Donald Trump plans to end birthright citizenship: Will Indians be impacted?

US President-elect Donald Trump plans to end birthright citizenship upon taking office on January 20. During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump said, “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said.

He argued that the current policy encourages illegal immigration and “birth tourism”.  However, efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles.

How will it impact Indians?

Indians living in the US would feel the effects of changes to birthright citizenship rules. Russell A Stamets, Partner at Circle of Counsels, described the broader immigration challenges to Business Standard.

“When you consider the web of anti-immigration efforts promised by Trump—restricting student visas, restricting H1-Bs, ending student work visa extensions, among other things—the threatened end of birthright citizenship makes emigrating, working, or remaining in the United States much more difficult and unpredictable for all immigrants, Indians included,” Stamets said.  “That is exactly what Trump and his allies have promised, and every Trump voter supported this.”

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship ensures that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. This policy has been in place for many years and applies to children born to individuals in the country illegally, as well as those on temporary visas like tourist or student visas who intend to return to their home country. While not practiced in every country, birthright citizenship has been a point of debate. Critics, including former President Trump and his supporters, argue that the system is being misused and that stricter standards should be implemented for acquiring American citizenship.

On the other hand, advocates emphasise that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, making it very difficult to overturn, and they believe that attempting to do so would be detrimental to the nation.

What are the hurdles?

Some counter that abolishing birthright citizenship would have serious consequences. Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President of the Cato Institute, argues that birthright citizenship helps avoid the creation of an “illegal underclass” and promotes better assimilation and integration of immigrant families.

The Migration Policy Institute estimated in 2019 that 5.5 million children under the age of 18 were living with at least one undocumented parent, and most of these children were US citizens. The think tank also warned that repealing birthright citizenship would exacerbate illegal immigration, creating a self-perpetuating class excluded from full social membership for generations.

Why does US have birthright citizenship?

The US adopted birthright citizenship to ensure that descendants of enslaved people, who were forcibly brought to the country, could be granted citizenship. This was a response to the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, where the Supreme Court ruled that no descendant of enslaved people could be a US citizen. The ruling was overturned by the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that anyone born in the US is a citizen and entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights.

What does the 14th amendment say?

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. This amendment was crucial in ensuring equal rights for former slaves and their descendants.

Could 14th amendment exclude children of the undocumented?

Some legal scholars, including John Eastman, argue that the 14th Amendment does not apply to children born to undocumented immigrants in the US. Eastman, who previously promoted efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, contends that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” disqualifies children of non-citizens. According to this view, Congress could pass a law explicitly denying citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented parents. However, this theory remains controversial, and even many conservative legal experts have rejected it.

(With inputs from agencies)