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.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a waiver for life-saving humanitarian assistance during a 90-day pause in foreign aid while Washington undertakes a review. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a waiver on Tuesday (January 28, 2025) for life-saving humanitarian assistance during a 90-day pause in foreign aid while Washington undertakes a review, according to a State Department memo seen by Reuters.

Just hours after taking office a week ago, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the pause so foreign aid contributions could be reviewed to see if they align with his “America First” foreign policy.

The waiver issued on Tuesday (January 28, 2025) for life-saving aid comes after Mr. Rubio initially gave an exemption on Friday (January 24, 2025) for emergency food assistance.

Mr. Rubio defined life-saving humanitarian assistance as core life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance, supplies and reasonable administrative costs as necessary to deliver such assistance.

“This waiver does not apply to activities that involve abortions, family planning conferences, administrative costs … gender or DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) ideology programs, transgender surgeries, or other non-life saving assistance,” Mr. Rubio’s memo said.

The U.S. foreign aid pause risks cutting off billions of dollars of life-saving assistance. The United States is the largest single donor of aid globally. In fiscal year 2023, it disbursed $72 billion in assistance.

There was initial confusion among U.S. lawmakers, aid groups and the United Nations over the scope of Mr. Trump’s order. That was partially cleared up on Friday (January 24, 2025), when the State Department issued a “stop-work” order for all existing foreign assistance and paused new aid, according to a cable seen by Reuters.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Monday (January 27, 2025) called for the United States to consider additional exemptions to “ensure continued delivery of critical development and humanitarian activities.”

President Donald Trump surveyed disaster zones in California and North Carolina on Friday (January 24, 2025) and said he was considering “getting rid of” the Federal Emergency Management Agency, offering the latest sign of how he is weighing sweeping changes to the nation’s central organization for responding to disasters.

Instead of having federal financial assistance flow through FEMA, the Republican president said Washington could provide money directly to the states. He made the comments while visiting North Carolina, which is still recovering months after Hurricane Helene, on the first trip of his second term.

“FEMA has been a very big disappointment,” the Republican president said. “It’s very bureaucratic. And it’s very slow.”

Trump said Michael Whatley, a North Carolina native and chair of the Republican National Committee, would help coordinate recovery efforts in the state, where frustrations over the federal response have lingered. Although Whatley does not hold an official government position, Trump said he would be “very much in charge.”

While the President emphasized his desire to help North Carolina, a battleground State that’s voted for him in all of his presidential campaigns, he was much less generous toward California, where he arrived to visit wildfire-ravaged Los Angeles later in the day.

Trump was greeted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Trump critic whom the president frequently disparages. The duo chatted amiably and gestured toward cooperation despite their bitter history.

“We’re going to need your support. We’re going to need your help,” Mr. Newsom told Trump. “You were there for us during COVID. I don’t forget that, and I have all the expectations we’ll be able to work together to get a speedy recovery.”

Mr. Newsom has praised Trump before when looking for help from the federal government. In the early months of the coronavirus pandemic, he called Trump “thoughtful” and “collaborative.”

Trump flew over several devastated neighborhoods in Marine One, the presidential helicopter, before landing in Pacific Palisades, a hard-hit community that’s home to some of Southern California’s rich and famous. Accompanied by first lady Melania Trump, he walked a street where all the houses have burned, chatting with residents and police officers.

He was expected to receive a briefing on the fires, which are ongoing, with thousands of people under evacuation orders.

Trump’s brief but friendly interaction with Mr. Newsom belied the confrontational stance he signaled toward California throughout the day. Even on the plane en route to Los Angeles, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was using Trump’s disparaging nickname for the governor, “Newscum,” and telling reporters “he has wronged the people of his state” and saying Trump was visiting to pressure Newsom and other officials “to do right by their citizens.”

Before leaving North Carolina, Trump reiterated that he wants to extract concessions from the Democratic-led State in return for disaster assistance, including changes to water policies and requirements that voters need to show identification when casting ballots.

Beyond Trump’s criticism of FEMA, he’s suggested limiting the federal government’s role in responding to disasters, echoing comments from conservative allies who have proposed reducing funding and responsibility.

“I’d like to see the states take care of disasters,” he said after landing in the Asheville area. “Let the state take care of the tornadoes and the hurricanes and all of the other things that happen.”

Trump said that would be quicker and cheaper than sending in FEMA.

“FEMA just hasn’t done the job,” the president said. “We’re looking at the whole concept of FEMA.”

The agency helps respond to disasters when local leaders request a presidential emergency declaration, a signal that the damage is beyond the state’s ability to handle on its own. FEMA can reimburse governments for recovery efforts such as debris removal, and it gives stopgap financial assistance to individual residents.

Trump has criticized former President Joe Biden for his administration’s response to Helene in North Carolina. As he left the White House on Friday morning, he told reporters that “it’s been a horrible thing the way that’s been allowed to fester” since the storm hit in September, and “we’re going to get it fixed up.”

After a briefing on recovery efforts, Trump traveled to a small town outside Asheville to meet with residents who have been helped by Samaritan’s Purse, a humanitarian organization headed by evangelical leader Franklin Graham. The residents told him about wading through waist-deep water to escape from their homes while fearing for their lives. Some have battled with insurance companies to get their losses covered.

“We’ve come to North Carolina with a simple message,” Trump said. “You are not forgotten any longer. You were treated very badly by the previous administration.”

FEMA has distributed $319 million in financial assistance to residents, but that hasn’t alleviated the feeling of abandonment among residents who are struggling to rebuild their lives.

Laurie Carpenter, a 62-year-old retiree in Newland, North Carolina, said there’s still debris and trash strewn around her part of the state. She was looking forward to Trump’s visit because she’s been disappointed by the federal response.

“If anybody’s going to do something about it, I think he will,” Carpenter said.

Sarah Wells Rolland, 65, whose Asheville pottery studio was destroyed by flooding, is less enthusiastic. Her town leans Democratic, and she’s worried that Trump won’t prioritize its rebuilding.

“I’m not overly optimistic that the Trump administration is going to do anything long-term,” she said.

Trump has showered California leaders with disdain for water policies that he falsely claimed worsened the recent blazes. He said he would “take a look at a fire that could have been put out if they let the water flow, but they didn’t let the water flow.”

Members of Congress will be at the briefing, and the meeting could prove contentious. Trump has suggested using federal disaster assistance as a bargaining chip during unrelated legislative negotiations over government borrowing, or as leverage to persuade California to change its water policies.

“Playing politics with people’s livelihoods is unacceptable and a slap in the face to the Southern California wildfire victims and to our brave first responders,” said Rep. Young Kim, a Republican from Orange County, south of Los Angeles, in a recent statement.

Trump has been focused on California water policies, specifically fish conservation efforts in the northern part of the state.

“I don’t think we should give California anything until they let the water run down,” Trump said Wednesday in an interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity.

Michael Coen, who served as chief of staff at FEMA during the Biden administration, said Trump was “misinformed” about an agency that provides critical help to states when they are overwhelmed by catastrophe.

In addition, Coen criticized the idea of attaching strings to assistance.

“You’re going to pick winners and losers on which communities are going to be supported by the federal government,” he said. “I think the American people expect the federal government will be there for them on their worst day, no matter where they live.”

Trump tapped Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL with limited experience managing natural disasters, as FEMA’s acting director.

Before leaving office, Biden vowed that the federal government would cover all the costs of responding to the wildfires around Los Angeles, which could end up being the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. However, that promise won’t be kept unless Congress comes up with more funding.

Friday’s trip could prompt some uncomfortable conversations about climate change, which Trump has played down and denied. Both Helene and the Los Angeles wildfires were exacerbated by global warming.

In Helene’s case, a study by international climate scientists at World Weather Attribution found that climate change boosted the storm’s rainfall by 10%. In California, the state suffered a record dry fall and winter — its traditional wet season — which made the area around Los Angeles more vulnerable to blazes.

“This is just breaking our comfort zone of what is supposed to be normal,” said University of Oregon researcher Amanda Stasiewicz.

After visiting North Carolina and California, Trump plans to hold a rally Saturday in Las Vegas.

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.

Washington DC:

US President Donald Trump has been sued by a coalition of Democratic-leaning states and civil rights groups over his plan to end birthright citizenship in the United States. Several separate lawsuits came within hours after Trump took office and quickly unveiled a phalanx of executive orders he hopes will reshape American immigration.

The first two cases were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, immigrant organizations and an expectant mother in the hours after Trump signed the executive order, kicking off the first major court fight of his administration.

The two other lawsuits were brought by 22 Democratic-led states along with the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco, in federal courts in Boston and Seattle. The cases asserted that the President had overstepped his authority and violated the US Constitution by trying to eliminate the automatic granting of citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

If allowed to stand, Trump’s order would for the first time deny more than 150,000 children born annually in the United States the right to citizenship, said the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell.

“President Trump does not have the authority to take away constitutional rights,” she said in a statement.

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, which derives from the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment which was added to the US 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.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also defines citizens and includes similar language.

The 14th Amendment was confirmed in the US Constitution in 1868, after the four years of the American Civil War, to overturn the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied basic rights to African Americans. The previous judgement said that enslaved people were not US citizens and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts.

The US Supreme Court affirmed that birthright citizenship applies to the children of immigrants in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark v United States ruling. Wong, who was born to Chinese immigrants in the US, was denied re-entry when he returned to the US from a visit to China. Wong successfully argued that because he was born in the US, his parents’ immigration status did not affect the application of the 14th Amendment in his case.

The case affirmed that regardless of race or the immigration status of one’s parents, all children born in the United States were entitled to all of the rights that citizenship offered. 

However, the Supreme Court has not addressed whether the Citizenship Clause applies to US-born children of people who are in the United States illegally.

What Does Trump’s Executive Order Say?

Donald Trump’s order declared that individuals born in the United States are not entitled to automatic citizenship if the mother was in the country unlawfully and the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident. It also declared citizenship would be denied to those whose mother was in the United States lawfully but temporarily, such as those on student or tourist visas, and whose father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Trump has complained about foreign women visiting the United States for the purpose of giving birth and conferring US citizenship on their offspring.

There were an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America in January 2022, according to a US Department of Homeland Security estimate, a figure that some analysts now place at 13 million to 14 million. Their US-born children are considered by the government to have US citizenship. 

Losing out on citizenship would prevent these individuals from having access to federal programs like Medicaid health insurance and, when they become older, from working lawfully or voting, the states said in the lawsuits.

Can Trump’s Order Overturn Birthright Citizenship?

According to legal experts, birthright citizenship can not be ended by an executive order as it is bound to end up in litigation. 

“He’s doing something that’s going to upset a lot of people, but ultimately this will be decided by the courts…This is not something he can decide on his own,” Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional expert and University of Virginia Law School professor said, according to a report by BBC. 

Mr Prakash noted that while Trump can order employees of federal agencies to interpret citizenship more narrowly, it would trigger legal challenges from anyone whose citizenship is denied. This could lead to a lengthy court battle ultimately winding up at the US Supreme Court.

A constitutional amendment could do away with birthright citizenship, but that would also require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and approval by three-quarters of US states. Republicans have a 53 to 47 majority in the Senate and a 220 to 215 majority in the House, meaning America’s grand old party (GOP) does not have the required number in either chamber.

Cases Against Trump’s Order

Three of the four lawsuits against Trump’s order were filed in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Any rulings from judges in those New England states would be reviewed by the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals, the only federal appeals court whose active judges are all Democratic appointees, according to a report by Reuters. 

Four states filed a separate case in Washington state, which the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over. US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle has scheduled a Thursday hearing on whether he should issue a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Trump’s order.

A fifth lawsuit was filed in federal court in Maryland by a group of pregnant women and immigrant rights groups including CASA.

The various lawsuits argue that Trump’s executive order violated the right enshrined in the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment which provides that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen.

The complaints cite the US Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a decision holding that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to U.S. citizenship. The plaintiffs challenging the order include a woman living in Massachusetts identified only as “O. Doe” who is in the country through temporary protected status and is due to give birth in March.

Temporary protected status is available to people whose home countries have experienced natural disasters, armed conflicts or other extraordinary events and currently covers more than 1 million people from 17 nations.

Several other lawsuits challenging aspects of Trump’s other early executive actions are also pending.

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents federal government employees in 37 agencies and departments, late on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging an order Trump signed that makes it easier to fire thousands of federal agency employees and replace them with political loyalists.

Attorneys General from 22 States sued Tuesday (January 21, 2025) to block President Donald Trump’s move to end a century-old immigration practice known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.

Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies and a constitutional right to citizenship.

Also read | Trump signs slew of executive orders: U.S. withdrawal from WHO, pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, and more

The Democratic Attorneys General and immigrant rights advocates say the question of birthright citizenship is settled law and that while Presidents have broad authority, they are not kings.

“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said.

The White House said it’s ready to face the States in court and called the lawsuits “nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance.”

“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump,” White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.

“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says —- if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said.

“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”

At issue in these cases is the right to citizenship granted to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.

It’s enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, supporters say. But Trump and allies dispute the reading of the amendment and say there need to be tougher standards on becoming a citizen.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Most other countries confer citizenship based on whether at least one parent — jus sanguinis, or “right of blood” — is a citizen, or have a modified form of birthright citizenship that may restrict automatic citizenship to children of parents who are on their territory legally.

Trump’s order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.

Ratified in 1868 in in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says: “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.”

Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.

It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.

It’s not clear whether the order would retroactively affect birthright citizens. It says that federal agencies “shall” not issue citizenship documents to the people it excludes or accept other documents from states or local governments.

The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States until 1924.

In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status.

The issue of birthright citizenship arose in Arizona — one of the states suing to block Trump’s order — during 2011 when Republican lawmakers considered a bill that would have challenged automatic birthright citizenship. Supporters said then that the goal wasn’t to get every state in the nation to enact such a law, but rather to bring the dispute to the courts. The bill never made it out of the Legislature.

In addition to the states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco, immigrant rights groups are also suing to stop Trump’s order.

Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts along with other immigrant rights advocates filed a suit in New Hampshire federal court.

The suit asks the court to find the order to be unconstitutional. It highlights the case of a woman identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but is not a citizen. The lawsuit says she has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. She has no other immigration status, and the father of her expected child has no immigration status either, the suit says.

“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”

In addition to New Jersey and the two cities, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the lawsuit to stop the order.

Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington filed a separate suit in federal court challenging Trump’s order as well.

The canal is an 82-km artificial waterway that connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through Panama and is critical to U.S. imports. File.
| Photo Credit: AP

Newly sworn-in President Donald Trump vowed on Monday that the United States would take back the Panama Canal as he delivered an inauguration speech in which he invoked the 19th century expansionist doctrine of “Manifest Destiny.”

Doubling down on his pre-inauguration threat to reimpose U.S. control over the canal, Trump again accused Panama of breaking the promises it made for the final transfer of the strategic waterway in 1999 and of ceding its operation to China – claims that the Panamanian government has vehemently denied.

Trump signs slew of executive orders on Day 1: A full list

“We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back,” Trump said.

He gave no further details on when or how he intended to do that but had previously refused to rule out possible use of military force, which drew criticism from Washington’s Latin American friends and foes alike.

Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino on Monday responded on X that his country has administered the canal responsibly for world trade, including for the U.S., and that it “is and will continue to be Panamanian.”

Trump’s reiteration of his threat about the Panama Canal as he began his second term was his most blatant mention of an agenda for territorial expansion that he has laid out in recent weeks.

In the run-up to his inauguration, he had also said he wanted to acquire Greenland, portraying the overseas Danish territory as crucial for U.S. national security interests, and mused about turning Canada into a U.S. state.

Possible encouragement for Russia, China ambitions

Critics have accused Trump of language that evokes modern-day imperialism, suggesting such rhetoric could encourage Russia on its war in Ukraine and give justification to China if it decides to invade self-ruled Taiwan.

Some analysts have questioned whether Trump is serious about pursuing what critics say would be a land grab, speculating he may be laying down an extreme negotiating position to squeeze out concessions later on. Also, Trump, in first term from 2017-2021, was known for issuing some headline-grabbing threats and pronouncements that he failed to deliver on.

While Trump made no mention of Greenland or Canada in his inaugural address, he offered hints of territorial aspirations during his second four-year term.

“The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons,” he said.

“And we will pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars,” Trump added.

Manifest Destiny, a phrase originally coined in the mid-1800s, was the belief in a God-ordained right of the U.S. to expand its control throughout North America, and was used to justify the seizure of lands from Mexico and from Native Americans.

In Monday’s speech, Trump also repeated his promise to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Trump said the U.S. had “foolishly” given the Panama Canal to Panama.

The United States largely built the canal and administered territory surrounding the passage for decades. But the United States and Panama signed a pair of accords in 1977 that paved the way for the canal’s return to full Panamanian control. The United States handed it over in 1999 after a period of joint administration.

“We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made, and Panama’s promise to us has been broken. The purpose of our deal and the spirit of our treaty has been totally violated,” Trump said.

He said U.S. ships are “being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape or form.” Panama has insisted that it treats fairly all vessels that transit the canal, and has said China has no control over its administration.

China does not control or administer the canal, but a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings 0001.HK has long managed two ports located on the canal’s Caribbean and Pacific entrances.

The canal is an 82-km (51-mile) artificial waterway that connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through Panama and is critical to U.S. imports of autos and commercial goods by container ships from Asia, and for U.S. exports of commodities, including liquefied natural gas. (Reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Jeff Mason, Nandita Bose, Katharine Jackson in Washington, Elida Moreno in Panama City; writing by Matt Spetalnick; editing by Don Durfee and Alistair Bell)