Trump’s Birthright Challenge: Rethinking the 14th Amendment

REPOST

As a steadfast critic of Donald Trump, I'm typically direct with my criticism and of holding him accountable—scrutinizing his policies, questioning his motives, and, yes, calling out the missteps that warrant critique. My reservations about Trump’s leadership are well-documented, and I’m the first to voice concern when his choices stray into the realm of political theater or empty populism. But I also give him credit when it’s due and honesty demands that I address the whole picture. If Trump takes a step that aligns with sound policy or sparks a much-needed national conversation, I will recognize it, regardless of my broader critiques. So, here we are: Trump’s proposed executive order on birthright citizenship. While it will likely face fierce judicial pushback and constitutional hurdles, it’s a move that could force Congress to confront our crumbling immigration system and the porous nature of our borders. If executed thoughtfully, this order could shine a light on the longstanding issues within our citizenship policies, ultimately propelling the debate on border security and immigration reform into the forefront of American politics where it belongs. To quote Trump’s quaint but accurate platitude if you don’t have secure borders you don’t have a country.

In the grand theater of American politics, there are few spectacles as bracing as Donald Trump wielding his executive order pen. His latest headliner—an executive order to end birthright citizenship—promises all the drama of a Shakespearean tragedy, complete with inevitable judicial backlash, Congressional theatrics, and the Constitution brought center stage. Now, even the most ardent advocates know this executive order is unlikely to survive a Supreme Court review, but perhaps that’s not the point. After all, the Trump administration has always had a taste for stirring the pot as much as actually seasoning the dish. And who can deny the value in sparking a debate that Congress has long avoided, much to the frustration of many Americans?

Ron DeSantis, never one to be outshone, has himself argued for this exact approach when Trump was President before, laying the intellectual groundwork with a deft bit of realpolitik: even if Trump’s order fails, it compels Congress and society at large to take action. The fact that Trump is charging ahead with the plan before he’s even in office should tell us something. It’s not just a Hail Mary play; it’s a forceful demand that Congress face the implications of birthright citizenship.

An Old Argument for a New Age

For as long as the 14th Amendment has been around, there has been debate about its interpretation. The amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Now, I don’t presume to rewrite history, but one can certainly question whether the framers anticipated today’s challenges—where borders are porous and where being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” could be so expansively interpreted. Now those framers of the 14th amendment did in fact discuss the issue of immigrants and the debates did cover their inclusion. This was before the country had real issues with immigration from the Mexican border to the degree we have today. The Constitution is not a shocked pact, it’s subject to change by amendment and also by congresses powers with him they framework of the language.

Let’s be clear: this executive order will almost certainly lose in the courts. It’s a fine idea, politically charged and certainly legally creative, but without substantial support in both Congress and the judiciary, it lacks the constitutional legs to stand. And that’s where Congress, that bastion of snail-paced deliberation, must be called to act.

Congress has the constitutional authority to pass laws on matters of national security, immigration, and citizenship. And given that birthright citizenship has evolved far beyond the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, this is a moment that demands Congressional clarity. They must, at the very least, acknowledge that we cannot afford to have something as consequential as citizenship policy dangling at the mercy of judicial caprice. We are a nation of laws and loopholes that allow for immigrants even legal ones to have a claim just by happenstance of birth location flies against a nation’s ability to maintain it’s own borders.

From Executive Order to Congressional Action: The Road Forward

Here’s the brilliance of Trump’s proposal and support of it. By issuing this executive order, Trump essentially dares Congress to assert itself on the question of birthright citizenship, forcing the legislative branch to make decisions it has avoided for decades. Think of it as a poker game: Trump has just raised the stakes. Will Congress fold, as it has so many times before, or will it finally take a stand?

Some may argue that this gambit oversteps executive authority. That’s nonsense. Trump’s executive order is less about overstepping and more about prompting Congress to actually step up. And, until an amendment is actually created-the forgotten tool of constitutional evolution—an executive order serves as a shot across the bow, a reminder that we have mechanisms for addressing outdated interpretations. Let’s not forget that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has a duty to protect the nation’s sovereignty, and in a world where unauthorized border crossings have become routine, redefining citizenship eligibility speaks directly to the nation’s ability to control its own destiny.

Why We Need an Amendment

Let’s cut to the chase. The surest way to address birthright citizenship is a constitutional amendment. It may be a long, difficult road, requiring states to ratify, legislators to grow a spine, and the American public to weigh in. But an amendment would be a true act of national will—one that ensures that our citizenship laws reflect the reality of 21st-century America, not the America of 1868.

Until then, however, Congress can do much. They can pass legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship eligibility, defining who qualifies as “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a manner that aligns with today’s understanding of national borders. Some may balk at classifying undocumented immigrants as something akin to “enemy combatants” to “circumvent” birthright citizenship. But consider the logic: by crossing into the country illegally, one might argue, they are indeed disregarding the sovereignty of the nation, a basic affront that Congress has every right to address.

The 14th Amendment, while clear in its sweeping language, was never intended to confer citizenship upon every individual merely by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil. The framers were deliberate in their inclusion of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," recognizing a distinction between the allegiance owed by American citizens and those whose presence is, by definition, exempt from such obligations. Enemy combatants, foreign diplomats, and their families occupy a peculiar legal status; they remain subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, not that of the United States. Just as embassies operate as sovereign soil of their respective nations, so too are children born to diplomats or those in direct conflict with the U.S. shielded from automatic citizenship by the legal jurisdiction of their parents. This distinction honors the original intent of the Amendment, which sought to enshrine the rights of freed slaves, not to indiscriminately extend citizenship to those whose primary loyalty lies elsewhere.

A Constitutional Path, with a Nod to Realism

Let’s be realistic. The courts are unlikely to interpret the 14th Amendment in a way that restricts birthright citizenship without explicit direction from Congress. If Trump’s executive order fails—as it likely will—it should only reinforce the need for Congress to act. By framing unauthorized entry as a violation of U.S. sovereignty, Congress has grounds to explore new definitions within immigration law that align with the realities of national security and border integrity. The distinction between “birthright citizenship” and “birthright privilege” may sound pedantic, but it is at the heart of this debate. Congress must, for the first time in many years, decide what sovereignty means in a modern context.

The Tango of Principles and Pragmatism

One can simultaneously support the birthright citizenship executive order as a strategic maneuver and acknowledge its likely failure in the courts. This is not a contradiction but rather a recognition of the push-pull dynamic in American governance—a dance, if you will, between principles and pragmatism. Trump and DeSantis are playing their parts in this constitutional tango, compelling Congress to finally face the music on an issue that has simmered for far too long.

In the end, this is not just about immigration or birthright citizenship; it is about the nature of citizenship itself. Who are we, as a nation, to grant citizenship to everyone born on our soil, regardless of their parents’ allegiance or status? It’s a question that Congress, rather than the courts or the President, should answer, once and for all. If Trump’s action creates a true debate on the issue we might see Congress actually engage finally In addressing our illegal immigration issue and our Border security and national integrity as well. An executive order, flawed as it may be no matter how well written, is simply the first step in that long-awaited national conversation. And perhaps, with a little wit and a lot of courage, we might just get somewhere.

Enjoyed this article? New content is free, but The Rational Purview will be depending on its readers and genuine interest to grow. By becoming a paid subscriber, you’ll unlock access to our archive and play a direct role in shaping the future of this publication.

Your support fuels not just our work, but the expansion of a principled, idea-driven conservatism. Together, we can build something enduring. Join us today and be part of the movement.