Parents fear their children born in the US could become ‘stateless’ if Trump wins birthright case

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday regarding the legality of a Trump administration policy that seeks to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship, a move that could impact millions of people living legally in the United States. The case centers on whether children born in the U.S. to parents who are not permanent residents are automatically citizens.

Potential Impact on Legal Residents

For 26 years, “Pilar,” a legal resident of Florida, has built a life in the United States, obtaining work papers, graduating high school, establishing a career as a paralegal, and purchasing a home. However, under President Donald Trump’s legal theory, she is considered “temporarily present,” and her future children could be denied citizenship.

The administration’s arguments focus on illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” but the policy would also affect individuals like Pilar who have resided in the U.S. legally for years, including those with humanitarian protections like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, or those awaiting asylum claim reviews. Estimates suggest as many as 6.5 million people living in the U.S. legally could have children denied citizenship if the order takes effect.

The Legal Challenge

The case, Trump v. Barbara, involves a Honduran national seeking asylum who is identified only by a pseudonym in court records. The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes immigrants in the country illegally, asserting that birthright citizenship should be limited to those with a “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, such as those who are “domiciled” in the country.

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, contend that the terms “allegiance” and “domicile” are not found within the text of the 14th Amendment. They argue that individuals like Pilar, who have established lives in the U.S., should be considered domiciled.

Personal Stories

Pilar, a DACA recipient who fled Colombia as a child, expressed concern about expanding her family, stating, “I come from a big family…Our dream was always to have three or four kids, but now I think about it.” She and others interviewed for this story requested anonymity due to fears of repercussions.

“Lily,” a Ukrainian woman living in the U.S. under the Uniting for Ukraine program, also shared her anxieties. She and her husband had a son late last year and worry about his future, as returning to Ukraine would be “like a death penalty” given the ongoing conflict.

Immigrant advocates emphasize that the majority of those affected by the policy are not engaging in “birth tourism” but are individuals who have built lives and contribute to the U.S. economy and society.