President Trump started off his second term by signing a slew of executive orders, including one attempting to revoke birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents with unlawful or even temporary status. The public response has ranged from nationwide protests to preliminary injunctions against the order.

The order itself states that if a parent was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth, the child then cannot claim birthright. An important distinction that this proposal makes puts citizens under DACA at risk, as well as many citizens who have otherwise maintained legal status in the U.S. with the intent of gaining permanent citizenship over time.

Protests have been sprouting nationwide, including Washington’s own Alki Beach, where hundreds gathered last Sunday, Feb. 2, to announce solidarity with immigrants who are being put at risk of deportation under the proposed executive order. The Thunderword’s own Steven Wilson Jr. wrote a personal account of the protest, which can be read here, though there is no shortage of voices which can be heard in opposition to this attempted ban.

An anonymous protester last Sunday at Alki Beach elaborated on the importance of not succumbing to helplessness when the news cycle seems to hammer home just how hopeless things can be. “Look, there’s been anti-immigration sentiment forever here, and there always will be in some way or another. But I’m not going anywhere. We’re not going anywhere.”

The opposition has taken many forms in this national argument; protesters, judges, civil rights organizations, and fact-checkers have all rallied in a unified goal of blocking one of the Republican Party’s most bold attempts at bolstering anti-immigrant law. The head of today’s GOP has been unapologetic about his belief that the U.S. should not play an active role in protecting migrants.

Upon signing, Trump told the press, “It’s ridiculous, we’re the only country in the world who does this.” Despite the president’s claim, there are in fact 33 countries in the world who have birthright citizenship: a fact backed by the World Population Review as well multiple fact-checking sources online.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” and “[conflicting] with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.” Seattle’s Judge Coughenhour has also put a temporary hold on the order, likewise claiming unconstitutionality on the part of President Trump.

Constitutional experts have been quick to point out that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says “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.” 

Decriers of the 14th Amendment as a defense of birthright citizenship have gone on to claim that the 1868 ratification of the amendment was during a time when there “weren’t unauthorized immigrants in the [U.S.] like there are today,” though United States v. Wong Kim Ark’s ruling in 1898 has been the national precedent for such cases throughout the nation’s history, and does imply our exact current definition of birthright citizenship as law.

The national argument about birthright citizenship has brought constitutional law and human rights to the centerstage, as well as forced the American public to reckon with what and who makes up its community. While the Trump Administration continues to fight to end birthright citizenship, the subsequent existence of all Americans on U.S. soil will undoubtedly be put into question as a result.

*Liv Lyons has been an editor for the Thunderword since 2023. Their blog, “Loser Pulp“, is released twice a month.