Connect with us

Politics

Contributor: Ending birthright citizenship will mostly affect U.S. citizens

Published

on

Contributor: Ending birthright citizenship will mostly affect U.S. citizens

The Trump administration’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship is a serious challenge to the 14th Amendment, which enshrined a radical principle of our democratic experiment: that anyone born here is an American. But the order will most affect average Americans — whose own citizenship, until this point, has been presumed and assured — rather than the intended target, illegal immigrants. The irony is hiding in plain sight.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, birthright citizenship is not entirely settled U.S. law. The executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” and it is very narrowly drafted to exploit this uncertainty by rejecting citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent residents. Federal law and practice has recognized American citizenship to anyone born here since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. But that case did not specifically protect the birthright of children born in the United States to noncitizen, nonresident aliens.

This is a massive blind spot that states are sleep-walking into. They are depending on weak legal precedent, federal code, policy and hair-splitting over the meaning of “subject of the jurisdiction thereto.” In a brief, the states argue that the “understanding of birthright citizenship has permeated executive agency guidance for decades — and no prior administration has deviated from it.” But that won’t matter to this Supreme Court, which has demonstrated a certain glee in dismantling precedent. There is a clear risk that the justices could fundamentally restrict the definition of birthright citizenship and overturn the 1898 ruling.

The executive order directs the federal government not to issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born to parents unlawfully present here — but also to parents who are here legally but temporarily. This second group is a potentially vast population (the State Department issued 14.2 million nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2024) that includes students, artists, models, executives, investors, laborers, engineers, academics, tourists, temporary protected status groups, ship and plane crews, engineers, asylees, refugees and humanitarian parolees.

A limited change targeting a specific population — nonresident aliens — will have huge effects on those who will least expect it: American citizen parents giving birth to children in the United States. Until this point, a valid, state-issued birth certificate established prima facie evidence of U.S. citizenship to every child born in the country. That would no longer be the case if citizenship depended on verifying certain facts about every U.S.-born child’s parents. With that presumption removed by executive order, citizenship must be adjudicated by a federal official.

Advertisement

I know what that adjudication involves. I was a U.S. consular officer in Latin America, and both of my children were born overseas to married U.S. citizen parents carrying diplomatic passports. But because they did not have the presumption of citizenship conferred by an American birth certificate, we had to go to the U.S. Consulate for adjudication of transmission to demonstrate to the U.S. government that our children were American citizens.

This was document-intensive and time-consuming. Each time, we filled out forms. We photographed the baby in triplicate. We swore an oath before the consular officer. We brandished our passports. We presented the baby to the consular officer. We surrendered the local birth certificate. We demonstrated our hospital stay. Only then did we receive a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and only with that report could we apply for U.S. passports for our children. Without the report or a passport, our children could neither leave the country of their birth nor enter the United States.

That is an evidentiary and bureaucratic burden that all natural-born American citizens have until now not had to bear. The Trump administration’s change, if allowed by courts, will require those same parents to prove their own citizenship to the federal government. Good luck, because showing your birth certificate wouldn’t be sufficient in the new regime: The government would require proof not only that you were born in the U.S., but also that at least one of your parents was a U.S. citizen at the time. (Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over this “practical question” during oral arguments last week.)

Americans several generations removed from their immigrant forebears — even those whose ancestors came to North America 10,000 years ago — will suddenly be treated like the unlawfully present parents they thought this rule was designed to exclude.

This rule will lead to chaos, even danger. The federal bureaucracy will have to expand drastically to adjudicate the 3.5 million children born here every year. (For comparison, 1 million people are issued permanent residency status each year and 800,000 become naturalized citizens. This population is typically much better documented than a newborn.) Fearing immigration enforcement, undocumented parents will avoid hospitals for childbirth, dramatically escalating medical risk for mother and baby. Because hospitals also generate birth certificates — as Justice Sonia Sotomayor also noted last week — those babies will form a large, new and entirely avoidable population of stateless children.

Advertisement

It is a truism in some communities that ancestors and family members came to this country legally. But the administration is prepared to dismantle the presumption of citizenship that has been a literal birthright for 125 years. U.S. citizenship is on the brink of becoming a privilege rather than a right, bestowed on those who can afford protracted bureaucratic struggles. Most of the burden will fall on those who least expected it: American parents themselves.

James Thomas Snyder is a former U.S. consular officer and NATO International Staff member.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Advertisement

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The executive order targeting birthright citizenship undermines the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, potentially overturning 125 years of legal precedent established by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This creates uncertainty for children born to noncitizen parents, including those lawfully present on temporary visas[3][4].
  • Removing the presumption of citizenship for U.S.-born children forces American parents to undergo burdensome bureaucratic processes to prove their own citizenship status, a requirement previously avoided due to automatic birthright recognition. This disproportionately impacts multi-generational citizens who may lack documentation proving their parents’ status[3][5].
  • The policy risks creating stateless children, as undocumented parents might avoid hospitals to evade scrutiny, leading to unregistered births and heightened medical dangers. Hospitals, which issue birth certificates, could see reduced attendance, exacerbating public health risks[4][5].
  • Federal agencies would face chaos adjudicating citizenship for 3.5 million annual births, a logistical challenge far exceeding current capacities for naturalization or permanent residency processes. This could delay critical documents like passports and Social Security cards[4][5].

Different views on the topic

  • The Trump administration argues the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of noncitizens, particularly those unlawfully present or on temporary visas, claiming this narrow interpretation aligns with constitutional intent[1][2].
  • Supporters contend the order preserves citizenship’s value by closing perceived loopholes, ensuring it is reserved for those with permanent ties to the U.S. rather than temporary visitors or undocumented individuals[1][2].
  • Legal briefs from the administration emphasize that prior agencies’ broad interpretations of birthright citizenship lack explicit constitutional or judicial endorsement, framing the order as correcting longstanding executive overreach[3][5].
  • Proponents dismiss concerns about statelessness, asserting that children born to temporary visitors would inherit their parents’ nationality, though this fails to address cases where foreign nations restrict citizenship by descent[2][5].

Politics

How Republicans and Democrats are Redistricting Urban Areas to Tilt the House

Published

on

How Republicans and Democrats are Redistricting Urban Areas to Tilt the House

American cities — densely populated and overwhelmingly Democratic — are typically prime targets for aggressive gerrymanders. This past year has been no different, as urban areas became casualties of newly partisan maps, drawn by both Republicans and Democrats in a rare bout of middecade redistricting.

With nearly 80 percent of the United States population living in urban areas, according to the census, mapmakers using modern data technology can surgically split cities block by block to eke out a partisan advantage. They “pack” like-minded voters into a single district, or “crack” them, linking slivers of concrete-covered downtowns with farmland hundreds of miles away.

Advertisement

While the intentions are often political, these julienned districts often leave communities with little in common, and no cohesive representation in Congress. Roughly 37 percent of congressional districts are either urban or an urban-suburban mix, while 63 percent remain rural or rural-suburban, according to the District Density Scale.

So far this year, state lawmakers have carved up major Democratic cities in the nationwide redistricting arms race, drawing new maps in five states. Virginia could be next, if voters approve a referendum Tuesday to redraw boundaries and potentially add four Democratic seats.

Kansas City, Mo.

Advertisement

Take the Kansas City, Mo., area as a clear example. Late last year, Gov. Mike Kehoe signed into law a new map that would pave the way for eliminating a Democratic seat and add a Republican one, potentially ousting a longtime representative, Emanuel Cleaver, who was also the first Black mayor of Kansas City.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

The proposed map effectively slices apart — or “cracks” — the old Fifth District, which previously held a majority of Democratic-dominated Kansas City and its metropolitan area, into three parts.

Advertisement
Advertisement

2024 districts

District Margin
5th Dem. +23.2 D +23.2
6th Rep. +38.9 R +38.9
4th Rep. +42.3 R +42.3

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
5th Rep. +18.2 R +18.2
4th Rep. +21.2 R +21.2
6th Rep. +26.7 R +26.7

As a result, Democratic voters from Kansas City are spread out across three new districts where they are likely to be outnumbered by Republican voters. The Kansas City area went from having one Democratic district and two Republican districts to having three Republican districts.

Northern Virginia

Advertisement

While Missouri illustrates how a single-district city can be cracked apart to dilute the votes of a densely packed partisan area, Virginia is taking a different approach. Its proposed map spreads out Democrats from the crammed northern Virginia suburbs into multiple districts spreading more than a hundred miles into deeply red areas for the opposite outcome: to tilt more districts blue.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

While there is no central city in northern Virginia — Fairfax County, the state’s largest municipality, boasts nearly 1.2 million people but sprawls across nearly 400 square miles — the northern reaches of the state have a population in the millions and are mostly Democratic.

Advertisement
Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
8th Dem. +49.3 D +49.3
11th Dem. +34.0 D +34.0
10th Dem. +8.3 D +8.3
7th Dem. +2.9 D +2.9
6th Rep. +23.8 R +23.8

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
8th Dem. +17.5 D +17.5
11th Dem. +13.4 D +13.4
10th Dem. +12.4 D +12.4
7th Dem. +8.1 D +8.1
1st Dem. +7.5 D +7.5

The result is an exceptionally aggressive “cracking” of Democratic voters in the northern part of the state across five congressional districts, which would lead to the elimination of three Republican-held seats (the proposed Virginia map eliminates all but one Republican-controlled district).

Houston

Advertisement

In larger cities like Houston, mapmakers have the opportunity to get creative in their carving. At President Trump’s behest, Texas was the first state to redistrict last year. Let’s look at Houston’s old Ninth District.

Advertisement

2024 districts

The old Ninth District was mostly swallowed by the newly crafted 18th District, and remaining voters were funneled into three Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic one.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
9th Dem. +44.0 D +44.0
18th Dem. +39.7 D +39.7
7th Dem. +20.7 D +20.7
29th Dem. +20.3 D +20.3
38th Rep. +20.7 R +20.7

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
18th Dem. +54.9 D +54.9
29th Dem. +30.4 D +30.4
7th Dem. +23.4 D +23.4
9th Rep. +19.9 R +19.9
38th Rep. +21.0 R +21.0

Advertisement

But Houston’s maps also illustrate a second gerrymandering strategy: “packing.” The new 18th District was drawn to be exceptionally Democratic, “packing” a high concentration of Democrats into a single district, thereby ensuring that they would be outnumbered in neighboring districts.

Dallas

As another densely populated city, and one with a large population of people of color, Republicans in Texas sliced some congressional districts in the state, while packing Democrats into others.

Advertisement

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

The newly drawn 32nd District is a textbook example of “cracking,” splitting apart the eastern and northern suburbs of Dallas and extending the district more than a hundred miles east, into more rural and deeply Republican areas of East Texas. As a result, the new 32nd District is solidly red compared with its previous blue tint.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
33rd Dem. +33.7 D +33.7
32nd Dem. +23.6 D +23.6
24th Rep. +15.5 R +15.5
5th Rep. +27.0 R +27.0
6th Rep. +28.4 R +28.4

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
30th Dem. +47.0 D +47.0
33rd Dem. +32.6 D +32.6
24th Rep. +16.1 R +16.1
32nd Rep. +17.6 R +17.6
5th Rep. +21.4 R +21.4

The cracking and packing in Dallas achieved another outcome: drawing current incumbents out of their districts, forcing some into primaries against one another while prompting others to leave the House entirely. In Dallas, Representative Jasmine Crockett chose to run for Senate after being drawn out of the 30th District (She lost in March to James Talarico).

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Byron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays

Published

on

Byron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds introduced legislation that would require biometric tracking of every entry and exit from the United States, as part of a Republican push to crack down on visa overstays and fraudulent immigration documents.

With illegal crossings down sharply under President Donald Trump’s second term, Republicans are shifting toward the next phase of immigration enforcement — tracking visa overstays and closing documentation loopholes. Donalds’ bill aims to force full nationwide use and federal oversight of the biometric entry-exit system.

Donalds told Fox News Digital exclusively he introduced the legislation on Monday.

“Thanks to President Trump’s decisive actions, our borders are more secure than they have been in decades. We are now moving to finish the job by introducing the Reform Immigration Through Biometrics Act, which provides the oversight needed to ensure every entry and exit is fully verified,” Donalds told Fox News Digital. 

Advertisement

FLORIDA SHERIFF SAYS ICE PARTNERSHIP ONLY THE BEGINNING IN ILLEGAL MIGRANT CRACKDOWN

Congressman Byron Donalds is introducing Reform Immigration Through Biometrics Act to tighten immigration enforcement nationwide. (Paul Ratje / AFP via Getty Images)

The bill would close gaps to ensure full coverage at every port, provide system flow updates, and identify what is “slowing” it down by requiring DHS to report to congress. The biometric data system collects fingerprints, facial images, and iris scans.

Immigration reform is a central focus of the second Trump administration, with officials shifting attention toward internal tracking and enforcement gaps, not just border crossings.

The biometric entry-exit system was first introduced a decade ago, following a 2004 recommendation from the 9/11 Commission to strengthen national security through a comprehensive tracking method.

Advertisement

HOUSE GOP BILL COULD TRIGGER SELF-DEPORTATION FOR SOMALI REFUGEES AMID MINNESOTA FRAUD PROBE

Previous administrations failed to fully implement the system across all ports of entry, leaving it incomplete. A final rule issued in December 2025 now mandates a nationwide rollout.

Donalds’ legislation aims to ensure it is fully executed this time by holding DHS accountable. 

“The border has been secured, but the work is far from over,” said Donalds in a press release. “Visa overstays and fraudulent documentation remain a large piece of the overall illegal immigration puzzle that needs to be addressed.”

Byron Donalds, a Florida lawmaker and gubernatorial candidate, unveiled legislation cracking down on immigration overstays.  (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Data from the Border Patrol cited by Pew Research found there were 237,538 migrant encounters at the Mexican border in 2025. It is the lowest number since Richard Nixon was president in 1970 when 201,780 were encountered.

I REPRESENT A BORDER DISTRICT THAT WAS SWAMPED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WHAT I’M SEEING NOW MIGHT SURPRISE YOU

Migrants wait in line to turn themselves in for processing to US Customs and Border Protection border patrol agents near the Paso del Norte Port of Entry after crossing the US-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on May 9, 2023.  (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP)

Donalds, candidate for Florida governor to succeed term-limited Gov. Ron DeSantis, said he anticipates “swift passage” of the bill.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“Republicans are steadfast in our commitment to the mandate entrusted to us by the American people,” he told Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Former state Controller Betty Yee drops out of the governor’s race

Published

on

Former state Controller Betty Yee drops out of the governor’s race

Former state Controller Betty Yee dropped out of the governor’s race on Monday, citing low levels of support from voters and donors.

Yee, a Democrat, was part of a sprawling field of politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. But despite the bevy of prominent candidates running to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy, this year’s governor’s race has lacked a clear front-runner well known by the electorate.

“It was becoming clear that the donors were not going to be there. Even some of my former supporters just felt like they needed to move on as well,” Yee said in a virtual news conference Monday morning, adding that her internal polling showed voters did not prioritize “competence and experience … and that’s really been my wheelhouse in terms of how we grounded this campaign.”

The former two-term state controller did not immediately endorse another candidate and said she would take a few days to assess the field before making an announcement.

The race was upended this month when then-Rep. Eric Swalwell, among the leading Democrats in the contest, was accused of sexual assault and other misconduct. The East Bay Area Democrat, who is facing multiple criminal investigations, promptly ended his gubernatorial bid and resigned from Congress.

Advertisement

Yee said the contest would probably go down as “one of the most unusual, unpredictable and unsettling races in modern California history.”

“I certainly could not have imagined the twists and the disturbing turns that this race has taken,” she said. “But through it all, my values and my vision for California has never wavered.”

“Voters are scared right now, and I think they really are placing a lot of prominence on a fighter in chief against this Trump administration,” she said.

Though she was prepared to be a governor that would push back against the Trump administration, Yee said her calm demeanor did not help her grab attention.

“We are living in like a reality TV era, where to get traction, you have to either be the loudest, you have to have gimmicks. You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do to get attention. I got no gimmicks. I have no scandals,” she said before calling herself “Boring Betty.”

Advertisement

Yee, 68, was well regarded by Democrats during her tenure in Sacramento.

But she never had the financial resources to aggressively compete in a state with many of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

Yee reported raising nearly $583,000 in 2025 for her gubernatorial bid, according to campaign fundraising reports filed with the California secretary of state’s office. Yee’s announcement that she is dropping out of the race came days before the latest financial disclosures will be publicly reported.

Despite being elected to the state Board of Equalization twice and as state controller twice, Yee was not widely known by most Californians. She never cracked double digits in gubernatorial polls.

Her name will still appear on the ballot. She was among the candidates who rebuffed state Democratic Party leaders’ request this year to reconsider their viability amid fears that the party could be shut out of the November general election because of the state’s unique primary system. The top two vote-getters in the June primary will move on to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Advertisement

Though California’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, the makeup of the gubernatorial field makes it statistically possible for Republicans to win the top two spots if Democratic voters splinter among their party’s candidates. Yee said fear of that scenario playing out “kind of took over” the gubernatorial race.

“Was it possible? Yes. Was it plausible? No, we’re in California. That was not going to happen,” she said, adding that the top-two primary system “has got to go.”

The daughter of Chinese immigrants, Yee said she was disappointed that other Asian American donors and community members did not show up for her as “robustly” as they had in the past.

“We had the opportunity to make history,” she said. “I’m going to want to do a deep dive about … what was it about my campaign that just did not resonate with them.”

Still, Yee was beloved by Democratic Party activists and previously served as the party’s vice chair.

Advertisement

No Democratic candidate reached the necessary threshold to win the party’s official endorsement at its February convention, but Yee came in second with support from 17% of delegates despite calls for her to drop out of the race.

“Every poll shows that this race is wide open, and I know this party,” she said in an interview at the convention. “Frankly, I’ve been in positions where it’s been a crowded field, and we work hard and candidates emerge.”

Yee became emotional Monday as she thanked her supporters and family, including her husband, siblings and mother. “She’s now 103 years old, and her life and voice and wisdom are my compass,” Yee said.

The gubernatorial primary will take place June 2, though voters will start receiving mail ballots in about two weeks.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending