One hundred sixty years after the 14th Amendment established citizenship for people born in the United States, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the Trump administration can limit that guarantee for children born to noncitizen parents.

 Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 that eliminated birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This case, Trump v. Barbara, rests on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are U.S. citizens. The court heard oral arguments from each side on April 1 and is expected to rule on the case in May or June, which will affect families of the 11 million immigrants living in California.

The Trump Administration contends that automatic birthright citizenship incentivizes immigration or  “travel tourism,” where wealthy foreign nationals travel to the U.S. to give birth so that their children gain the benefits of American citizenship — though this is a relatively rare phenomenon, constituting less than one percent of babies born annually according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Many opponents of birthright citizenship also say that it encourages illegal immigration. Junior Cameron Rampell, who recently led a debate on border control and ICE violence, emphasized that the current system might have loopholes. 

“Birthright citizenship has really been exploited where a ton of illegal immigrants are flooding into this country and having kids to ensure that they have citizenship,” Cameron said. “A lot of times these American citizens will push some of these welfare benefits onto their illegal immigrant parents.”

Immigration researcher Kayla Chen (11) noted that the unique cultural history of the U.S., centered around immigrant families, makes birthright citizenship all the more important.

“Much of America is very dependent on its immigrant history and it doesn’t have a single monolithic group of people, so it’s much harder to instill things like taking away birthright citizenship,” Kayla said. “A lot of people say thatEuropean countries don’t have birthright citizenship, but in general they have a lot more of an ethnically monolithic history than America does. The question of which bloodlines are American is dangerous in my opinion. 

Illegal immigrants are generally ineligible for federal benefits but may access them on behalf of U.S.-born children. For example, an undocumented immigrant could use Medicaid for the eligible children, which would help the parent as well as the child.

“It is unfortunate that some people will get their citizenship revoked, but at the same time this is a systemic issue that you need to squash out,” Cameron said. “So there are some trade-offs you need to make.”

Arguments on both sides examine legal and historical precedent. Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 to recognize the citizenship of formerly enslaved people. But while it did address a specific injustice in American history, the history of its legal principles dates much further back.  

Macalester College Chair of History Walter Greason, who spoke at the Student Diversity Leadership Gathering on April 18, explained that the link between birthplace and citizenship is hundreds of years old, a concept inherited from English law. He pointed out how nativism has risen since the passing of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act that abolished the national origin quota system for immigration.

“The notion of land determining who can be included in the society goes back into English common law, more than five centuries ago,” Dr. Greason said. “To attempt to uproot that and redefine it flies in the face of the origins of not just American law, but English language law. This is an explicitly racist attempt to do this by saying people who have come since 1965 are somehow suspicious or unworthy and cannot become legitimate parts of American society.”

Historically, exceptions to birthright citizens have been very rare, like the children of foreign diplomats. Moving to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary workers would constitute a significant change.

“There’s a real problem with redefining birthright citizenship to reimpose essentially a national origins qualification on it,” Dr. Greason said. “Beyond that, it explicitly violates the intentions of the people who wrote the amendment, who wanted to say being an American was about the values that you held. They foresaw a future where people from all around the world could be part of society.”

Greason emphasized that, in a time of political turmoil and uncertainty, young voices are more important than ever in shaping change.

“Your choices, your insights, your knowledge are so much more important than you can imagine,” Dr. Greason said. “As young people, stretching and believing in yourselves, staying connected to each other, you all will build the systems that we need to make the society better over the next decade.”

As debates over birthright citizenship intensify, the question of who belongs becomes more and more personal, especially in a community shaped by immigration.

The path from immigration to citizenship often takes over half a decade. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S. can grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas, and there is no limit on admission of U.S. citizens’ immediate relatives. Once granted an immigrant visa or equivalent protection like asylum, an individual may apply to become a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) and obtain a green card. After living in the U.S. for at least five years, an LPR can apply for U.S. citizenship. 

Kayla noted that the U.S. immigration process has become more tightly controlled over the past few years, making the process of obtaining a citizenship much longer and more difficult.

“It’s definitely very difficult to come legally, and even if you do come legally, you are not guaranteed to be safe,” Kayla said. “You could come on a student visa and you just can’t find a job, your student visa expires and now you get deported back to your home country. It’s difficult to find stability in the immigration system.”

California is home to the largest population of immigrants in the U.S. The Bay Area in particular is a magnet for immigrant families, which is evident in the demographics of the Harker community. In a recent survey of 115 Harker students, 91.6% said at least one of their parents is an immigrant. 

However, first and second generation immigrants at Harker often feel various degrees of connection to their parents’ home countries. Junior Beibei Shen immigrated from Suzhou, China, to the Bay Area in 2015, primarily so she and her older sister could pursue an American education. She holds a green card and a Chinese passport.

“I’m honestly more connected to the U.S. because I’ve grown up here and have spent more of my formative years here.” Beibei said. “I’d still consider myself more Chinese than I am American because that’s where I was born, that’s where all my family is, that’s where my mother still currently lives and that’s my place of citizenship.” 

Mathematics teacher Bradley Stoll feels strongly about unjust deportation and  emphasized that many people who come to the U.S., whether through legal or unauthorized means, are pursuing the American dream and the freedoms associated with being a U.S. citizen. 

“People go through so much to try to have a decent life,” Stoll said. “They know that their child can have a better life and there’s things that will be available to them by being a U.S. citizen. So, of course, you want your child born here.”