Tag: immigration policy

On May 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court convened to hear arguments in a case that could redefine the nation's understanding of citizenship. At the heart of the debate is Executive Order 14160, signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, which seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident . This executive action challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has historically granted citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The debate over birthright citizenship has reemerged as one of the most consequential constitutional and policy questions in contemporary American politics. On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court convened a special oral argument session to consider whether the administration of President Donald J. Trump may implement an executive order redefining the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause—specifically by excluding from automatic U.S. citizenship children born on American soil to parents “unlawfully present” or “lawful but temporary” in the country. Traditionally, birthright citizenship, enshrined in the plain language of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”), has been interpreted broadly since the seminal Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

In the early months of President Donald Trump's second term, a series of policy decisions and executive actions have sparked significant legal debates and societal discussions. From environmental research terminations to immigration policy shifts, these developments underscore the complex interplay between executive authority, legal frameworks, and public interest. “The recent actions by the administration challenge the traditional boundaries of executive power, prompting a reevaluation of constitutional interpretations.” — Dr. Emily Harper, Constitutional Law Scholar

In early May 2025, the Trump administration unveiled a trifecta of proposals that reignited controversy over executive Power, immigration policy, and international trade. The proposals included (1) offering $1,000 payments to undocumented immigrants who voluntarily leave the United States, (2) imposing a 100% tariff on foreign films, and (3) reopening Alcatraz Island as a high-security detention facility for undocumented migrants. Each measure, although distinct in domain, converges around a central constitutional question: To what extent can the executive branch wield unilateral power in service of symbolic political aims, particularly when such actions collide with established statutory frameworks and international norms?

On May 4, 2025, aboard Air Force One, former President Donald J. Trump made headlines by revealing that Stephen Miller, his long-time senior advisor and architect of some of the administration's most controversial policies, is under serious consideration for the role of National Security Adviser (NSA). This announcement followed the dismissal of Rep. Mike Waltz from the position, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stepping in temporarily. While Trump stressed no urgency in finalizing the appointment, the mere suggestion of Miller’s name has reignited fierce debates across the legal, academic, and policy communities.