‘My child will be stateless’: Trump’s plans threaten to leave a generation of children without nationality
The executive order, temporarily blocked by a judge, prevents asylum seekers from registering their children in the United States, and they are also unable to do so in their countries of origin, from which they fled
As expected, a judge has temporarily blocked the executive order that sought to eliminate birthright citizenship, ruling it “unconstitutional.” Despite Donald Trump’s announcement weeks before his inauguration that he would take this action, many experts doubted he would follow through, given that it directly defies the U.S. Constitution, which has guaranteed this right under the 14th Amendment since 1868. However, stripping children of this right based on the immigration status of their parents was one of the first executive orders signed by the tycoon.
While the temporary block leaves the order’s implementation uncertain, thousands of families are left feeling threatened by an executive order fraught with ambiguity. It fails to clarify key provisions and leaves future generations in limbo, potentially creating a generation without a nationality.
“My child is going to be stateless. The executive order has caused a lot of confusion for many families like mine. Those of us applying for asylum or TPS don’t know exactly what we should do with this executive order, if it applies to our cases,” says Monica, who prefers to remain anonymous. A Venezuelan doctor, she is 12 weeks pregnant, and the president’s order has turned her pregnancy upside down.
“Instead of focusing on having a healthy baby, we’re stressed, anxious, and depressed by this situation. Now, we worry that our babies won’t have citizenship,” she laments.
Monica is one of five pregnant women who last week filed a lawsuit against Trump’s executive order in Maryland, where they live. They are supported by the organizations CASA, the Asylum Seeker Defense Project (ASAP), and the Institute for Constitutional Protection of Georgetown Law School (ICAP).
As a TPS asylum seeker, Monica fears that when her baby is born in late July or early August, she won’t be able to register the child and that they may end up stateless. Venezuela has no embassy or consulate in the United States, and because of the new order, she won’t be able to seek assistance from the United States.
The uncertainty surrounding where to register their children and whether those children will have any citizenship is not limited to countries, like Venezuela, that lack diplomatic representation in the United States. Asylum seekers have fled violence and persecution in their home countries and, as a result, cannot turn to their governments to secure nationality for their children.
“There are many people seeking asylum in the United States who fear their children will be left without a homeland. They’re afraid to go to the embassy or consulate of their country of origin because they’ve already filed petitions in the United States, stating that their government has persecuted them,” explains Monica. As asylum seekers, they are also prohibited from traveling outside the country.
Trump suspended asylum applications with another executive order, and it remains unclear what will happen to those that are still pending. Monica submitted her application six years ago, but has yet to be called to share her story. The regulations set a 180-day processing period, but a backlog of cases — exacerbated by a lack of staff and budget in the Immigration Department — has grown exponentially in recent years. According to a report released last July, more than one million cases were pending by the end of 2023.
If implemented, the executive order, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, raises many uncertainties about who will be impacted. The order specifies two situations in which citizenship will not be granted: first, if the mother is residing illegally in the U.S. and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a legal permanent resident; and second, if the mother has legal but temporary status (such as a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father is not a citizen or permanent resident.
According to Rupa Bhattacharyya, legal director of ICAP, which filed the lawsuit in Maryland, it is unclear who will be affected. The second scenario, in particular, raises the most questions. “Some examples are given to show who will be immediately affected, but the order is otherwise undefined, so it’s not clear exactly who qualifies. It is crucial that a person’s citizenship status be clear and unambiguous, and this executive order at this time makes that impossible. Many children will be denied citizenship, and for others, the vagueness of the order leaves their status in complete and utter uncertainty,” she argues.
Federal Judge John C. Coughenour blocked the order from being implemented — calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” — in a ruling on a lawsuit filed by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. At least six lawsuits have already been filed by 22 states and various migrant groups across the country, all challenging the constitutionality of the executive order.
Because the exectuive order is not retroactive, if it were to go into effect, it could create absurd situations within the same family, where some children would be citizens and others would not, potentially leading to further family separations. This is the case for Maribel, another pregnant woman involved in the Maryland lawsuit, who also prefers to remain anonymous. A resident of the United States for two decades, she has two children who are U.S. citizens. “I fear that my unborn child will be denied the basic rights my other children enjoy, including access to healthcare and a quality education. Without the protections of U.S. citizenship, the Trump administration could even try to take my baby and our family away from me and deport them to a country they’ve never known.”
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that “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,” with rare exceptions such as the children of diplomats.
Trump argues that parents who are not citizens or permanent residents are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but his argument has so far failed to hold up.
“No president has the authority to unilaterally alter the U.S. Constitution or its well-established interpretation by the Supreme Court, particularly in the area of individual rights,” says Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). “The executive order attempts to grant power that Trump simply does not have. By right, the executive order should be ignored. In practical terms, it may not be implementable due to the chaos that would result from creating a class of stateless persons in this country,”
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition