Social media is rife with panicked and absurd responses to President-elect Donald J. Trump’s promise to end birthright citizenship in the United States—though none are more hilarious or disturbing than those found on the popular message board website Reddit. On Sunday, President-elect Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker that his administration will move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, suggesting he may use an executive order to set off a court challenge to the current legal treatment of the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.
Trump’s remarks during the Sunday interview kicked off a lengthy Reddit thread on the channel r/politics. The thread title reads, “Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right that Trump can’t revoke” and “If you’re born in America, you’re an American, whether the president likes it or not.” However, along with the user responses, the Reddit thread title shows a naive ignorance of what the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court case law say.
‘LAWS DON’T MATTER?’
Right off the bat, at least one Reddit user argues, “He may be constrained by the laws of physics, but the laws of this country are just words on a page if they aren’t enforced.” They continue: “You can talk about will he or won’t he, but I don’t want to hear anyone saying ‘he can’t do that’ with regards to the law or our constitution.”
The comment prompts another user—evidently not having read the relevant passages in the 14th Amendment—to respond: “For instance, that same amendment says he can’t be president after trying to overthrow our government. Well, those words don’t seem to matter, so why should any other words in the constitution matter?”
While the 14th Amendment does bar individuals who have taken up arms against the United States from holding federal office, President-elect Trump or any of his appointees or Members of Congress present on January 6, 2021, have never been convicted of insurrection, armed or otherwise. Adding to the concerns regarding the two posters’ constitutional literacy, the 14th Amendment does not explicitly state that the children of immigrants—legal or illegal—born in the United States automatically receive U.S. citizenship.
‘THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.’
The core of the 14th Amendment question is whether the phrase “the jurisdiction thereof” applies to immigrants and their children subsequently born on U.S. soil. At least one user appears to think that birthright citizenship, which is constructed through the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, was somehow stripped from Japanese-Americans born in U.S. internment camps during World War II. While some of those placed in the camps either renounced their U.S. or—in the case of some dual citizens—their Japanese citizenship, the camps did not prevent birthright citizenship from being applied.
Yet, the concern over the vagueness of birthright citizenship—and the 14th Amendment clause “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”—isn’t unwarranted. President-elect Trump is correct that the law can be challenged and changed—perhaps most likely through the Supreme Court’s revisiting of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK.
Out of several hundred posts, only one Reddit user correctly notes just how precarious the legal grounding for birthright citizenship in the U.S. is.
“That was only guaranteed (and even then, there are exceptions, most notably the children of diplomats) after US v. Wong Kim Ark,” the user writes, continuing: “Prior to that, American-born Chinese people in particular regularly had their citizenship denied and were blocked from returning to the US if they ever left the country.”
“The dissent shows one path that could be taken, by having a majority flip the reasoning and say that the original majority was wrong,” the Reddit user notes, adding: “I’ll also note that Native Americans were explicitly denied citizenship under Elk v. Wilkins, and were not given citizenship until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.”
They also correctly point out that the contention with the Wong Kim Ark decision is that it only applies to those residing legally in the United States and that birthright citizenship—as it is currently legally constituted—does not apply to the children of those in the country illegally. This is where Trump’s executive order would come into play, meaning he could end birthright citizenship on day one of his presidency for the children of illegal immigrants.
MORE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
Beyond a few reasonable posts analyzing the issue, the Reddit thread quickly descends back into BlueAnon-style conspiracy theories.
Another user claims: “Forget the children of those who came here illegally. We should be asking ourselves if they’ll target birthright citizenship for anyone that doesn’t agree with the new administration.”
“My family has been in the US for at least 100 years, but I don’t have the documents my great great grandparents used to get into the US. For all I know, they came in without proper documentation,” another replies, adding: “Would that put my citizenship and that of my entire family at risk? If I spoke out against Trump, probably.”
Despite the outlandish claims and fantasies of oppression, legal action on birthright citizenship will primarily focus on the question of the status of children born to those in the country illegally. The suggestion that President-elect Trump would or could strip citizenship from those whose families have lived in the country for generations is, simply put, insane.
