World getting rich selling US citizenships: Trump on Birthright Citizenship

US President Donald Trump on Monday renewed his attack on birthright citizenship, saying the constitutional provision was meant for the “BABIES OF SLAVES” and not for children of wealthy foreigners.

“Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”, Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform Truth Social

“We are the only Country in the World that dignifies this subject with even discussion. Look at the dates of this long ago legislation - THE EXACT END OF THE CIVIL WAR! The World is getting rich selling citizenships to our Country, while at the same time laughing at how STUPID our US Court System has become (TARIFFS!). ‘Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!’”, he added.

The remarks come as the US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 1 in a case challenging the Trump administration’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship in the US comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the American Civil War.

The amendment guarantees that: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

It was introduced in part to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling, which had denied citizenship to people of African descent.

The Trump administration’s order

On his first day in office in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

The order removes automatic citizenship for children born in the US to parents who are:

1. In the country illegally
2. On temporary visas

It was scheduled to take effect on February 19, 2025, and is not retroactive.

The administration argues that such individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore their children should not qualify for citizenship under the Constitution.

Officials have also argued that the amendment was intended to address the rights of former slaves after the Civil War, not to cover children of undocumented migrants or temporary visitors.

Constitution vs executive order

At the centre of the legal battle is how the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted.

Trump’s position, backed by some conservative legal scholars, is that people in the US without permanent legal status do not meet this condition.

In court filings, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the case offers a chance to correct what he called “long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution's meaning”.

He compared the case to landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education and District of Columbia v. Heller.

Legal challenges and opposition

The order has been blocked by lower courts, with challengers arguing that it contradicts the Constitution.

“We have the president of the United States trying to radically reinterpret the definition of American citizenship,” said Cecillia Wang, who is representing the challengers.

Advocates and researchers say the policy could affect more than 250,000 babies born in the US each year, according to estimates by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University Population Research Institute.

While much of Trump’s rhetoric has focused on illegal immigration, the proposed restrictions would also apply to people legally in the US, including students and those applying for permanent residency.

"Ending birthright citizenship would deeply impact Indian citizens, particularly H-1B and F-1 visa holders whose children were born in past or are now born in the US. They would no longer automatically receive citizenship and could immediately face deportation and lose the ability to eventually sponsor their parents for Green Cards, creating long-term legal and residency uncertainty for thousands of Indian families," Sam Andrabi, legal associate at Jotwani Associates told Business Standard.

However, he also explained that the process for amending the US Constitution was designed to be diffiult to change.

"Even when President Trump sounds desperate to repeal the Constitution of the United States, the process for amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article V of the USA constitution itself. It was intentionally designed to be difficult to ensure that only changes with a broad national consensus are adopted. An amendment of the Constitution can take place when both the House of Representatives and the Senate) vote positively to amend the Constitution. And then even the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to oversee and reject any amendment," said Andrabi.