Trump Has Multiple Choices Regarding Birthright Citizenship

President Donald Trump may still have several options for changing how birthright citizenship is applied in the United States, despite a Supreme Court ruling that blocked his administration’s earlier approach.

Constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz said Friday that both the Trump administration and Congress could pursue narrower policies dealing with birthright citizenship, immigration and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Speaking on Newsmax’s “Bianca Across the Nation,” Dershowitz pointed to one particular phrase in the Constitution that he believes could play an important role in future legal battles.

The 14th Amendment provides citizenship to people born or naturalized in the United States who are also subject to the nation’s jurisdiction.

According to Dershowitz, that jurisdiction requirement could give elected officials additional room to determine how citizenship laws apply in certain circumstances.

His argument comes as Trump continues pushing for significant changes to U.S. immigration policy during his second term, setting up another potentially important constitutional debate over the powers of the president, Congress and the federal courts.

Supreme Court Blocked Trump’s Previous Birthright Citizenship Effort

Trump suffered a major legal setback on June 30 when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against his previous executive order addressing automatic citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

The administration had sought to deny automatic citizenship in specified cases involving children whose mothers were either unlawfully present in the country or were in the United States temporarily.

The policy also addressed circumstances in which the child’s father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.

The Supreme Court ruling prevented that particular approach from moving forward. However, Dershowitz argues that the decision does not necessarily settle every constitutional question surrounding birthright citizenship.

Instead, Trump could pursue narrower executive actions while Republican lawmakers in Congress consider legislation dealing with specific practices connected to the citizenship system.

That distinction could become increasingly important as the administration searches for policies capable of surviving future court challenges.

Could Congress Take Action on Birth Tourism?

One possible avenue involves what is commonly known as “birth tourism.”

The term generally refers to foreign nationals traveling to the United States with the intention of giving birth while in the country, potentially allowing their child to obtain U.S. citizenship.

Dershowitz suggested that Congress could consider legislation targeting companies or organizations that deliberately market services designed to bring foreign nationals into the United States primarily for that purpose.

Rather than attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship through a broad policy, such legislation could focus on commercial practices associated with birth tourism.

That approach could shift part of the debate away from whether the president can unilaterally redefine citizenship and toward Congress’ authority to regulate immigration and related commercial activity.

Trump Signs New Executive Orders

The issue returned to the forefront Thursday when Trump signed two additional executive orders addressing birthright citizenship.

The latest actions reportedly focus on birth tourism and certain other circumstances involving children born within the United States.

The administration’s strategy suggests Trump is not abandoning one of the most controversial immigration issues of his presidency despite the earlier Supreme Court defeat.

Dershowitz believes narrower measures could potentially provide the administration with additional legal options.

He emphasized that the Constitution does not simply refer to being born within the United States. It also includes the requirement that an individual be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Exactly how far that language allows the federal government to go remains a major constitutional question.

14th Amendment Could Be Key to Next Legal Fight

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment has become central to the debate.

Ratified following the Civil War, the amendment was designed in part to guarantee citizenship rights following the abolition of slavery.

Over time, its language has been interpreted as providing citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, with limited exceptions.

Supporters of the longstanding interpretation argue that the Constitution establishes a clear and predictable citizenship standard that cannot simply be rewritten through presidential action.

Critics, however, argue that the phrase concerning U.S. jurisdiction deserves greater consideration, particularly when parents are in the country illegally or temporarily.

Dershowitz believes that language provides room for additional action by the federal government.

Dershowitz Questions Broad Interpretation of Citizenship

Dershowitz also challenged the principle that birth inside U.S. territory should automatically settle the citizenship question under virtually every circumstance.

He questioned whether citizenship should be granted solely on the location of a person’s birth when there may otherwise be little connection or allegiance to the United States.

His position reflects a broader debate among conservatives over whether current citizenship rules encourage people to take advantage of American immigration laws.

Supporters of birthright citizenship strongly disagree, maintaining that changing the established interpretation could create significant constitutional and practical problems.

That disagreement means any major new action from the Trump administration or Congress could eventually return to the federal courts.

Congress May Hold the Stronger Hand

One of the biggest questions going forward is whether Congress rather than the White House will ultimately have to take the lead.

Presidents have considerable authority over immigration enforcement and executive branch policy, but changing a longstanding interpretation of constitutional citizenship raises much larger legal questions.

Congress could potentially pursue narrower legislation aimed at birth tourism, immigration enforcement or other specific practices without attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship altogether.

Republicans controlling Congress could therefore play an important role in determining how far Trump’s citizenship agenda advances.

Any legislation would still have to comply with the Constitution and could face challenges in federal court.

Birthright Citizenship Debate Is Far From Over

The Supreme Court ruling represented an important defeat for Trump’s earlier policy, but it has not ended the political or constitutional battle.

Trump’s latest executive actions indicate that the administration intends to continue testing what authority the federal government has over birthright citizenship and immigration policy.

Dershowitz argues that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” could become the foundation for the next phase of that fight.

Whether federal judges ultimately agree is another question.

For Americans concerned about illegal immigration, border security, constitutional rights and the meaning of U.S. citizenship, the issue could become increasingly significant as Trump and congressional Republicans consider their next moves.

The outcome could ultimately determine not only how the federal government addresses birth tourism, but also how one of the most consequential provisions of the 14th Amendment is interpreted for future generations.