On Inauguration Day, President Trump said, “I’m fine with legal immigration. I like it. We need people, and I’m absolutely fine with it. We want to have it.” He then quickly dropped the pro-immigration pretense by signing Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The intent of the order is to deny citizenship to those whose parents are not “lawful permanent residents,” referring to undocumented immigrants as well as those who are here on “temporary” visas for work, school or travel. This blatant attempt to end birthright citizenship is not about “law and order,” nor is it about stemming the flow of undocumented immigrants. The practical effect of ending birthright citizenship is the creation of a stateless population within America — a class of people who are not guaranteed the basic rights most Americans take for granted. By the very provisions of Trump’s order, targeting legal immigrants as well as the undocumented, its goal is clearly to deter all immigrants from attempting to build lives in this country, effectively pushing them out of a nation that once prided itself on being a welcoming place.
The U.S. Department of State considers someone stateless when they do not have citizenship in any country, meaning they lack “the legal bond between a government and an individual.” The rights to life, liberty, property, free speech, peaceful protest, even your ability to testify in a court of law and have your word be believed are enshrined into law as civic rights, only applicable to those who hold civic status. Someone without citizenship would find themself in a position where they have no guaranteed rights, and for that reason stateless people are more vulnerable to human rights violations, exploitation and trafficking. This would be the reality for a generation of children if Trump’s executive order goes into effect, and it is a dark path governments have gone down before.
Statelessness is described in Hannah Arendt’s book “Origins of Totalitarianism” — written in part because of Arendt’s experience as a Jewish refugee who fled Germany in 1933 — as the “newest mass phenomenon in contemporary history,” creating a category of people who lived outside the law. She explained that a person without civic status is not bound to any one country, meaning that no country has any obligation to protect them. The stateless person is allowed to remain within a country out of charity, claiming refuge, but not a home — a precarious position to be in, because it means you can lose that protection at the drop of a hat.
That was the position of German Jews following the passage of the Nuremberg laws, which banned marriages between Germans and Jewish people and stated that only those with “German blood” were eligible to be citizens of the Third Reich. Furthermore, there was no state nearby willing to accept the large population of newly stateless Jewish people, which was then used as a reason to build “detention centers” — which we now rightly term “concentration camps.” As Arendt puts it, they ensured that the targeted people were rightless and unclaimed before they challenged “the right to live.” The message is clear and the pathway laid out: if you want to get rid of a population, make sure the targeted people are stateless, unclaimed and unprotected.
It’s tempting to argue this could never happen in America, but the history of birthright citizenship itself proves that untrue. Birthright citizenship came as part of the Reconstruction Amendments, which abolished slavery, expanded voting rights and codified the principle of birthright citizenship. Through the 14th Amendment, anyone born on American soil is an American citizen. The 14th Amendment did not just grant citizenship to freed slaves but also overruled the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had determined that Black Americans were not U.S. citizens, could not sue in federal courts and were not under any protection by the federal government — a point for point example of the dangers of statelessness in this very country. The Dred Scott case is a dark spot in our history, not just as an individual act, but as a reflection of our country’s beliefs, a country that knowingly created a stateless population and subjected them to some of the worst human rights violations this world has seen.
The current trajectory of the Trump administration indicates that we may find ourselves in a similar situation in the not-too-distant future as it continues to push the narrative that targeted populations are “criminal,” and therefore deserving of inhumane treatment. In the first week of his term, an estimated 7,300 people have been deported, with the administration sharing photos of deportees in shackles being herded onto cargo planes. Of the 200 migrants deported to Colombia, none have a criminal record in either Colombia or the U.S. despite Trump’s claims that “every one of them [is] either a murderer, a drug lord, a kingpin of some kind, the head of the mob or a gang member.” ICE’s daily arrest rates have soared, reaching a new high on Jan. 26 when they reported arresting 1,179 people in one day, at least 566 of whom had not committed any crime. The Laken Riley Act, signed into law on Jan. 29, will only increase this as the bill allows officials to detain undocumented immigrants who are charged with — not convicted of — nonviolent crimes such as shoplifting. Since then, Trump has promised to send upwards of 30,000 migrants to be detained in Guantanamo Bay in a blatant attempt to use the prison’s remoteness and foreboding reputation to further instill fear into the public and bar detainees from receiving legal or social support.
Stock prices for the two largest players in the private prison industry have rocketed since Trump’s election, just as they did in his first term. It’s no secret that the private prison industry is expecting a large boost in the incarceration business, or that according to their most recent annual reports 30-43% of their revenue came from ICE contracts. Their use of “detention centers” will be technically legal, at least to the public eye, because this administration is following a well-trodden road to violating human rights under the guise of the law. Slavery was legal. Japanese incarceration was legal. The Nuremberg laws and the genocide that followed were legal, just as long as the perpetrators were the ones with political power. The same is true here, and the targets are whoever the Trump administration decides is an “enemy,” regardless of legal status.
Despite the claim that immigrants who go through the process the “right way” are safe from the Trump administration’s agenda, the effect of his policies on temporary residents, who are following the exact pathway laid out by the U.S. immigration system, shows this to be untrue. There are 1.1 million international students in this country, totaling 6% of all university students. At UTD, as of fall 2024 international students make up 54.78% of our graduate program and are 18.75% of the university as a whole. Nationwide, 41% of international students go on to live and work in the U.S. long term, oftentimes getting work experience through Optional Practice Training and staying here via work visas. These work visas come in a variety of “classes” and encompass almost every industry. There’s the H1-B, for workers with specialized skills and a bachelor’s degree, the H2-A for agriculture, O and P for artists, entertainers and athletes, I for journalists, K-1 and K-3 for the partners of U.S. citizens, even an L visa for workers transferring to a U.S. branch of their company. However, none of these visas offer “permanent resident status.” The only permanent resident visa is a green card, which you can only get through family, work, asylum or the lottery system.
If you want a green card as a worker, first you need to qualify for a Class E visa, which you get by having “extraordinary ability,” 2-3 years of work experience or by investing at least $500,000 into a business. Then, you need an offer of permanent employment and an employer to sponsor you — which is never guaranteed, even if you already work for a U.S. company on a different visa. If you do manage to fulfill the requirements, a green card should take 2-3 years — unless you’re from China or India, in which case the wait will be significantly longer. For family sponsorships, estimates say it will take about 18-32 months for spouses, 23-38 months if you’re a minor and your parents have sponsored you, and 14-16 years for siblings.
So let’s be optimistic and say you have sped through the process. You went to an accredited university for four years, landed a job immediately to gain your three years of work experience, received an offer of permanent employment and your application for a green card has been accepted. If you’re lucky, you can get “permanent resident” status in just another two years! That’s only a total of nine years living in this country as a “temporary resident.” Maybe by then, you’ll finally be able to start acting like you live here. Otherwise, if you make the mistake of settling in, trying to build a life or start a family, your child is in danger of being born as a stateless person. Add to that the fact that we live in a state where abortion is banned at six weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest, and in a country where one in five women are sexually assaulted while in college. So in case something happens outside your control, your options are to quit your job, abandon your degree and leave the U.S. to live somewhere your child may have rights, or to remain in the U.S. and give birth to a stateless person.
That doesn’t sound like the policy of a president that is “fine” with legal immigration. It sounds like an administration attempting to disincentivize all immigration. Those who seek to define “American” are not satisfied by the laws as they stand or the word of the Constitution, because “America” doesn’t matter to them, power does.
Birthright citizenship is constitutional. It is fundamental to our democracy and equality, and that’s the rub. The Trump administration doesn’t want us to have either of those things and this is where it starts, with the people they term “illegal,” but that is not where it ends. The people who write, enforce and interpret law at the highest level of government have the power to determine what does and does not constitute a crime, and they can use that power to declare that certain populations are “enemies” standing against some wider national interest, rather than citizens who are part of our nation.
As of Jan. 23, Executive Order 14160 has been blocked by a federal judge and is currently being challenged by 22 states and numerous civil liberties organizations. Experts say it is unlikely the order will go into effect because of its blatantly unconstitutional nature, and while that is something to be glad for, the order still has harrowing implications. For one, it shows very clearly the true agenda behind Trump’s immigration policies — to dissuade immigrants from entering or staying in this country. Second, it demonstrates an attitude among his base, shared by the yes-men he is placing in positions of power who will shape this country for years to come through law, court cases executive decisions and bureaucratic policy. Third, it illustrates the Trump administration’s willingness to use shock and horror to incite fervor over eye-catching measures, increasing the chances his challengers will be distracted or grow apathetic, making it easier for insidious policy to slip through the cracks. The next time he pulls something horrific, is the public going to notice? Or will we be numbed, telling ourselves it’s only another four years as the rhetoric of hatred becomes synonymous with American values?
The idea that you, an everyday citizen, can do something big and grand is often overwhelming, and little things never seem to feel like enough, but if you can remain committed to educating yourself and others, especially in an era of media censorship, that is a political action in and of itself. The U.S. Congress’ official website has a list of what bills are on the table during each legislative session as well as where they are in the process of becoming law. If you see something troubling in that list — or at least among its big-ticket items — don’t hesitate to contact your representatives, and if you do, consider creating a template email to share with your friends or colleagues so they can take similar steps. Read up on what cases are currently on the docket for the current session of the Supreme Court, which can be found here, and read about their implications here. The fight is still ongoing, and even though that may sound daunting, that fact can serve as the source of our hope as well as strength.
One Comment
Signed on January 20, 2025, the order claims to “protect the meaning and value of American citizenship,” but does so by redefining who qualifies for citizenship at birth. Under its terms, children born on U.S. soil to mothers who are “unlawfully present” or in the country on temporary status — and whose fathers are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents — would be stripped of birthright citizenship.
Almost immediately, the order was challenged in court by 22 states and many civil-rights organizations. Federal judges issued injunctions blocking its enforcement, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Critics argue this isn’t just a legal tweak — it represents a deeper attempt to redraw who counts as “us,” shifting from inclusivity to exclusion and targeting immigrant families with sweeping consequences.