...
By Billal Rahman
Immigration Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A new poll reveals that Americans are deeply divided on which groups of children should automatically receive United States citizenship at birth.
The survey found that a slight majority, 51 percent of respondents, support the view that "all children born in the U.S. should automatically become citizens."
Why It Matters
The Trump administration has made ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants a central focus of its hard-line immigration agenda.
Read More on Politics
Shortly after returning to the White House for a second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to challenge the long-standing precedent established by the 14th Amendment. The move has sparked immediate legal challenges from civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle over the scope of U.S. citizenship laws.
...
What To Know
Thirty-nine percent of respondents believe that "children born in the U.S. should automatically become citizens only if their parents are citizens," while 9 percent remain unsure.
Among those who believe all children born in the U.S. should automatically become citizens, 76 percent are Democrats, 54 percent are independents, and 26 percent are Republicans.
Support for limiting birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens is strongest among Republicans, with 68 percent in favor, followed by 33 percent of independents and 16 percent of Democrats.
The survey was conducted from January 27 to February 2, 2025, and included 1,124 U.S. adult citizens. The margin of error was 4.1 percentage points.
Respondents included a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, offering a broad political perspective. While the poll reflects national sentiment, it does not specify where participants were located.
The poll comes after a judge appointed by Trump ruled against his administration's effort to limit birthright citizenship, dealing a blow to a key immigration policy.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Justice Department's request to reinstate Trump's executive order, potentially setting up an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship grants individuals born in a country the legal right to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status.
The U.S. Constitution states: "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What Is the 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court upheld this guarantee in the landmark 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
In this decision, the Court determined that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was entitled to U.S. citizenship, setting a lasting precedent.
What People Are Saying
Amelia Wilson, a law professor at Pace University, told Newsweek: "The fact that almost half of those polled believe that birthright citizenship should be repealed or limited in some way is not only profoundly troubling, it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what it means to be 'American.'
"The 14th Amendment is one of the guiding, foundational principles of equality, and was ratified as an explicit repudiation of an 1857 Supreme Court case that held that Blacks and descendants of immigrants were 'inferior'—and therefore unworthy of citizenship.
"The 14th Amendment's adoption just 11 years later corrected this imperial notion, declaring that U.S. citizenship was conferred through birth on U.S. soil rather than by race or ancestry. Birthright citizenship has been reviewed by the Supreme Court repeatedly for over 125 years, and has been upheld each and every time. The Administration's current attempt to redefine citizenship is an attack on our history, and the nation itself."
Michael Frazer, a political lecturer at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, told Newsweek: "The entire point of a written constitution is to put certain questions outside of everyday democratic processes. Once a principle like birthright citizenship is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, passing an amendment to repeal it is so burdensome that it's supposed to protect the principle from any short-term fluctuations of public opinion.
"Unfortunately, constitutions don't enforce themselves. The Trump administration can certainly find lawyers willing to argue that the Constitution does not mean what its plain text so obviously says on the matter of birthright citizenship, and there's every reason to believe that a partisan Supreme Court will ultimately rule in favor of that misinterpretation.
"When judicial institutions can no longer be relied on to enforce the obvious meaning of a constitutional clause, then public opinion may be needed as a backstop.
"The fact that a majority of Americans believe that all those born in the United States should automatically become citizens and that an even larger majority believe this to be required by the U.S. Constitution, may become important when officials who have sworn to uphold the Constitution refuse to do so."
What Happens Next
While future presidents can reverse executive orders, changing the U.S. Constitution requires broad bipartisan support.
Since an executive order alone cannot eliminate birthright citizenship, doing so would likely require a constitutional amendment—a difficult and complex process. To amend the Constitution, a proposal must pass the House and Senate with a two-thirds majority and then be ratified by 38 state legislatures.
Instead of pursuing this legislative route, the Trump administration appears to be banking on a prolonged legal fight, potentially seeking a Supreme Court ruling to reinterpret the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Update, 3/5/25 6:45 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Amelia Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines