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
Trump’s Attacks on Citizenship Reveal a Deeper Problem with ‘Citizenship’ Itself
We must reimagine a world where freedom and equality are guaranteed to all, no matter their status.
Aug 14, 2025
There are two main paths to citizenship in the United States: birthright, which is guaranteed to those born on US soil or to citizen parents, and naturalization, a process applied for after immigrating.
The Trump administration is attempting to upend these long-held and widely accepted rules, arguing for an end to birthright citizenship, which is constitutionally protected, while attacking the naturalization status of populations across the country.
These attacks on citizenship come amid a substantial investment in immigration crackdowns. The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” allocates an unprecedented $178 billion toward immigration enforcement, a figure higher than the military budgets of entire nations and a price tag 13 times greater than Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) already booming budget.
And we know exactly what this expansion will be used for.
America’s immigration system must honor human rights for everyone, especially those at the margins.
In just the first few months of the Trump administration, ICE agents donning masks and unmarked clothing have surveilled, interrogated, and kidnapped individuals off the streets en masse. Arbitrary arrest quotas fill overcrowded, inhumane, and unsanitary detention centers. And despite claims that only “criminals” are being targeted, people of all backgrounds—including students, politicians, children, and U.S.-born citizens—are being arrested and abused, stripped of their dignity and humanity.
Trump is undoubtedly culpable for these abuses. But he did not invent the playbook. He simply adapted the rules long built into this country’s citizenship policies—both the implicit and explicit ones.
US citizenship has always been negotiated between those the state deemed worthy and unworthy. Race and gender have long restricted individuals from obtaining citizenship and the privileges granted with it. The 14th Amendment, the guarantor of jus soli, transformed the status and rights of all those to come—myself included. I would not be a US citizen without this code.
But documents and formalities cannot erase the existence of an informal, second-class citizenry that continues to pervade American society.
Native Americans, Indigenous peoples native to these lands, were denied this framework of legality and excluded from guaranteed citizenship for generations. Systems of oppression, domination, and exclusion allowed white bodies to be favored over Black and brown ones—even when they held and waved that landmark document, demanding their civil liberties be guaranteed and protected. Those born in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico and Guam continue to lack meaningful electoral rights and, in American Samoa’s case, even citizenship itself.
An examination of the difficult and lengthy naturalization process reveals further discrepancies. Volume 12 Part F states that individuals must possess “good moral character” to become naturalized, a measure that is both vague and arbitrary. Any conduct or act that deviates from a community’s moral standard is grounds for both denial of citizenship and denaturalization if citizenship is already obtained.
But how is morality defined? Immoral behavior is outlined by the state—murder, aggravated felonies, genocide, and torture are some examples listed. But aggravated felonies also include failing to appear in court. So when we see ICE arresting immigrants at court hearings and scaring others from appearing out of fear of arrest, suddenly the intent behind these actions becomes clear.
In this system, any action or inaction becomes punishable—including the “crime” of being an immigrant. Notably, this “moral character” clause has existed since the Naturalization Act of 1790—a reminder that these pursuits are not a recent political development but built into our founding documents.
Now, the Justice Department is expanding its criteria for denaturalization, using the definitions established by Congress centuries ago. A recent Justice Department memo orders those accused of involvement with terrorist, gang, or cartel groups to be targeted for deportation or even stripped of their citizenship, an indicator of their “immoral character.”
But the administration’s definition of “terrorism” and “criminal involvement” is both flawed and targeted. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, accused of being a member of MS-13, an international criminal gang, was wrongfully deported and imprisoned in El Salvador without due process—a move that was actually illegal, given that a court order barred his deportation to El Salvador on account of the gang threats and violence he faced there.
In another example, Rümeysa Öztürk, a PhD student at Tufts, cowrote an op-ed criticizing the university’s response to resolutions passed by its student body about Israel’s violations of international law. She was subsequently kidnapped and detained in an ICE prison for months.
These are simply two instances of a series of repeated offenses committed by the US government. In an effort to apprehend and throw out immigrants en masse, the state criminalizes individuals for free speech and seeking asylum.
Elsewhere, the right to vote is denied to citizens the US deems unworthy of representation. Essential rights and civil liberties are being stripped from legal residents, mitigating access to the freedoms that have defined America for centuries. More and more individuals are sorted into different tiers of citizenship, soon leaving few with the guarantee of liberty and justice promised to all.
For all its extremism and cruelty, the Trump administration is simply using the tools already available to them. Citizenship requirements contain too many loopholes that are easily exploited. So for progressives, opposing restrictive immigration policies is not enough. We must move beyond an idea of “citizenship” that only guarantees rights according to an individual’s status and reimagine a world that respects the freedom and equality of all people no matter their status.
If “morality” is a requirement for entry, then anything can be redefined as “immoral.” Economic metrics of inclusion fail for the same reason. Nations should not prioritize people solely based on what they can provide to employers. The argument that “immigrants help our economy” only emphasizes the need for individuals with economic value.
America’s immigration system must honor human rights for everyone, especially those at the margins. Those seeking asylum, refuge, education, or simply a better life should not be denied access to civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.
Aren’t these the true American values?
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cowards': Ramirez Hits Back at Republicans Who Threatened Her With Deportation
"We will continue to stand up for our rights, and we will continue to call out the terrorist organization that is ICE," the congresswoman said in a speech at Netroots Nation.
Aug 08, 2025
Facing threats from Republicans who have called for her deportation this week, U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez has refused to back down.
The progressive Guatemalan-American congresswoman from Illinois has become a punching bag in right-wing media this week after comments she made in Spanish were apparently mistranslated by The Blaze, which claimed she said: "I'm a proud Guatemalan, before I'm an American."
It was quickly revealed that the Democrat had, in fact, said she was "very proudly Guatemalan," but "First, I am American."
But this did not stop Republican officials—including Reps. Andy Ogles (Tenn.) and Byron Donalds (Fla.); Trump border czar Tom Homan; and even the official social media account for the Department of Homeland Security, from threatening to strip Ramirez—who is a U.S.-born citizen—of her citizenship and throw her out of the country.
In her first public appearance since the attacks began, at the annual progressive gathering Netroots Nation in New Orleans, Ramirez was defiant.
In an interview with Emily Topping for Current Affairs magazine, she called the three men who attacked her "cowards."
Of Ogles, who said Ramirez should be kicked off the House Homeland Security Committee, she said, "This is a man that wants to talk about 'oath of office' but violates it every single day."
"I was born in this country just like he was," she added, "and therefore calling for me to be denaturalized and deported is not constitutional, and it's illegal."
She accused Donalds—who said he "never had a chance to meet Ramirez"—of being too afraid to face her directly: "If you don't know me, why are you talking about me? Why don't you pick up the phone and ask me what I think?"
"Because I show up to Congress," she said. "I show up every single week defending Medicaid, Social Security, education, collective bargaining, and the Constitution, something that perhaps he should think about instead of attacking a colleague on Twitter."
The congresswoman said her other Republican attackers were using her as a distraction from the mounting inquiry into President Donald Trump's involvement with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"They don't want you to think about the Epstein files and how their number one job is to protect the pedophile and not protect the American people," Ramirez said. "But I think this is the moment we are living in."
In a keynote speech at the Netroots conference Thursday evening, Ramirez addressed that moment with ferocity.
She called out Homan, who has complained that the immigrants in Ramirez's hometown of Chicago are "very difficult" for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest because they are "educated" about their rights.
"He hopes that we don't know our rights so they can violate them," Ramirez said. "We will continue to stand up for our rights, and we will continue to call out the terrorist organization that is ICE."
Video: Netroots Nation
Attacks on immigrants were just one prong of what she called "the Trump administration's heartless, inhumane, brutal campaign of control all around us."
She said Israel's war on Gaza, which she later described as a "genocide," is also part of this campaign, as are the administration's attacks on transgender people, the homeless, unionized workers, and safety net programs like Medicaid.
"Their campaigns of starvation, displacement, and death, at home and abroad, are meant to break us," she said. "They want our resources. They want our land. They want our freedoms. They want our lives so that they can advance their imperialist authoritarian agendas across the world."
In June, Ramirez led a group of 18 congresspeople who introduced the Block the Bombs Act, which would restrict the transfer of offensive weapons to Israel.
In May, she also introduced the Born in the USA Act, which asserts that the 14th Amendment unequivocally grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, and declares any attempts to restrict birthright citizenship unconstitutional.
Though neither bill has passed out of the Republican-controlled House and restrictions on weapons sales to Israel have struggled to receive even Democratic support, Ramirez said she still feels cause for optimism—despite what she called "dark times"—by looking at the future she hopes to build.
"It is not enough to simply protect the rights and freedoms we have now," she said. "We will create a future in which working people have every single damn thing they deserve and more."
She spoke of renewing the push for Medicare and housing for all, the Green New Deal, and an increased minimum wage. She also previewed a piece of legislation she plans to introduce in September that would increase taxes on the rich.
"In a time where they attempt to silence us, where they attempt to paralyze us, may we never normalize this moment," she said. "Yes, war is destruction, but we are creation people in a creation movement, and we are building forward."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third Court This Month Blocks Trump's 'Flagrantly Unconstitutional' Birthright Order
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts found an exception to the Supreme Court's recent limit on nationwide injunctions.
Jul 26, 2025
For the third time since the U.S. Supreme Court used the case to limit nationwide injunctions in June, a court has blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from going into effect.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts ruled on Friday that a nationwide injunction he had granted to over 12 states still applied under an exception laid out in the Supreme Court decision.
"We are thrilled that the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, whose state took the lead on bringing the case, said in a statement.
Trump issued an executive order in January ending birthright citizenship for children born to parents with no legal status, a move widely decried as unconstitutional. Several lawsuits followed, resulting in a nationwide injunction blocking the order from taking effect.
"American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history."
In June, the Supreme Court weighed in by limiting the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but declining to comment on the constitutionality of the order itself. However, the nation's highest court did say that states could receive nationwide injunctions if it was the only way to offer full relief, which Sorokin determined Friday was indeed the case.
The states had argued that the birthright order, in addition to being unconstitutional, would put millions of dollars for citizenship-dependent health insurance assistance at risk, according to The Associated Press. Sorokin determined anything less than a nationwide ban would not provide full relief to the states, given that people often move across state lines.
"The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in the Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit," Sorokin wrote in his decision.
His ruling followed two others blocking the order since the Supreme Court decision: A July 10 ruling from a federal New Hampshire judge establishing a nationwide class in a new class-action lawsuit, and a determination from a federal appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday that the order was unconstitutional and the block could stay in effect to offer states relief.
In his decision Friday, Sorokin said the Trump administration was "entitled to pursue their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," adding, "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional."
In response, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Newsweek, "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," adding, "We look forward to being vindicated on appeal."
Patkin, however, celebrated the ruling: "The district court's decision, consistent with the Supreme Court's own instructions, recognizes that this illegal action cannot take effect anywhere without harming New Jersey and the other states who joined in these challenges. American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The president cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular