expectant foreigners to give birth in the U.S. Opponents also say the 14th Amendment provision was meant to address the citizenship status of freed slaves; it cannot apply universally and unconditionally in the changed circumstances. The SCOTUS held that the text of the Constitution is clear, and changes in circumstances can’t justify new meanings to it.

What is the link between slavery and birthright citizenship in the U.S.?

The evolution of the U.S. citizenship regime is closely linked to slavery and racism in the country. In the original Constitution of the U.S., there was no definition of the word citizen; instead, citizenship was guided by multiple factors. In practice, citizenship depended on the laws of individual States governing civil and political rights, including voting and property ownership. The Federal Naturalisation Act, 1790, made it clear that only “free white persons” can be eligible. The result was varied practices across the U.S.: in northern States, free Black residents had some rights including voting rights, but in southern States, citizenship was denied to them.

This changed in 1857, when the Supreme Court held that no Black person can ever be a citizen of the U.S; and that the political community established by the Constitution did not include them at all. . This followed a plea by an enslaved Black man, Dred Scott, for freedom. In 1865, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, but the 1857 judgment stood as law, making the citizenship status of freed slaves ambiguous.

In 1866, the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress, legislating that any person born in the country is a citizen. President Andre Johnson vetoed it; and Congress overturned the veto. To pre-empt a future Congress or a future President from overturning it, the principle of birthright citizenship was written into the Constitution in 1868, as part of the 14th Amendment.

How did that link play in the current case?

The Trump administration argued that birthright citizenship was a remedy for the specific situation of former slaves, and the provision must be read with that narrow view.

The majority judgment took the position that the framers deliberately chose sweeping, universal language so the promise wouldn’t be limited to one group or vulnerable to a future court narrowing it the way the judgment in Dred Scott had narrowed citizenship before.

What can we expect next?

The Trump administration has said it will pursue a legislative path to end birthright citizenship, but the move will not have enough support for a constitutional amendment in the U.S. Congress. The administration argues that an ordinary statute can achieve the objective but that is contested. For now, birthright citizenship will continue, but so will the political slugfest over it.

Published – July 05, 2026 06:35 am IST

Demonstrators hold letters making up the slogan “Born in the USA = citizen!” outside the U.S. Supreme Court building. File.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

New Delhi:

US President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship for children of temporary visa holders was a bolt from the blue for immigrants, especially Indians, in America. Although on hold for now after a legal challenge, the policy has left thousands of Indians, expecting to be parents shortly, in limbo.

For Indian professionals on H-1B visas, the impact is huge. Many assumed their US-born children would automatically get citizenship, but the order now threatens to upend those expectations.

“This impacts us directly,” said Akshay Pise, an Indian engineer in San Jose, California, whose wife, Neha Satpute, is due this month. “If the order takes effect, we don’t know what comes next – it’s uncharted territory,” he told BBC.

With their due date approaching, the couple briefly considered inducing labour early but decided against it. “I want the natural process to take its course,” said Ms Satpute. Mr Pise added, “My priority is safe delivery and my wife’s health. Citizenship comes second.”

The panic has led to reports of parents going for early C-sections to secure their child’s US citizenship. But Satheesh Kathula, president of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), advised against it. “In a country with strict medical laws, I strongly advise against preterm C-sections just for citizenship,” he said.

San Jose resident Priyanshi Jajoo, expecting in April, told BBC, “Do we need to contact the Indian consulate for a passport? What visa applies? There’s no clear information.”

New York-based immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta said, “US law has no provision for granting non-immigrant status to a person born here.” Without birthright citizenship, children of H-1B holders could face legal uncertainty.

Ms Satpute said the uncertainty is stressful. “Pregnancy is stressful enough, but we thought after a decade here it would get easier – then this happens on top of everything.” Her husband said they were legal, tax-paying immigrants, and the baby deserved US citizenship. 

“It’s been the law, right?” he said.

Indians, the second-largest immigrant group in the US, would be among the most affected by the order. Over five million hold non-immigrant visas, and under the new rule, their US-born children would no longer receive citizenship.

“Indians face the longest green card backlog of any nationality,” said immigration policy analyst Sneha Puri. Current laws limit green cards to 7 per cent per country, and with Indians receiving 72 per cent of H-1B visas each year, the backlog has grown to 1.1 million.

Cato Institute’s immigration director, David Bier, warned, “New Indian applicants face a lifetime wait, with 4 lakh likely to die before getting a green card.”

The order also affects undocumented immigrants, ending birthright citizenship for their US-born children, who could previously sponsor their parents for a green card at 21.

Estimates on undocumented Indians vary – Pew Research says 7.25 lakh, while the Migration Policy Institute estimates 3.75 lakh.

For Indians on H-1B or O visas, the biggest concern is their children’s future. Visa holders must leave the US for visa stamping, often facing delays. Many worry their kids will face the same struggles.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House on January 20, 2025.
| Photo Credit: AP

The story so far: In the gale of executive orders announced after Donald Trump assumed office for a second term, the President issued one diluting birthright citizenship, which has been written into the U.S. Constitution since 1866. The order has been challenged in court in more than 20 States and a federal judge has temporarily blocked it. If implemented, it will mean that children born to illegal immigrants — as well as those legally in the U.S. on temporary visas for study, work or tourism purposes — will not be eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship. At least one parent must now be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, the order says.

What is the history of birthright citizenship?

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was enacted in 1866, against the backdrop of the Civil War which had just ended, and was an effort to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. It was meant to overturn the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1857 in Dred Scott vs Sandford, which held that enslaved people brought to the U.S. and their descendents could not be citizens of the country.

The principle was challenged in the 1890s, a time of rising anti-immigrant sentiment, when Wong Kim Ark, born in the U.S. as the son of Chinese nationals, went to visit relatives in China and was denied re-entry into the U.S. on the grounds that he was not an American citizen. In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld his citizenship, establishing that “every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States”. Over a century later, Mr. Trump is seeking to contest the court’s interpretation of “jurisdiction”, arguing in his executive order that the children of those “unlawfully present”, or whose residence in the U.S. is “lawful but temporary”, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. His supporters rail against the practice of birth tourism, or anchor babies, where foreign nationals seek to give birth in the U.S., in the hope that those babies will be able to help their families migrate to the country as well.

How do citizenship laws vary elsewhere?

The U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (the right of soil), based on geography regardless of parental citizenship, as opposed to jus sanguinis (the right of blood), which gives citizenship based on the nationality of the child’s parents. According to the CIA’s World Factbook, there are only 37 countries which currently enforce the jus soli principle, of which 29 are in the Americas. Of the other eight, two are in India’s neighbourhood: Nepal and Pakistan, though the latter introduced a Bill seeking to end this.

Jus soli historically allowed colonisers to quickly outnumber native populations as citizens. “Countries that have traditionally built their national character through diverse immigrant populations have used jus soli as a way of integrating diversity into the common stream of nationhood,” says Amitabh Mattoo, dean of the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, adding that countries protective of their culture and identity have generally followed the principle of jus sanguinis. Jus soli derives from English common law and, until anti-migrant backlash a few decades ago, was implemented in the U.K. and most of its former colonies, including India.

India offered automatic citizenship to all those born on Indian soil before 1987. Introducing the Citizenship Bill in Parliament in 1955, then-Home Minister Govind Ballabh Pant said, “The mere fact of birth in India invests with it the right of citizenship in India…we have taken a cosmopolitan view and it is in accordance with the spirit of the times, with the temper and atmosphere which we wish to promote in the civilised world.” Three decades later, sentiments had changed, in the wake of unrest in Assam due to increasing migration from Bangladesh as well as the influx of refugees from Sri Lanka, following the civil war there. “The time has come to tighten up our citizenship laws…We cannot be generous at the cost of our own people, at the cost of our own development,” said P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, while introducing the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha in 1986.

Will the order affect Indian immigrants?

“America once considered itself a melting pot, welcoming immigrants to become citizens, but has lately abandoned that metaphor for the salad bowl of distinct ethnicities. The rise of identity politics as well as political Islam has led to this desire to redefine citizenship,” says Professor Mattoo. “It will certainly result in reduced immigration, both legal and illegal.”

Of the 47.8 million immigrants living in the U.S. in 2023, 2.8 million were born in India, the second-largest group after those born in Mexico, according to data analysed by the Pew Research Center. About 1,45,000 people born in India are estimated to have arrived in the U.S. in 2022, legally and illegally. There are estimated to be 7,25,000 illegal immigrants from India living in the U.S. Every year, more than 70% of H1B visas — a temporary work visa that is often seen as a pathway to permanent residency — are issued to Indian citizens. There are more than 3,30,000 Indians in the U.S. on student visas, many of whom hope to apply for permanent residency. Over a million Indians, including dependents, are also waiting for employment-based green cards. For many of them, Mr. Trump’s order comes as a blow. Reports have emerged of dozens of pregnant women on temporary visas seeking to give birth prematurely before the order comes into effect, so their children can be born as U.S. citizens.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House on January 20, 2025.
| Photo Credit: AP

The story so far: In the gale of executive orders announced after Donald Trump assumed office for a second term, the President issued one diluting birthright citizenship, which has been written into the U.S. Constitution since 1866. The order has been challenged in court in more than 20 States and a federal judge has temporarily blocked it. If implemented, it will mean that children born to illegal immigrants — as well as those legally in the U.S. on temporary visas for study, work or tourism purposes — will not be eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship. At least one parent must now be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, the order says.

What is the history of birthright citizenship?

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was enacted in 1866, against the backdrop of the Civil War which had just ended, and was an effort to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. It was meant to overturn the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1857 in Dred Scott vs Sandford, which held that enslaved people brought to the U.S. and their descendents could not be citizens of the country.

The principle was challenged in the 1890s, a time of rising anti-immigrant sentiment, when Wong Kim Ark, born in the U.S. as the son of Chinese nationals, went to visit relatives in China and was denied re-entry into the U.S. on the grounds that he was not an American citizen. In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld his citizenship, establishing that “every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States”. Over a century later, Mr. Trump is seeking to contest the court’s interpretation of “jurisdiction”, arguing in his executive order that the children of those “unlawfully present”, or whose residence in the U.S. is “lawful but temporary”, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. His supporters rail against the practice of birth tourism, or anchor babies, where foreign nationals seek to give birth in the U.S., in the hope that those babies will be able to help their families migrate to the country as well.

How do citizenship laws vary elsewhere?

The U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (the right of soil), based on geography regardless of parental citizenship, as opposed to jus sanguinis (the right of blood), which gives citizenship based on the nationality of the child’s parents. According to the CIA’s World Factbook, there are only 37 countries which currently enforce the jus soli principle, of which 29 are in the Americas. Of the other eight, two are in India’s neighbourhood: Nepal and Pakistan, though the latter introduced a Bill seeking to end this.

Jus soli historically allowed colonisers to quickly outnumber native populations as citizens. “Countries that have traditionally built their national character through diverse immigrant populations have used jus soli as a way of integrating diversity into the common stream of nationhood,” says Amitabh Mattoo, dean of the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, adding that countries protective of their culture and identity have generally followed the principle of jus sanguinis. Jus soli derives from English common law and, until anti-migrant backlash a few decades ago, was implemented in the U.K. and most of its former colonies, including India.

India offered automatic citizenship to all those born on Indian soil before 1987. Introducing the Citizenship Bill in Parliament in 1955, then-Home Minister Govind Ballabh Pant said, “The mere fact of birth in India invests with it the right of citizenship in India…we have taken a cosmopolitan view and it is in accordance with the spirit of the times, with the temper and atmosphere which we wish to promote in the civilised world.” Three decades later, sentiments had changed, in the wake of unrest in Assam due to increasing migration from Bangladesh as well as the influx of refugees from Sri Lanka, following the civil war there. “The time has come to tighten up our citizenship laws…We cannot be generous at the cost of our own people, at the cost of our own development,” said P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, while introducing the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha in 1986.

Will the order affect Indian immigrants?

“America once considered itself a melting pot, welcoming immigrants to become citizens, but has lately abandoned that metaphor for the salad bowl of distinct ethnicities. The rise of identity politics as well as political Islam has led to this desire to redefine citizenship,” says Professor Mattoo. “It will certainly result in reduced immigration, both legal and illegal.”

Of the 47.8 million immigrants living in the U.S. in 2023, 2.8 million were born in India, the second-largest group after those born in Mexico, according to data analysed by the Pew Research Center. About 1,45,000 people born in India are estimated to have arrived in the U.S. in 2022, legally and illegally. There are estimated to be 7,25,000 illegal immigrants from India living in the U.S. Every year, more than 70% of H1B visas — a temporary work visa that is often seen as a pathway to permanent residency — are issued to Indian citizens. There are more than 3,30,000 Indians in the U.S. on student visas, many of whom hope to apply for permanent residency. Over a million Indians, including dependents, are also waiting for employment-based green cards. For many of them, Mr. Trump’s order comes as a blow. Reports have emerged of dozens of pregnant women on temporary visas seeking to give birth prematurely before the order comes into effect, so their children can be born as U.S. citizens.

Washington:

The debate over birthright citizenship has been rekindled, with President Donald Trump at the forefront. Trump has consistently argued that this provision was originally intended to benefit the children of slaves, not to provide a blanket opportunity for individuals worldwide to claim US citizenship.

“Birthright citizenship was, if you look back when this was passed and made, that was meant for the children of slaves. This was not meant for the whole world to come in and pile into the United States of America,” Trump made the statement in the Oval Office of the White House.

“Everybody coming in, and totally unqualified people with perhaps unqualified children. This wasn’t meant for that,” he said.

Trump emphasised that birthright citizenship was “meant for the children of slaves” and deemed it a “very good and noble” provision. However, he stressed that it was not intended for the global community to exploit. Trump asserted, “I’m in favor of that 100 per cent. But it wasn’t meant for the entire world to occupy the United States”.

The President’s stance on this issue has been consistent, and he’s taken concrete steps to challenge the status quo. On his first day in office, he issued an executive order aimed at revoking birthright citizenship, although it was swiftly struck down by a federal court in Seattle. Trump expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would ultimately rule in his favor.

Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Katie Britt have introduced a bill that aligns with Trump’s views. The proposed legislation, titled the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, aims to restrict birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants and non-immigrants on temporary visas. The senators argue that the current policy is a significant draw for illegal immigration and poses a threat to national security.

The US is one of only 33 countries that do not impose restrictions on birthright citizenship. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, approximately 225,000 to 250,000 births in the US in 2023 were to illegal immigrants, accounting for nearly seven percent of total births.

The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 proposes to redefine eligibility criteria for citizenship by birth, limiting it to children with at least one parent who is a US citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident, or an alien serving in the armed forces. This legislation would only apply to children born after its enactment.
 

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office at the White House, on January 30, 2025, in Washington.
| Photo Credit: AP

President Donald Trump has said that birthright citizenship was primarily intended for the children of slaves and not for the whole world to “come in and pile” into the U.S..

On the very first day of his inauguration, Trump issued an executive order against birthright citizenship, which was struck down by a federal court in Seattle the next day.

Also read: Is Trump’s order on birthright citizenship constitutional? | Explained

Trump has said that he would appeal against it. On Thursday, he exuded confidence that the Supreme Court would rule in his favour.

“Birthright citizenship was, if you look back when this was passed and made, that was meant for the children of slaves. This was not meant for the whole world to come in and pile into the United States of America,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office of the White House.

“Everybody coming in, and totally unqualified people with perhaps unqualified children. This wasn’t meant for that,” he said.

Asserting that it was meant for the children of slaves,” he said it was a “very good and noble” thing to do.

“I’m in favour of that 100 per cent. But it wasn’t meant for the entire world to occupy the United States,” Trump said.

“I just think that we’ll end up winning that in the Supreme Court. I think we’re going to win that case. I look forward to winning it.” “At that level, we’re the only country in the world that does this,” he said.

Early this week, a group of Republican Senators introduced a bill in the US Senate to restrict birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and non-immigrants on temporary visas.

According to Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Katie Britt, who introduced the bill, the exploitation of birthright citizenship is a major pull factor for illegal immigration and a weakness for national security.

The U.S. is one of only 33 countries in the world with no restrictions on birthright citizenship, they said. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that in 2023, there were 2,25,000 to 2,50,000 births to illegal immigrants, amounting to close to seven per cent of births in the US.

The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 specifies who can receive citizenship by virtue of their birth in the United States, including children born to at least one parent who is either a citizen or national of the U.S., a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., or an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

This bill only applies to children born after the date of enactment.

US President Donald Trump said Thursday his administration would appeal a federal judge’s ruling.

New Delhi:

After he was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States Monday, Donald Trump signed an executive order ending ‘birthright citizenship’, a 127-year-old amendment to the Constitution that guarantees American nationality to children born there, even if neither parent holds it.

The order – which has already been contested, in separate lawsuits filed by a coalition of 22 states and civil rights groups – was the opening shot in what will likely be a flurry of laws that will alter, dramatically, the United States’ immigration landscape, which was what Trump promised his voters.

Just how that landscape will change is anybody’s guess; Trump’s flurry will also include a clampdown on what the Republican has said as illegal immigration along the southern border, i.e., with Mexico.

But one impact – on Indian families living in that country, specifically those on temporary H1B or L1 visas, which do not grant permanent residency – is already being felt.

The C-Section Rush

Doctors and gynaecologists in the US are reporting a sudden increase in the number of pregnant Indian women, on such visas, asking for a caesarean, to ensure pre-term delivery of their children; i.e., before February 20, which is when Trump’s new mandate goes into effect.

The rush is because children born before that date will be granted citizenship, while those born after will not, subject to one big condition – they will only become citizens if at least one parent is already a citizen or a Green Card holder. If not, then out they go, when they turn 21.

To beat that, a report by The Times of India quoted Dr SD Roma in New Jersey as saying the majority of women lining up for a caesarean are in their eighth or ninth month of pregnancy.

“A seven-month pregnant woman came, with her husband, to sign up for a pre-term delivery. She isn’t due until sometime in March,” she told the publication.

Another medical professional, Dr SG Mukkala, an obstetrician and gynaecologist in Texas, said he has been advising similarly desperate couples of the dangers of a pre-term birth.

“Complications include underdeveloped lungs, feeding problems, low birth weight, neurological complications, and more… in the past two days I have spoken to 15-20 couples about this.”

Why The Panic For Indians?

At the heart of this panic is the fact that Indians in the US on H1B or L1 visas, of whom there are several lakhs, had anticipated being able to reside there for decades and have children, who would automatically become American citizens. But now that door is slowly swinging shut.

READ | How Trump’s Day 1 Order To End Birthright Citizenship Will Impact Indians

This won’t impact Green Card holders, whose children can still, even after Feb 20, be born as American citizens, but the waiting list for that oh-so valuable piece of paper is long, very long.

In fact, a million Indians are reportedly stuck in that queue, and there is no new about if, or when, many of those applications will be processed and that list reduce.

What it will impact is the children of Indians living on work visas, who will either have to self-deport, i.e., voluntarily return to their home nation, or apply for a visa to remain in the US.

What it will further impact is the entire family, since many will, naturally, elect to return with their children. Trump has acknowledged this, saying, “I don’t want to break up families”, but also declaring, “The only way you don’t… (is by) sending them all back”, suggesting there is no backdoor available.

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Anyone born in the US is considered a citizen at birth.

This derives from the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868. The amendment 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.”

EXPLAINED | What Is US Birthright Citizenship And Can Trump End It

There are an estimated 13-14 million immigrants living, illegally, in the US, and their children, if born in that country, are considered American citizens. 

Can Trump Do This?

No president has ever tried to redefine the rules of citizenship using executive orders.

But Trump’s attempt to make history has put him on a collision course with the Supreme Court and, if that course holds, a landmark decision on who can, and who cannot, be an American citizen.

If courts decide to protect ‘birthright citizenship’, then only an amendment can change that.

But an amendment would require two-thirds of both houses and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures, a process that will likely take years, and that is something of which Trump will be aware.

This, then, is set to be a very long-term game, one that might extend beyond his second term.

The American Constitution has not been amended since 1992.

With input from agencies

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

U.S. President Donald Trump.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Indian-American lawmakers have opposed the executive order by U.S. President Donald Trump on changes in birthright citizenship, a move likely to hit not only illegal immigrants from around the world but also students and professionals from India.

On Monday (January 20, 2025,) in the opening hours of his second term as President, Mr. Trump signed an order declaring that future children born to undocumented immigrants would no longer be treated as citizens. The order would extend even to the children of some mothers in the country legally but temporarily, such as foreign students or tourists.

Mr. Trump’s executive order asserts that the children of such non-citizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus are not covered by the 14^th Amendment’s longstanding constitutional guarantee.

Indian-American Congressman Ro Khanna said changes in birthright citizenship as done through the executive order would impact newborn babies of not only illegal and undocumented immigrants but also those staying in this country legally, such as on H-1B visas.

The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows the U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. Technology companies depend on it to hire tens of thousands of employees each year from countries such as India and China.

“Trump’s order removes birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. not just to undocumented parents but to ‘lawful’ immigrants who are temporarily on a student visa, H1B/H2B visa, or business visa. So much for the pretence that the Republicans are for legal immigration,” Mr. Khanna said.

Indians are the main beneficiaries of the H-1B visas, which bring in the best of the talent and brains from across the world. Highly skilled professionals from India walk away with the overwhelming number of H-1B visas — which is Congressional mandate — 6,50,000 every year and another 20,000 for those who received higher education from the U.S.

“No matter what Donald Trump says or does, birthright citizenship has and will be the law of the land. I will fight to protect it at all costs,” Indian American Congressman Shri Thanedar said.

Indian American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal described it as unconstitutional. “Plain and simple this is unconstitutional and cannot be done with the stroke of a pen. If enacted, it would make a mockery of our country’s laws and the precedents set in the Constitution,” she said.

A coalition of immigration rights groups has challenged this in court and said this is unconstitutional.

‘I like both sides of argument on H-1B’, says Donald Trump

As per the executive order, the U.S. would not give automatic citizenship to newborn babies after February 19, 2025, if one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Also, attorneys general from 22 states sued President Trump in two federal district courts on Tuesday (January 21, 2025) to block the executive order that refuses to recognise the U.S.-born children of unauthorised immigrants as citizens, the New York Times reported.

Eighteen states and two cities, San Francisco and Washington DC, challenged the order in the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, arguing that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment is “automatic” and that neither the President nor Congress has the constitutional authority to revise it. Four other states filed a second lawsuit in the Western District of Washington.

The states request immediate relief to prevent the President’s Order from taking effect through both a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction. “President Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of our Constitution,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin.

“The President’s executive order attempting to rescind birthright citizenship is blatantly unconstitutional and quite frankly, un-American,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Ajay Bhutoria, Biden White House Commissioner and Deputy National Finance Chair for the Democratic Party, in a statement, said, the 14th Amendment is not up for negotiation.

“This executive order is not only unconstitutional but also undermines the values of equality and justice that define America,” he said. Mr. Bhutoria urged the South Asian and broader immigrant communities to stand united against policies that threaten the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

“We must work together to ensure that these divisive and unconstitutional actions do not succeed,” he said.