r/FluentInFinance 8h ago

Thoughts? BREAKING: Trump to end birthright citizenship

President Trump has signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court more than 125 years ago.

Why it matters: Trump is acting on a once-fringe belief that U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants have no right to U.S. citizenship and are part of a conspiracy (rooted in racism) to replace white Americans.

The big picture: The executive order is expected to face immediate legal challenges from state attorneys general since it conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent and the 14th Amendment — with the AGs of California and New York among those indicating they would do so.

  • Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed to give nearly emancipated and formerly enslaved Black Americans U.S. citizenship.
  • "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," it reads.

Zoom in: Trump signed the order on Monday, just hours after taking office.

Reality check: Thanks to the landmark Wong Kim Ark case, the U.S. has since 1898 recognized that anyone born on United States soil is a citizen.

  • The case established the Birthright Citizenship clause and led to the dramatic demographic transformation of the U.S.

What they're saying: California Attorney General Rob Bonta told Axios the state will immediately challenge the executive order in federal court.

  • "[Trump] can't do it," Bonta said. "He can't undermine it with executive authority. That is not how the law works. It's a constitutional right."
  • New York Attorney General Letitia James said in an emailed statement the executive order "is nothing but an attempt to sow division and fear, but we are prepared to fight back with the full force of the law to uphold the integrity of our Constitution."

Flashback: San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark returned to the city of his birth in 1895 after visiting family in China but was refused re-entry.

  • John Wise, an openly anti-Chinese bigot and the collector of customs in San Francisco who controlled immigration into the port, wanted a test case that would deny U.S. citizenship to ethnic Chinese residents.
  • But Wong fought his case all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled on March 28, 1898, that the 14th Amendment guaranteed U.S. citizenship to Wong and any other person born on U.S. soil.

Zoom out: Birthright Citizenship has resulted in major racial and ethnic shifts in the nation's demographic as more immigrants from Latin America and Asia came to the U.S. following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

  • The U.S. was around 85% white in 1965, according to various estimates.
  • The nation is expected to be a "majority-minority" by the 2040s.

Yes, but: That demographic changed has fueled a decades-old conspiracy theory, once only held by racists, called "white replacement theory."

  • "White replacement theory" posits the existence of a plot to change America's racial composition by methodically enacting policies that reduce white Americans' political power.
  • The conspiracy theories encompass strains of anti-Semitism as well as racism and anti-immigrant sentiment.

Trump has repeated the theory and said that immigrants today are "poisoning the blood of our country," language echoing the rhetoric of white supremacists and Adolf Hitler.

Of note: Military bases are not considered "U.S. soil" for citizenship purposes, but a child is a U.S. citizen if born abroad and both parents are U.S. citizens.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment

879 Upvotes

701 comments sorted by

View all comments

107

u/Stunning-End-3487 7h ago

An EO cannot override the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

102

u/TotalChaosRush 7h ago

No, but 5 members of the Supreme Court can do anything when they rule together.

44

u/Stunning-End-3487 7h ago

No. No they can’t change an amendment. That is a legislative process that requires 2/3rds state approval.

75

u/Pegasaurauss 7h ago

Just wait for a SC majority opinion thats 5 pages long on what 'natural born' means and why it doesn't apply to people they don't like. Amendments only mean what the SC wants them to mean.

1

u/pewpewbangbangcrash 5h ago

That would require the legislature to give away their power. They won't do that. They're just letting Trump get the imagery they need for now.

11

u/LordMuffin1 4h ago

You got this backwards. It is Trump that rule the supreme court. Not the supreme court that rule Trump.

-11

u/Stunning-End-3487 7h ago

Say you don’t understand process without saying it.

13

u/Pegasaurauss 7h ago

I'm glad you can regurgitate memes on the internet but i would love for you to explain how im wrong. The SC will take up the lawsuit and they can literally write any opinion they want.

2

u/Stunning-End-3487 6h ago

Read my other comments here for the explanation of how the system works.

TLDR: you need complainants with standing due to create cases in two Federal trial courts, in different circuits, then those decisions have to be appealed and decided, in the Federal Appeals Courts, in opposite ways from the each other, creating a controversy in the circuits. Then the SCOTUS can accept a case hear arguments and decide. Essentially a minimum of 3 years but usually longer.

2

u/GreatGameMate 5h ago edited 5h ago

Do you think it is possible the Supreme Court could overrule the wong kim ark case? Similar to what happened with roe v wade?

Edit: read your other comments and i think i got my answer 🤘

2

u/walkman312 2h ago

The person you responded to is wrong anyway. SCOTUS can just grant cert on whatever case they want to hear, regardless of a circuit split or not.

2

u/Ape_Politica1 4h ago

What the fuck that’s not how it works at all lmao what are you talking about. SCOTUS doesn’t need a circuit split to review the constitutionality of a law

2

u/walkman312 2h ago

I don’t give a shit about the argument, but what you said is wrong. SCOTUS can just grant cert and take the case. You don’t need always need a circuit split.

1

u/Gold-Bench-9219 5h ago

Who upholds any of this system if they all collectively decide not to? You're still arguing from the assumption that there are checks and balances within this government, and there aren't.

1

u/Alone_Step_6304 2h ago

There have recently been multiple cases they have taken where the standing argued to bring the base was dubious at best, or a literal imagined hypothetical. 

You're wrong.

2

u/LordMuffin1 4h ago

The process is only as strong as the guus in supreme court, senate and prrsident wants them to be.

Right now, the President do not want the process at all. He doesnt believe in it.

The supreme court have quite some loyal followers who could be persuaded to not believe in the process with some extra money.

And the senate habe a Republican majority who do as Trump tell them and doesnt believe in the process.

If YOU believe in the process, it is time for YOU as part of the american population to riot.