How Trump's push to end birthright citizenship could play out in his home state

Ana Ceballos and Michael Wilner, Miami Herald on Jan 20, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

WASHINGTON — An executive order signed by President Donald Trump attempting to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants who are born in the United States is likely to face immediate legal challenges — but, if enacted, could have dramatic consequences in places like South Florida.

The order says the federal government will no longer recognize automatic citizenship for children who are born in the United States to parents illegally in the country, or whose parents’ stay in the country is lawful but temporary — including people in the country on a visa, work or tourist visa. The order would only affect children born 30 days from Monday or later.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday night that he is aware the order could face legal challenges.

“We’ll see, we are thinking we have very good grounds,” the president said.

Birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But in the executive order, the Trump administration argues the 160-year-old constitutional provision “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” — a legal debate that is almost certain to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed either by Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to an application from two-thirds of state legislatures.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican state lawmakers have been waiting for Trump’s executive orders on immigration as they are heading back to Tallahassee next week to potentially enact new policies to help carry out the new president’s agenda.

As of Monday night, it remains unclear what Republican legislative leaders are willing to enact to help with federal immigration enforcement in Florida. In the past, the governor has pushed lawmakers to require hospitals in the state to ask whether a patient was in the U.S. with legal permission to allow his administration to keep track of those numbers for future policies.

Outside of tracking hospital data, it is unclear what more the state could do to enforce denying birthright citizenship in Florida.

But any action on birthright citizenship could have significant ripple effects. Between 2010 and 2014, roughly 7% of children in the state — or about 280,000 kids — were U.S. citizens living with at least one undocumented family member, according to a study from the American Immigration Council, a Washington think tank and immigration advocacy group.

Trump’s executive order does not attempt to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants living in Florida today. Instead, it would only affect future births.

But potential legal hurdles remain.

The 14th Amendment states 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.” That clause was ratified into the nation’s founding documents in 1868. Before the amendment, men and women of African descent could not be citizens.

In 1967, the Supreme Court raised concerns about revoking birthright citizenship in a case involving a federal law stripping the citizenship of Americans who voted in foreign elections. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said the 14th Amendment is designed to “protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship.”

“The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship,” Justice Hugo. L. Black wrote in the 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk.

_____