Birdi Diehl 0:22

According to American immigration center, birthright citizenship is a legal principle that grants citizenship to individuals based on their place of birth in the United States. That right is rooted in the 14th amendment within the US Constitution, and was ratified in 1868 according to the Brennan Center, certain interpretations say it states that anyone born on United States soil and subsequently subject to its jurisdiction is automatically a citizen, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. This policy is often referred to as jus soli, or right of the soil. It was originally designed to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people following the Civil War. That's according to UC Davis. Over time, however, it has become a defining feature of American identity and immigration policy, according to Harvard Law today, birthright citizenship still remains a topic of political and legal debate. Supporters argue it upholds constitutional guarantees and prevents the creation of a permanent underclass of non citizens. Critics, on the other hand, question whether it incentivizes unauthorized immigration and also argues for its reinterpretation or reform. Legal scholars have noted that changing birthright citizenship would likely require either a constitutional amendment or a significant shift in how the 14th Amendment is interpreted by the courts, according to both Harvard Law and the Brennan Center, as immigration continues to shape national conversation, birthright citizenship stands at the intersection of law history and identity in the United States of America. According to the ACLU, the Supreme Court is now weighing Trump versus Barbara, a major case over President Trump's executive order that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship by limiting automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to certain immigrant parents. According to Houston immigration legal services collaborative, the order was signed on January 20, 2025, titled protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship and has been blocked by lower courts. At the center of the dispute is whether the 14th Amendment still guarantees citizenship to nearly all babies born on US soil. Those who support the order are saying the policy should be narrowed, while those against the order argue it violates the Constitution and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent. Within the Supreme Court, the issue at hand is whether the 14th Amendment still guarantees US citizenship to nearly all children born on United States soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. For many, the case raises bigger concerns about fairness immigration and who gets to Define American identity. But at its core, this case is about more than a legal rule. It's about the future of citizenship in America. El barai Fourier is an Emerson College student in their last semester they were asked what birthright citizenship means to them.

Elle Baray-Forget 3:24

I think we should continue with the way we have birthright citizenship. I think it makes sense. And I also think it's interesting to hear about what historicals like originalists have to say about what like founding fathers thought in the Constitution and what they meant when they made the 14th Amendment and things like that. So I think it's just interesting that we're very focused on, like, the physical words that are in the 14th Amendment, and not actually what they mean today. I think Donald Trump's whole thing is that he wants to change the meaning behind those words, but they've been working for us for this many years, but he doesn't want to change other parts of the constitution. So it's just very like hypocritical to me, which, I mean, isn't surprising, to say the least,

Birdi Diehl 4:07

Beyond questions about motive and optics, Judas Cortes is a Pennsylvania resident who is focusing on the legal reality. He argues that any attempt to end birthright citizenship runs directly up against the US Constitution itself.

Judas Cortes 4:21

I know what the average person knows about birthright citizenship. I learned about the Supreme Court case in school. Basically Supreme Court case stating that black Americans that were born in America do not qualify as citizens,

Birdi Diehl 4:43

While Cortes points to the historical roots of the debate Madison Lucchese and Emerson, college student is bringing it back to the constitutional language that still defines citizenship today.

Madison Lucchesi 4:52

Birthright citizenship has to do with the 14th Amendment, which states that any person born in the. United States is a US citizen, although there are a few caveats to that, and I know that it is, or last week was that, last week, I know the topic of birthright citizenship, was before the Supreme Court recently for oral arguments, because Trump is challenging birthright citizenship entirely.

Birdi Diehl 5:20

They were then asked what their opinion is on the Supreme Court case Trump versus Barbara to start, barai Fourier believes Donald Trump's actions are hypocritical and funny to her.

Elle Baray-Forget 5:31

Donald Trump made history by going in, sitting into the oral arguments, which actually was so interesting to me, and it was interesting even more that he left early, which I thought was crazy. But I think a big thing that's going on right now is Trump, who everyone he appointed who thought was like a big loyalist to him has been disappointing him. And I think he really went into the oral arguments to, like, physically intimidate people, and it clearly didn't work. So therefore he left. I saw this like clip, and then this journalist was talking about it, about how, like, he wasn't he's very stoic the whole time, like he didn't make much facial expression or anything. And it was very hard to, like, read what he was trying to do there. So mainly, it was like for physical intimidation, which I thought was interesting. But I just know that he's trying to, you know, take away the just dismantle what we currently have as birthright citizenship. And I think it's very interesting that the main argument that he's pulling on right now is that we're the only country that has it when we are, like, one in like, I think 33 countries that have birthright citizen. So just the fact that, you know, the President is, like, outwardly saying things are just not correct, is like really funny to me.

Birdi Diehl 6:43

For Cortes, it's not just the focus on strategy or messaging, but on whether those efforts hold up against the Constitution at all.

Judas Cortes 6:51

The original Supreme Court case in the 1800s was overruled or overturned one of those Trump's idea to remove birthright citizenship is just unconstitutional, like many other things that he is doing, just a straight up violation of the Constitution. It's just another chess piece in him trying to weed out all of the undesirables in this country, or, in quotations, undesirables in this country.

Birdi Diehl 7:38

The concern over constitutionality is echoed by others. For instance, Lucchesi says that the real world consequences of ending birthright citizenship would be far reaching.

Madison Lucchesi 7:48

I don't think birthright citizenship should be challenged at all. I'm grateful, or grateful that's crazy. I'm happy that the Supreme Court seems to be aligning with keeping birthright citizenship and going against Trump, because if you undo birthright citizenship, we're going to have a huge population of people who are no longer citizens and will no longer have the rights that they already have, like they won't be able to vote anymore or get access to A lot of public services, which would just be out ridiculous. How are you going to take away those rights from so cmany people who literally did nothing like it's not their fault that they were born here and not the President wants to challenge their citizenship

Birdi Diehl 8:36

With this information, they were asked what they would do to change what was happening in the Supreme Court right now and what they want to change about the discussion and surrounding actions of birthright citizenship. Barai Fourier believes getting rid of it is the last thing that should be done.

Elle Baray-Forget 8:51

I mean, I think just getting rid of birthright citizenship is bad. It is. It's hypocritical to the X amount of years that we've had of it like I think it's the idea that so many people who are in this country and who are American, you know, do come from birthright citizenship. I mean, you look at the Supreme Court right now, and like a huge group of them come from that everyone, everyone here is not, you know, native to this land. So the people who are native are really the only ones that get to speak on that. And I think it's interesting that we're trying to change something that would affect almost everyone in the country, but because it doesn't affect them right now, because they have perceived whiteness or perceived Americanness, they're willing to change something that would actually affect their ancestors.

Birdi Diehl 9:41

While Baray-Forget points to the racial double standard behind who gets questioned and who does not, others are saying this issue goes even deeper. Cortes believes it's about challenging not just fairness, but a core principle the country was built on.

Judas Cortes 9:55

I would change it not existing at all. I. I think it's just absolutely ridiculous that he would even bring up the notion that people that are born here are not already legally citizens. That just that's one of the foundations that America was, was brought upon, like was is, is, what's the word that I'm trying to look for? It is. A lot of people come to America for that reason. You know what I mean to have a family to give said family a better life. That is why America is such a diverse like they call it melting pot. And I think that's just, it's, it's absolutely ridiculous. You would be getting rid of the people that cause this country to flourish. I think she's just absolutely, just inhumane as well.

Birdi Diehl 11:00

And building on that idea, Lucchese argues that this is not just a question of values, but whether any president should actually have the power to change something so foundational in the first place. I would make

Madison Lucchesi 11:13

I would make it so that the President couldn't undo a citizenship clause like this that has to do with something that feels like part of the Foundation of America, and the fact that people are supposed to be able to come here and become citizens, or their parents come here and then they're born here and they are citizens. It's like the very foundation of this country and what it believes in. So the President shouldn't be able to undo that in it all.

Birdi Diehl 11:39

Lucchesi believes that if one amendment is changed, a second glance should be granted to other amendments that cause issues in the nation.

Madison Lucchesi 11:46

As I said, wish the President didn't have the power to do this like I don't think that the President should be able to act on something based on the fact that he's racist and doesn't like that. People immigrate to this country, which is, again, what this country was built on. And what I would change is like, if we're going to change any amendment, we should be changing the Second Amendment to have stricter gun laws, because we have a huge gun violence issue in this country. And we should also get rid of the amendment that allows or like, Yeah, we should get rid of the amendment that allows slavery to be used as a punishment, because we never really did outlaw slavery, if we still have that caveat.

Birdi Diehl 12:29

Trump v. Barbara is expected to be decided in late June or early July. I'm Birdi Diehl on questions surrounding birthright citizenship.