Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship sparks GOP divisions

Al Jazeera English

President Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship is dividing House Republicans, highlighting internal differences on the thorny topic of immigration just as the GOP is making gains with Hispanic voters.
And a third group is hanging on the fence, acknowledging the noble history of birthright citizenship while questioning if Congress needs to adapt the law to modern times.
And this is one of those issues,” he added, referring specifically to the end of birthright citizenship.
Gimenez said he’s confident the courts, which have already blocked Trump’s order in the near term, will ultimately rule that it’s unconstitutional.
“[Trump’s] historic executive order to end birthright citizenship marks a critical step forward, and now with the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, we can solidify these reforms into lasting law and codify them,” Babin said at a press conference.

POSITIVE

As the GOP gains support from Hispanic voters, President Trump’s attempt to abolish birthright citizenship is causing division among House Republicans and exposing internal divisions on the contentious issue of immigration.

Trump’s executive order has become a rallying cry for the Republicans’ MAGA base, and many conservatives support it because they are concerned that people who are illegally in the country have abused their birthright citizenship.

Some moderates are protesting that Trump does not have the power to unilaterally abolish a constitutional right that has been in place for more than 150 years because they are afraid of undermining it.

A third group, which acknowledges the admirable history of birthright citizenship but questions whether Congress needs to update the law to reflect contemporary circumstances, is unsure.

Trump and Republicans made major gains with Hispanic voters during the previous election cycle, and they hope to continue that momentum in the years to come. This battle is taking place just months after that. In fact, according to Associated Press polls, Trump won 43% of Hispanic voters last November, an increase of 8% over his failed 2020 campaign, despite Democrats’ historical significant advantage with this demographic.

Republicans who backed Trump’s campaign claimed that the president is only fulfilling his campaign promises to voters, including Hispanic voters who favor stricter immigration laws.

The American public gave him the order to halt the bloodshed at the southern border, according to Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla. claimed.

“I give a lot of credit because [President Trump] has been very clear about what he’s been wanting to do, regardless of whether people like specifics or not. “And this is one of those issues,” he continued, making a specific reference to the termination of birthright citizenship. He has a lot of support from Hispanics nationwide for a reason: he follows through on his promises. “.”.

Republicans don’t agree. Representative. Gimenez Carlos (R-Fla. states that no president, including Trump, has the authority to reverse the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship rights to emancipated slaves and their descendants.

According to Gimenez, “I think you’re a citizen of the United States if you were born here.”. Therefore, I believe that controlling the border is the best way to truly address the issue you’re attempting to resolve. “.”.

Gimenez cited the United States v. Wong Kim Ark provided clarification on which groups of people were not eligible for birthright citizenship benefits; this list includes diplomats’ children but excludes those who are not authorized to be in the country.

He stated, “That pretty much established it.”.

Having already blocked Trump’s order in the short term, Gimenez expressed confidence that the courts would eventually declare it unconstitutional. In the meantime, he added, some of his constituents are concerned.

“People seem to be worried about it,” he remarked.

A group of House Republicans who are still unsure about Trump’s Day 1 decree are caught between those two camps. These lawmakers claim to be balancing constitutionality issues with claims that the 14th Amendment, in its current form, promotes “birth tourism.”. “.”.

During this week’s “Meet the Press NOW,” Rep. Lawler Mike (R-N. Yep. ), who is from a district that was a battleground and where former Vice President Kamala Harris lost by a slim margin in 2024, declined to comment.

“The 14th Amendment deals with birthright citizenship, of course, but I do believe there is [a] question about how it has been abused, honestly, with regard to people who are coming here illegally for the purpose of obviously having children to get them citizenship,” Lawler stated.

“So that is something that obviously the courts are going to weigh in on, probably rather quickly, given some of the legal challenges that have been filed against President Trump’s executive order,” Lawler stated, forecasting that the Supreme Court would hear evidence of Trump’s executive order “in relatively short order.”. “”.

The executive order, which was signed on Monday, just hours after Trump took office for a second term, aims to deny certain noncitizens’ children—including those who are in the country illegally—automatic citizenship rights. The decree was supposed to go into effect in February. 19. .

On Thursday, it was temporarily blocked by a federal judge. In a frank ruling, Judge John Coughenour, a Seattle-based justice appointed by President Reagan, referred to Trump’s order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”. “.”.

“I’ve been on the bench for more than forty years,” he declared. There isn’t another instance that comes to mind where the question is as obvious. “.”.

The president may exert pressure on Republican leaders in Congress to hold a vote on a bill that would essentially adopt Trump’s executive order legislatively if the courts do overturn it, as many legal experts are forecasting.

The foundation for that scenario is already being laid by certain Republican lawmakers.

Rep. This week, Brian Babin (R-Texas) introduced a bill that would automatically grant citizenship to anyone with at least one U.S.-born parent, thereby “restoring the 14th Amendment to its original purpose.”. S. citizen, a person who resides in the United States legally. A. or a foreign national serving in the military.

“[Trump’s] landmark executive order to terminate birthright citizenship is a significant step forward, and we can now codify and enshrine these reforms in permanent law with the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025,” Babin stated during a press conference.

Babin’s bill has not been brought to the floor by the House GOP leadership, but lawmakers are not discounting the possibility.

“If we had to take a vote on it, I know that it would be an ugly vote for us,” a moderate House Republican told The Hill, asking to remain anonymous in order to discuss the delicate subject.

The Republican lawmaker, who stated that he was amenable to Trump’s executive order, claimed that birthright citizenship offered a “incentive” for expectant mothers to travel to the United States. S. . illegally — acknowledged that the discussion was delicate.

“This would change that path for some people, and some people have likely decided to spend a significant amount of their own money. To cross the border, some of these coyotes will have to pay between $10,000 and $15,000. To get here, they take many risks. And it gives their children a chance at a better life, which is one of the reasons they do that,” the member stated.

However, they are doing it incorrectly, and our current legislation actually encourages that. “.”.

Other Republicans, including those who support Trump’s initiatives, stated that implementing the changes the White House is recommending would require more than a straightforward bill. Instead, a constitutional amendment would be required, which is a very high standard that would undoubtedly fall short of the two-thirds majority required to pass through Congress.

The 14th Amendment, in my opinion, was drafted with a different purpose in mind than its current one, Rep. Bacon, Don (R-Neb. claimed. However, in the past, the Supreme Court has held that citizenship is conferred by birthplace. “”.

And unless you use an amendment process, I believe it will be difficult to reverse that. “.”.

Emily Brooks reported on the story.

scroll to top