SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
birthright citizenship
Dreamers, Birthright, and Belonging: What Does It Mean To Be An American?
You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be American enough to belong.
Dec 14, 2025
On December 4, Senators Dick Durbin and Lisa Murkowski reintroduced the bipartisan Dream Act to Congress—24 years after it was first introduced. If passed, it would create a pathway for citizenship for people who were brought to the US as children and meet certain requirements.
The Dream Act, whether now or in 2001, is a commonsense measure. Even if one believes that undocumented immigrants have committed a crime, their children are innocent. To meet the eligibility requirements, they must have proficiency in English; be knowledgeable of US history; not have committed any serious crimes; and have either served in the military, worked, or gained an education. These are not the “illegal alien gang members” that President Donald Trump insists must be deported.
Trump himself acknowledges this. In a 2024 interview with Kristen Welker, he said, “In many cases, they become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases, they have small businesses, some cases they might have large businesses. And we’re going to have to do something with them.” When Welker asked him to clarify whether he wants “them to be able to stay,” he replied, “I do.”
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. The Dream Act will fail again. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has already tried to strip 525,000 DACA recipients of their benefits this year. DHS Assistant Press Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has even urged recipients to self-deport, noting that they “are not automatically protected from deportations.”
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide.
In fact, Trump is one Supreme Court decision away from creating a new class of Dreamer.
On December 5, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. His executive order would deny citizenship to children born in the US of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.
Those children, despite being born here, will effectively become neo-Dreamers. Another group of people whom the US government would be failing to recognize and protect. The major difference between Dreamers and these neo-Dreamers would be the basis of their belonging—the reason why, despite everything, they are Americans.
The Dreamers are American by virtue of having lived and built a life here. Their identity, values, and communities are tied to the US. As Marie Gonzalez-Deel explains, “No matter what, I will always consider the United States of America my home. I love this country. Only in America would a person like me have the opportunity to tell my story to people like you. Many may argue that because I have a Costa Rican birth certificate, I am Costa Rican and should be sent back to that country. If I am sent back there, sure I'd be with my Mom and Dad, but I'd be torn away from loved ones that are my family here, and from everything I have known since I was a child.” The Dreamers are American by action and deed.
For the neo-Dreamers, the justification would rest largely on the legality and constitutionality of their birthright claim. The neo-Dreamers would be American by right.
The Dreamers and neo-Dreamers represent two different ways of conceptualizing what it means to be an American. Yet, for the Trump administration, neither is sufficient. You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be an American. But then, who is?
Trump claims that he’s “America First.” But who exactly is he putting first? Whether it's defunding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, letting Obamacare subsidies expire, limiting states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence, conducting military-style raids in American cities, rolling back Environmental Protection Agency air quality protections, recommending controversial vaccine schedules, imposing tariffs that raise prices for everyone, eliminating the SAVE student loan repayment plan, or dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, his policies overwhelmingly harm US citizens and immigrants alike.
In Trump’s America, only the Trump family and the ultra wealthy benefit. So perhaps instead of focusing on him, we should start thinking about what we, as Americans, think about who we are and what we represent. I’ll start: To me, Americans have contributed to the US and allowed the US to shape their lives and sense of self. By contributing, I don’t simply mean in the economic sense. Cultural and interpersonal contributions are just as if not more significant. We are more than laborers. The value we add to our communities cannot be reduced to GDP or market value.
By shaping their lives and sense of self, I don’t simply mean assimilation or acculturation. Being with others is always a two-way street. Each of us enriches the lives of others, and our lives are enriched in turn. We grow together.
A community, at its core, is a collective achievement. Citizens and immigrants, in many diverse ways, work together to maintain and nourish that achievement. We build together. Whatever problems we face, we solve them together. And yes, sometimes, we stumble and lose our way together. Progress is not a straight line. But we must never lose sight of who we are and what we represent.
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide. It’s our country, we decide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Must Protect Birthright Citizenship From Trump’s Xenophobic, Eugenic Ideology
If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it could pave the way for any president (or wannabe-monarch) to redefine citizenship at their discretion.
Dec 09, 2025
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict the right to birthright citizenship. If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, then children born in the US would be denied citizenship if their parents are undocumented or residing in the country under temporary legal status.
Let’s not mince words here: Trump’s executive order is cruel and xenophobic. Children born of undocumented immigrants or visa holders have committed no crimes. They are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. There is also no legitimate legal basis. The 14th Amendment is clear: “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.”
None of these facts matter to Trump. His administration would readily tear families apart and see children born into a second-class status simply because their births were not to his liking.
This is only the beginning of the cruelty that his birthright ban would unleash. If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it would pave the way for any president (or wannabe monarch) to redefine citizenship at their discretion. After all, if simply being born in the US is not enough to guarantee citizenship, then what is? Where do we draw the line?
Trump cannot be allowed to define who is a citizen.
Well, if you’re Trump, then it’s the color line. For the Trump administration, not all babies are created equal. Restricting birthright citizenship is their way of preventing “hundreds of thousands of unqualified people” from acquiring the “privilege of American citizenship.” It is about dissuading the wrong kinds of people from having the wrong kinds of babies.
Sound far-fetched? Well, consider this: Trump, the self-proclaimed “fertilization president” (gross!), has sought to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). As Trump puts it, we want “beautiful babies in this country, we want you to have your beautiful, beautiful, perfect baby. We want those babies, and we need them.”
Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, champions the future of “Trump babies.” Vice President JD Vance literally says he wants “more babies in the United States of America.” The Trump White House insists that they need “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”
But, if that’s true, then what is the purpose of Trump’s executive order? If they want more babies to be born in this country, then why push to deny babies their legitimate birthright? It’s because Trump is pro-baby so long as it’s the right kind of baby.
Beautiful, healthy, strong and perfect—those are the babies Trump wants. And those are the babies that, in his view, migrants do not have.
Trump has explicitly said that migrants have “bad genes” that cause them to commit crimes. That they are “not humans, they’re animals.” He has said that migrants from South America, Africa, and Asia are “poisoning the blood of our country”—a view that parallels Hitler’s own rhetoric about “blood poisoning” and race mixing. He calls Somalis “garbage” and says that “I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you… their country is no good for a reason.” He believes this about migrants, and he believes it extends to their children. This pseudoscientific eugenic drivel is at the core of his executive order.
That is the real danger of Trump’s birthright ban. As it stands, birthright citizenship provides a clear-cut metric. Aside from two niche exceptions, if you were born here, you are from here. There’s no loophole to exploit. There’s no definition to reevaluate and abuse. There’s no place for prejudice, discrimination, or bigoted understandings of what it means to be an American. There’s no ambiguity regarding who belongs. The simplicity of birthright is precisely its strength.
It’s also precisely why the Trump administration wants to undo it. Birthright citizenship is a strong barrier against the administration’s most fascist impulses to recreate “the meaning and value of American citizenship.” As he said on the campaign trail, “If I win, the American people will be the rulers of this country again. The United States is now an occupied country.” His current administration similarly claims that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” if it does not restrict migration and preserve its “Western identity.”
If Trump’s mission is, as he explicitly says, to liberate the US and protect Western values threatened by migration, then he won’t stop with the children of undocumented immigrants. Trump cannot be allowed to define who is a citizen. For the good of the nation and for future generations, we cannot let him succeed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms 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."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular