The reevaluation of birthright citizenship led by Stephen Miller calls into question the widely accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Quick Takes
- Stephen Miller challenges birthright citizenship, suggesting it was primarily meant for emancipated slaves.
- Miller’s critique encompasses concerns about economic strain and national security.
- The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide on the legality of Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
- Trump’s Agenda47 policy aims to redefine the criteria for U.S. citizenship.
Miller’s Viewpoint and Influence
Stephen Miller argues that the 14th Amendment’s original intent was to grant citizenship to emancipated slaves, not to offspring of non-citizens. As Deputy Chief of Staff to President Trump, Miller has been a pivotal figure in immigration policies, including attempts to limit birthright citizenship. Exploitation concerns are central to his critique, highlighting the potential misuse of U.S. resources and vulnerability to foreign agents.
The 14th Amendment, in effect since 1868, 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.” This amendment became a focal point after the Civil War to solidify rights for former slaves. Critics at the time voiced concerns over a broad interpretation, fearing it could inadvertently include unintended groups.
Administration’s Legal Challenge
Miller supports President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to children with at least one American citizen or lawful permanent resident parent. The U.S. Supreme Court will address the order’s legality on May 15. This decision anticipates significant discourse as Trump’s administration argues historic contexts did not intend automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
Opponents, including some state attorneys general and immigrant rights groups, challenge the executive order as a violation of constitutional protections. They emphasize its potential harm to American identity principles and fear the setting of a precarious executive precedent.
Impact on Policy and Public Opinion
Trump’s Agenda47 policy underscores that U.S. citizenship should be conditional on birth and jurisdiction adherence, excluding other categories such as children of foreign diplomats. This proposal seeks to address financial and security concerns, viewing current citizenship interpretation as exploitative and misaligned with the framers’ intentions.
“Birthright citizenship” is the biggest, costliest scam in financial history. An illegal alien can come here nine months pregnant or on a tourist visa — nine months pregnant — have a baby, that baby is then declared an automatic citizen, which then entitles the entire family to come here and live here and every one of them get welfare. Yes, they can get unlimited welfare, applying as the custodian of this citizen — so called — child — the biggest financial rip-off of Americans in history, not to mention the fact that it’s the number one magnet for illegal immigration and invasion,” Miller explains.
The decision of the Supreme Court is poised to shape the national conversation. The implications of this legal battle reach beyond policy, potentially redefining citizenship and its value in protecting America’s social and political fabric.
