In a significant move on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders, including one that directly challenges the concept of birthright citizenship, a principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment since its adoption in 1868. This amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” However, Trump's order proposes to redefine this long-standing interpretation, specifically targeting children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented immigrants or are in the country temporarily.

The order stipulates that children born to mothers who are unlawfully present in the U.S. and to fathers who are not citizens or permanent residents will be denied American citizenship. This effectively seeks to strip millions of future Americans of their citizenship rights. Legal experts widely regard this order as unconstitutional. According to the Reuters, any alteration to the birthright citizenship principle would require a constitutional amendment, a process that demands substantial congressional support that is unlikely in the current political climate.

Legal challenges to Trump's executive order unfolded almost immediately, with 18 Democratic-led states filing a lawsuit that argues the order is both unconstitutional and infringes on legislative powers. HuffPost reported that the states contend that Trump's order contradicts the established legal definitions that protect birthright citizenship.

Trump's position misinterprets the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, as established by case law, including the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that a child born on U.S. soil is by definition a citizen, irrespective of parentage. The ruling held that all individuals residing in the U.S., without exception, are within its jurisdiction and thus entitled to citizenship. Critics argue that this historical precedent should have curtailed Trump's attempts to redefine citizenship, as clarified in articles from Vox.

Despite the constitutional clarity, Trump’s executive order may still prevail in lower courts, given the current Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority. This has raised concerns about potential alterations or challenges to long-established legal precedents. If the courts uphold the order, the process to amend the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, alongside ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures, an arduous venture that has not seen success in decades.

As legal battles ensue over this contentious issue, advocates for immigration rights continue to mobilize against what they view as an “un-American” directive from the administration. The unfolding situation presents a potent reminder of the ongoing national debate over immigration and American identity, as these developments could significantly shape the context of citizenship in the U.S.

For more information on this critical issue, visit the original articles on HuffPost, Reuters, and Vox.