Ending birthright citizenship would impact all Americans, legal experts say

[cigaretteman]

A month and a half before she was due to give birth, Duilanyela started having contractions and was rushed to the hospital, where doctors performed an emergency C-section and hysterectomy.
The undocumented Venezuelan woman had been grieving her son’s traumatic entry into the world. But her perspective changed after Donald Trump took office on Monday and issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship.


You are what you read. Reveal your 2024 reader type with Newsprint.

Her baby boy was originally due Feb. 24. Instead, he arrived on Jan. 8 — well before Trump’s executive order would take effect. Now she takes comfort in knowing there are no questions about his right to U.S. citizenship.
“It doesn’t matter the pain I went through, or the scars I have,” said Duilanyela, 31, speaking from the neonatal intensive care unit in Texas where her newborn lay sleeping. She spoke with The Washington Post on the condition that her last name not be used, because she fears being targeted for deportation. “I know he will be able to live in peace in this country.”

​

End of carousel
The directive has sparked fear and uncertainly for tens of thousands of immigrant families and foreign workers, students and tourists — and left hospitals, state and local governments, and even some in Trump’s administration, searching for answers over how it would be implemented.
🏛️
Follow Politics
Though it is likely to face a lengthy battle in court, legal experts said that if it were to go forward, the policy would have vast and sweeping implications — and not just for the undocumented population.
Lawyers say the logistical hurdles of instituting a system that would determine which babies born in the United States do and don’t qualify for citizenship would add to government bloat. It could also result in delays and errors in obtaining proof of citizenship, even for the millions who do qualify.

“This could impact all U.S. citizens,” said Jacob Hamburger, a visiting professor at Cornell University who focuses on how immigration impacts state and local jurisdictions.

Twenty-two states and four civil rights organizations have filed lawsuits claiming the order is unconstitutional, and a federal judge has temporarily blocked it from going into effect. Those cases could take years to resolve. Proponents of ending birthright citizenship are hoping the matter is settled at the Supreme Court, where Trump had a mixed record on immigration-related cases during his first term.
But some states had already begun laying the potential groundwork for enforcing the law by asking hospitals to identify undocumented patients. Federal lawmakers have already started preparing bills in support of Trump’s order. They argue the measure is needed to disincentivize illegal immigration.

“America’s citizenship laws should reflect fairness and respect for the rule of law,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), who has filed a bill that would limit automatic citizenship. He faulted “decades of misuse” and “the loophole that incentivizes illegal immigration and exploits U.S. citizenship through birth tourism.”

‘So thorny’​

The White House action aims to end automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrant parents and those born to foreign workers, students and tourists on temporary visas.

Some studies suggest more than 150,000 children born in the United States each year would no longer qualify for citizenship. The result would be a new class of undocumented children, including some who might end up stateless. The total number of undocumented people in the United States would probably rise.

Beyond some general guidelines, the order offered few details about how agencies would put it into effect. Federal government lawyers said in a court filing that the measure would impact children born after the directive takes effect on Feb. 19. Agencies like the Social Security Administration would be required to align their policies to comply.
Some legal experts said enforcing the new rule would be a major challenge in part because of the way hospitals and local governments report births. In most cases, information about the parents and newborn is collected at the hospital, a process aimed at helping families quickly secure birth certificates and Social Security numbers for their babies.

The White House order does not specify who would be charged with verifying that the parents are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.

“The implementation question is so thorny, and it could create a new level of bureaucracy that affects everybody,” said Amanda Frost, an immigration law professor at the University of Virginia. “How will the Social Security system require proof of a parent’s status? How will hospitals gather data? Are parents going to have the ability to grab a passport before going to the hospital?”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/01/24/elon-musk-conflicts-doge-trump-openai/

Trump administration officials did not respond to a request for comment for this story. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the administration plans to appeal the temporary restraining order blocking the directive.
“It will be the policy and the view of this administration that a pregnant woman or parents cannot just come to the United States of America, give birth and expect that their child can have automatic citizenship in the United States of America,” she said.
Without automatic citizenship, hospitals would have to absorb the costs of providing treatment to newborns who need intensive care and no longer qualify for Medicaid, said Cassaundra Jah, an Austin-based midwife who is the executive director of the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/26/trump-birthright-citizenship-undocumented-children/

 

[cigaretteman]

Parents of babies who do qualify for U.S. citizenship might also find themselves in a financial bind, she said, as they could encounter delays in accessing Medicaid while the government verifies their eligibility.


And there could also be impacts even before a child is born. Expectant parents who are undocumented might be less likely to seek out prenatal and delivery care out of fear of deportation, Jah added.
“It’s the undocumented people, it’s all the Medicaid people regardless of citizenship — so the most vulnerable of our population will be the ones that are disproportionately affected by this policy change,” Jah said.
In a pair of federal lawsuits filed Tuesday, officials in 22 states, along with D.C. and the city of San Francisco, argued local jurisdictions would be required to undertake disruptive new operational and administrative burdens. The state officials also said they would lose revenue from the federal government to help provide benefits for children who are affected.

Lawyers with the Justice Department countered that the executive order “does not require states to change their systems” and argued that states cannot claim economic harm in this case as a reason to sue the federal government.

Gabriel Chin, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, said that creating a new process for identifying U.S. citizens at birth could also lead to costly mistakes in correctly determining who qualifies.
“When you create a complex system like this one over something so fundamental,” he said, “you are inviting tragic errors.”

Legal limbo​

While ending birthright citizenship would mean backtracking on a bedrock American legal principle, the United States has a history of monitoring undocumented immigrants and creating special classes of people who exist in legal limbo.

In Texas, hospitals are already required to collect information on whether patients are undocumented, including those who are pregnant. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) ordered hospitals to track undocumented patients and the costs associated with them last November.

At the time, Abbott said he issued the order because “Texans should not have to shoulder the burden of financially supporting medical care for illegal immigrants.”
Texas officials also have a history of challenging birthright citizenship. Texas’s vital statistics unit denied 17 undocumented Mexican and Central American families birth certificates for U.S.-born children in 2015.
The families and the American Civil Liberties Union sued in federal court, claiming the state policy violated their children’s constitutional rights. State officials countered that the policy was necessary to prevent identity fraud and that federal courts didn’t have jurisdiction. The state eventually reached an agreement with the families.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/22/trump-hannity-interview/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...2/justice-immigrantion-memo-sanctuary-cities/

Texas state and congressional lawmakers have also proposed measures to track migrants and limit birthright citizenship. At least nine other Texas Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors to Babin’s bill to restrict citizenship to children born in the United States with at least one parent who is a citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an immigrant serving in the military.

Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee (D) said his Texas jurisdiction, which includes the city of Houston, has not heard from state or federal authorities about how the president’s executive order would be implemented. He expressed concern that any such process could be disruptive, and that the Trump administration will try to disqualify as wide a group of immigrant children as possible.
“I expect the guidance that comes out of this from the [Trump administration] to be very punitive, overwhelming,” he said “I expect that they will gravely overreach.”

Hospitals have also been required to request the immigration status of their patients in Florida since May 2023. In Florida, hospitals must state to patients they will not report them to immigration authorities — a provision that’s not included in Texas’s order. In both cases, hospitals are still required to treat patients regardless of their status under federal law.
“If anything does happen, it’ll probably start in the states already leaning toward these more hostile measures,” said Jason de León, a professor of anthropology and Chicana/Chicano studies at UCLA.
The United States also has a history of leaving residents on its land in citizenship limbo. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act not only barred Chinese immigrants from entering the United States, but also denied a pathway to citizenship to those who were already in the country.
In 1935, the Philippines was established as a U.S. commonwealth and its residents were considered U.S. nationals but were not granted citizenship. Filipinos could not vote for the president, but they could join the U.S. military. The arrangement lasted until 1946, when the Philippines became its own independent nation.
Residents in other territories in the United States still exist in a limbo status today, such as in Puerto Rico, where residents living on the island, while granted U.S. citizenship, are not allowed to vote in presidential elections.
“This is the latest chapter in a long story of hostility to people based on alleged cultural differences,” Chin said.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

Parents of babies who do qualify for U.S. citizenship might also find themselves in a financial bind, she said, as they could encounter delays in accessing Medicaid while the government verifies their eligibility.


And there could also be impacts even before a child is born. Expectant parents who are undocumented might be less likely to seek out prenatal and delivery care out of fear of deportation, Jah added.
“It’s the undocumented people, it’s all the Medicaid people regardless of citizenship — so the most vulnerable of our population will be the ones that are disproportionately affected by this policy change,” Jah said.
In a pair of federal lawsuits filed Tuesday, officials in 22 states, along with D.C. and the city of San Francisco, argued local jurisdictions would be required to undertake disruptive new operational and administrative burdens. The state officials also said they would lose revenue from the federal government to help provide benefits for children who are affected.

Lawyers with the Justice Department countered that the executive order “does not require states to change their systems” and argued that states cannot claim economic harm in this case as a reason to sue the federal government.

Gabriel Chin, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, said that creating a new process for identifying U.S. citizens at birth could also lead to costly mistakes in correctly determining who qualifies.
“When you create a complex system like this one over something so fundamental,” he said, “you are inviting tragic errors.”

Legal limbo​

While ending birthright citizenship would mean backtracking on a bedrock American legal principle, the United States has a history of monitoring undocumented immigrants and creating special classes of people who exist in legal limbo.

In Texas, hospitals are already required to collect information on whether patients are undocumented, including those who are pregnant. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) ordered hospitals to track undocumented patients and the costs associated with them last November.

At the time, Abbott said he issued the order because “Texans should not have to shoulder the burden of financially supporting medical care for illegal immigrants.”
Texas officials also have a history of challenging birthright citizenship. Texas’s vital statistics unit denied 17 undocumented Mexican and Central American families birth certificates for U.S.-born children in 2015.
The families and the American Civil Liberties Union sued in federal court, claiming the state policy violated their children’s constitutional rights. State officials countered that the policy was necessary to prevent identity fraud and that federal courts didn’t have jurisdiction. The state eventually reached an agreement with the families.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/22/trump-hannity-interview/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...2/justice-immigrantion-memo-sanctuary-cities/

Texas state and congressional lawmakers have also proposed measures to track migrants and limit birthright citizenship. At least nine other Texas Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors to Babin’s bill to restrict citizenship to children born in the United States with at least one parent who is a citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an immigrant serving in the military.

Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee (D) said his Texas jurisdiction, which includes the city of Houston, has not heard from state or federal authorities about how the president’s executive order would be implemented. He expressed concern that any such process could be disruptive, and that the Trump administration will try to disqualify as wide a group of immigrant children as possible.
“I expect the guidance that comes out of this from the [Trump administration] to be very punitive, overwhelming,” he said “I expect that they will gravely overreach.”

Hospitals have also been required to request the immigration status of their patients in Florida since May 2023. In Florida, hospitals must state to patients they will not report them to immigration authorities — a provision that’s not included in Texas’s order. In both cases, hospitals are still required to treat patients regardless of their status under federal law.
“If anything does happen, it’ll probably start in the states already leaning toward these more hostile measures,” said Jason de León, a professor of anthropology and Chicana/Chicano studies at UCLA.
The United States also has a history of leaving residents on its land in citizenship limbo. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act not only barred Chinese immigrants from entering the United States, but also denied a pathway to citizenship to those who were already in the country.
In 1935, the Philippines was established as a U.S. commonwealth and its residents were considered U.S. nationals but were not granted citizenship. Filipinos could not vote for the president, but they could join the U.S. military. The arrangement lasted until 1946, when the Philippines became its own independent nation.
Residents in other territories in the United States still exist in a limbo status today, such as in Puerto Rico, where residents living on the island, while granted U.S. citizenship, are not allowed to vote in presidential elections.
“This is the latest chapter in a long story of hostility to people based on alleged cultural differences,” Chin said.

GTFO!

 

[Scruddy]

Nope, no more anchor babies.