Trump’s Promise to End Birthright Citizenship: What It Means for America -By Martha Lalai

The recent declaration by the President elect Donald Trump to end birthright citizenship, has sparked significant debate about its implications for America’s values, immigration policy, and constitutional law. This proposal seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which currently grants automatic citizenship to all born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. While Trump argues that his plan will address illegal immigration and safeguard national resources, it raises critical questions about fairness, feasibility, and the country’s identity.

Firstly, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of American democracy since its codification after the Civil War. It ensures equality and inclusivity, granting every child born in the U.S. a chance to contribute to society. Repealing this right risks creating a new class of stateless individuals, potentially fostering inequality and societal division.

Trump’s argument is based on the claim that birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration and encourages practices like “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals come to the U.S. to give birth. While these practices may exist, they are not as widespread as portrayed. Moreover, addressing them through such sweeping changes might disproportionately affect law-abiding immigrant families and children.
The policy also faces substantial legal hurdles.

The 14th Amendment explicitly states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. Any executive order to reinterpret this amendment will likely face intense judicial scrutiny and could be struck down as unconstitutional. History shows that previous attempts to challenge this provision have been unsuccessful.

From a practical standpoint, implementing such a policy would require massive bureaucratic changes. Determining citizenship based on parents’ legal status would involve extensive documentation and verification, increasing the burden on federal agencies and potentially leading to errors and injustices.

Additionally, the economic impact of such a policy cannot be ignored. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children significantly contribute to the economy. They form a vital part of the workforce, pay taxes, and drive innovation. Stripping citizenship rights could hinder their ability to participate fully in society, ultimately harming economic growth.

Trump’s proposal also challenges America’s reputation as a land of opportunity and equality. For centuries, the principle of birthright citizenship has symbolized the promise of a fresh start for immigrants and their families. Removing this right could tarnish the nation’s image globally and weaken its moral authority on human rights.

Supporters of the policy argue that it will deter illegal immigration and reduce the strain on public resources. However, there is little evidence to suggest that ending birthright citizenship would significantly curb immigration. Many factors, including economic conditions and safety concerns in home countries, drive migration.

This policy may also lead to unintended consequences, such as an increase in undocumented individuals who are born in the U.S. but denied citizenship. These individuals could face significant barriers to education, employment, and social services, perpetuating cycles of poverty and marginalization.

As we consider this issue, it is essential to focus on comprehensive immigration reform that balances border security with humanity. Addressing the root causes of migration, improving legal pathways for immigrants, and ensuring fair enforcement of existing laws are more constructive solutions.

Hence, while the goal of securing borders and managing immigration is important, dismantling birthright citizenship is not the answer. Such a move would undermine the principles of equality and opportunity that define America and create more problems than it solves. Let us work towards policies that uphold the Constitution, respect human dignity, and strengthen the nation’s fabric.

Martha Lalai
Student Department of Mass Communication, Borno State University Maiduguri.