Birthright Citizenship
WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME
Table of Contents
What is Birthright Citizenship?
Why Protect Birthright Citizenship?
What is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship grants automatic citizenship to individuals born within a country's territory, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. In the United States, it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which 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."
Donald Trump Executive Order
On January 20, 2025 Donald Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the United States. Read the executive order here.
Threats to Birthright Citizenship
Executive Actions: Attempts to redefine or restrict citizenship via executive orders.
Legislative Proposals: Bills challenging the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Misinformation: Campaigns framing birthright citizenship as a "loophole" or "anchor baby" issue.
Court Challenges: Lawsuits aiming to reinterpret the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment.
Why Protect Birthright Citizenship?
Legal Foundation: It upholds the principles of equality and inclusion.
Stability: Ensures clarity in citizenship rights and avoids creating stateless individuals.
Economic Contributions: Children born as citizens contribute to the nation’s workforce, innovation, and economy.
Human Rights: Aligns with international norms discouraging discrimination based on ancestry or immigration status.
How to Protect Birthright Citizenship
Advocacy:
Support organizations fighting to uphold constitutional rights (e.g., ACLU, JACL, Asian Americans Advancing Justice).
Engage in grassroots campaigns to raise awareness.
Education:
Inform communities about the 14th Amendment and its protections.
Share historical examples, such as Wong Kim Ark's case and Japanese American Internment, to highlight the consequences of eroding citizenship rights.
Legislation:
Advocate for laws that reaffirm birthright citizenship and oppose restrictive measures.
Support elected officials who prioritize protecting constitutional rights.
Judicial Defense:
Monitor legal challenges and support amicus briefs defending birthright citizenship.
Fund and back litigation efforts to uphold the 14th Amendment.
Community Action:
Build coalitions with diverse groups affected by immigration and citizenship issues.
Amplify personal stories to humanize the issue and dispel negative stereotypes.
Key Talking Points
Constitutional Mandate: Birthright citizenship is a core constitutional right, upheld by over a century of legal precedent, including the landmark Wong Kim Ark decision.
Historical Lessons: The Wong Kim Ark case and Japanese American Internment remind us of the dangers of prejudice and the importance of protecting citizenship rights.
American Values: Birthright citizenship reflects principles of fairness, equality, and the immigrant roots of the U.S.
Economic Impact: Policies undermining birthright citizenship harm economic growth and social cohesion.
Timeline Visualization
Source: https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/2139841/Birthright-Citizenship/
Historical Context
1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790
The first Act to define parameters for citizenship by naturalization, this Act limited naturalization to white, male property owners who had resided in the U.S. for at least two years, setting an early precedent for exclusive definitions of American citizenship.
1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom, arguing that his past residence in free territories made him a free man.
The Supreme Court ruled that, because Scott was of African descent, he could not be considered an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court.
This landmark case resulted in the denial of citizenship from all individuals of African descent in the United States and entrenched the idea that American citizenship was linked to race.
1868: Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States” and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws” in an attempt to address the grievances established in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The Fourteenth Amendment was the second of three amendments adopted during Reconstruction following the Civil War.
1868: Burlingame Treaty
Signed six years after authorization for construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, this agreement secured U.S. access to Chinese laborers, granting Chinese free immigration and travel within the U.S. and granting China most favored nation status in trade.
This treaty was reversed by the Angell Treaty in 1868.
1875: Page Act
In writing, this Act prohibited the "importation of women for the purposes of prostitution" and the recruitment of laborers from Asia who were not brought to the U.S. of their own volition.
In practice, this law prevented Chinese women from migrating to the U.S., essentially requiring Chinese men to leave the U.S. if they wished to get married.
The Page Act was repealed in 1974.\
1882: Chinese Exclusion Act and Chinese Immigration
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years, the first act of its kind to place broad restrictions on immigration.
The Act served as a response to growing anti-China sentiment in the U.S., particularly from other workers in the American economy who felt they faced increased job competition.
In 1888, Congress passed the Scott Act, forbidding reentry into the U.S. after a visit to China.
The Geary Act of 1892 extended Chinese exclusion for another 10 years and incorporated Hawaii and the Philippines.
In 1943, Congress repealed the exclusion acts, two years after China joined the Allied Nations during World War II.
Only in 2011 did Congress officially condemn the Chinese Exclusion Act with the unanimous passing of Senate Resolution 201 and House Resolution 683.
1886: Yick Wo v. Hopkins
In this case, the court determined that Chinese immigrants, though not citizens of the U.S., were still entitled to equal protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.
1898: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was denied reentry into the U.S. after a trip abroad, as officials argued he was not a citizen due to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship.
This landmark case cemented the principle of birthright citizenship and set a crucial precedent for defending the rights of children born to immigrants.
1906: The Naturalization Act of 1906
This Act required all immigrants to learn English in order to become naturalized citizens.
1922: Ozawa v. United States
Takao Ozawa, a Japanese man who moved to the U.S. for college and began a family in Hawaii, applied for citizenship and was rejected due to his race, despite meeting all non-racial qualifications.
This landmark decision determined all Issei ineligible for citizenship, reinforcing racial barriers to citizenship and solidifying the exclusion of Asian immigrants from naturalization.
1924: Immigration Act of 1924
This act established a national origins quota in order to severely restrict the number of immigrants entering the U.S.
The quota provided immigration visas to two-percent of the total number of people of existing nationalities in the U.S but also included natural-born citizens, so the number of people allowed from the British Isles and Western Europe was higher than elsewhere.
The act also prohibited immigration from those countries who were already ineligible for citizenship in the U.S. Since all people of Asian lineage were prohibited from naturalizing, this meant that even those who could immigrate but not naturalize, such as the Japanese, could now not do either.
The act also severely restricted the number of European Jews and refugees fleeing fascism and the Holocaust.
Although this violated the Gentlemen’s Agreement, the U.S. government remained firm.
1924: Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act)
The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
The right to vote was still governed by state law, leaving some Native Americans unable to vote until 1957.
1925: Chang Chan v. Nagle
Under the Immigration Act of 1924, the Supreme Court determined that Chinese women were ineligible for citizenship and thus could not qualify as non-quota immigrants to the U.S., due to their Chinese descent. Thus, Chinese wives of American citizens were not allowed entry into the U.S.
1942: Japanese Internment
During World War II, over 120,000 Japanese Americans – two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens by birth – were forcibly removed from their homes and incarcerated without due process. This demonstrated how prejudice can undermine constitutional rights.
Only in 1988 did Congress and President Reagan sign the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 expressing regret for the injustice of internment and offering $20,000 to each incarcerated individual.
1952: McCarran-Walter Act
This act continued the controversial quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924.
While the act finally allowed universal Asian immigration and naturalization, the quota system ensured that eighty-five percent of annually available visas were allotted to people of northern and western European heritage.
1982: Plyler v. Doe
A Texas education law allowed the state to deny funding for educating children of non-citizens.
The Supreme Court struck down this law, ruling that non-citizens and their children were afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections under the Equal Protection Clause.
Related Media
2025/04/11 AALDEF: With 80+ Asian American organizations and race and law centers, AALDEF submits brief in support of birthright citizenship
2025/04/09 NAPABA: NAPABA Leads Broad Coalition to Defend Birthright Citizenship in Court
2025/03/28 Edgar Chen and Chris M. Kwok in Just Security - “The Trump Administration’s 14th Amendment Retcon: ‘Wong Kim Ark’ Does Not Limit Birthright Citizenship”
2025/03/28 CAPAC press release: CAPAC Chair Meng Statement on the Anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark Decision
2025/01/24 PBS: What to know about the legal battle over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship
2025/01/23 New York Times: “Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship”
2025/01/23 ABC News: “What to Make of Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship”
2018/11/01 Pew Research Center. “Number of U.S.-Born Babies with Unauthorized Immigrant Parents Has Fallen Since 2007”
2018/01/11 Congressional Research Service: The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview
1898/03/28 Justia: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
1868/07/09 National Archives: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
Japanese American Citizens League: The Japanese American Experience
Chinese Historical Society of New England. Exclusion Acts and Legal Resistance
Global Birthright Citizenship Laws
Law Library of Congress. “Birthright Citizenship Conditions.” More info here.
Legal Battles
On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration issued an executive order seeking to strip certain babies born in the United States of their U.S. citizenship. The following lawsuits have been filed to stop the implementation of the executive order.
1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038)
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
File Date: January 20, 2025
Plaintiffs: New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Make the Road New York
Legal Team: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, the Asian Law Caucus, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Legal Defense Fund
2. Doe v. Trump (1:25-cv-10136)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
File Date: January 20, 2025
Plaintiffs: Jane Doe and others
Legal Team: Lawyers for Civil Rights
3. Thien Le v. Donald J. Trump (8:25-cv-00104)
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
File Date: January 20, 2025
Plaintiff: Thien Le
Legal Team: TFC Legal Services & Associates
4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
File Date: January 21, 2025
Plaintiffs: State of Washington, along with Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon
5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
File Date: January 21, 2025
Plaintiffs: the State of New Jersey, along with 17 other states, San Francisco, Washington DC. At least 72 jurisdictions across 24 states have joined the legal challenge
6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
File Date: January 21, 2025
Plaintiffs: CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and individual plaintiffs Maribel, Juana, Trinidad Garcia, Monica, and Liza
Legal Team: Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project,
7. Franco Aleman v. Trump (2:25-cv-00163) - merged into 4 on 2025/01/27
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
File Date: January 24, 2025
Date Terminated: January 27, 2025
Plaintiffs: Class action led by Cherly Norales Castillo, Alicia Chavarria Lopez, and Delmy Franco Aleman
Legal Team: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (Seattle)
8. OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (1:25-cv-00287)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
File Date: January 30, 2025
Plaintiff: OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates
Legal Team: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC
9. County of Santa Clara v. Trump (5:25-cv-00981)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
File Date: January 30, 2025
Plaintiff: County of Santa Clara
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
File Date: February 13, 2025
Plaintiff: J.V. and New York Immigration Coalition
Major Developments
2025/04/11 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
208 House Democrats filed amicus brief against Trump birthright citizenship executive order with the Nonth Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 25-807
2025/04/11 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
AALDEF and coalition filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 25-807
2025/04/09 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
NAPABA and coalition filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 25-807
2025/04/04 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139)
The Plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A886
2025/04/04 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
The Plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A885
2025/04/04 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201)
The plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A884.
2025/03/13 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request for a partial stay of the district court's injunction.
2025/03/13 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201)
The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request for a partial stay of the district court's injunction.
2025/03/11 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139)
The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for a stay. The government appealed to the Supreme Court.
2025/02/19 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
The Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the government’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction and leaving the existing briefing schedule unchanged.
2025/02/13 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139)
Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160.
2025/02/13 2. Doe v. Trump (1:25-cv-10136)
Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160.
2025/02/10 1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038)
U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction.
2025/02/05 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201)
U.S. District Court Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a preliminary nationwide injunction until the case is resolved or a higher court overturns it.
2025/01/27 7. Franco Aleman v. Trump (2:25-cv-00163)
This case was terminated and consolidated into 3. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
2025/01/23 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127)
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour granted a temporary restraining order, halting the enforcement of the executive order for 14 days. He described the order as "blatantly unconstitutional," emphasizing its immediate and irreparable harm to individuals affected.
Summary
The legal victory of Wong Kim Ark and the struggles of Japanese Americans during internment illustrate the enduring importance of protecting birthright citizenship. Defending this right ensures the United States remains a nation of equality and justice. Let’s learn from history, honor constitutional principles, and secure a future where all are treated with dignity and fairness.
Birthright Citizenship
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to customize this theme across your site. You can update and reuse text themes.
