Navigating the Legal Implications of Proposed Citizenship Changes

The Trump administration's attempt to revoke the constitutional right to birthright citizenship through an executive order has raised significant concerns among state and local officials. In a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, New Jersey v. Donald Trump, officials from 24 states have warned about the potential burden this proposed policy change could impose on their governments.

Establishing Citizenship: A Complicated Process

According to the amicus brief filed in support of the lawsuit, the executive order would require extensive efforts to establish citizenship for every child born in the United States. Traditional birth certificates would no longer be sufficient proof, leading to "administrative confusion and burden, financial harm to state and local governments directly, and immeasurable harm to individuals" of all backgrounds.

Stripping Newborns of Crucial Benefits

The brief also highlights a concerning potential consequence: the order could "strip newborns and young children born on U.S. soil of crucial public benefits." Currently, newborns and young children are eligible for Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, regardless of their parents' immigration status. However, if the executive order successfully changes the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, "those benefits will be snatched away from countless children," the brief states.

[quote]"Families will struggle to make ends meet," the brief reads. "Localities, as the unit of government closest to the ground, will be forced to pick up the pieces and address these cascading harms. Just as disturbing, some families may become reluctant to utilize any government services at all (due to fear of removal which can have its own public health consequences."[/quote]

Broader Implications for Citizens and Non-Citizens

The impact of the proposed policy shift would extend beyond undocumented immigrants. The brief notes that it would "deny U.S. citizenship — and the associated public benefit— not just to children of undocumented immigrants, but to those whose parents are present in our communities on work or student visas."

Moreover, with birth certificates no longer sufficient to prove citizenship, local governments may face challenges in verifying eligibility for benefits for a "large majority of eligible residents," regardless of their immigration status.

Economic and Public Health Concerns

The authors of the brief warn that the economic stresses resulting from the proposed changes could lead to a rise in homelessness and other public health concerns. Robert Peck, president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, told Salon that there's "a strong case for a nationwide injunction in this case" and that the brief serves as "a thumb on the scale" in support of the states seeking to put the executive order on hold.

As the legal battle unfolds, state attorneys general argue that the order represents "a flagrant violation of our Constitution." Matthew Platkin, the attorney general of New Jersey, stated, "For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: babies who are born in this country are American citizens."

The implications of this proposed policy shift extend far beyond immigration law, potentially impacting access to critical public benefits, administrative processes, and the fundamental understanding of citizenship in the United States. As the legal challenges progress, it is crucial for individuals and families to stay informed about the evolving landscape and seek guidance from qualified immigration attorneys when navigating these complex issues.