Trump's "desperate end around" the Supreme Court with new attack on birthright citizenship; civil rights groups vow to fight back

SCREEN CAPTURE / YOUTUBE

The ACLU's Cecilia Wang defended birthright citiznship at the Supreme Court.

Just five weeks after getting slapped down by the nation’s highest court, the Trump regime is launching a fresh offensive in its ongoing war against immigrants and who gets to be an "American."

On August 6, Donald Trump signed two new executive orders targeting birthright citizenship. The move is a transparent attempt to bypass the 14th Amendment by creating a tiered system of citizenship and labeling specific foreign individuals — a move civil rights advocates are calling a desperate end run around constitutional law.

Trump's overly broad Day 1 executive order was decisively struck down in a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling (Trump v. Barbara) issued last June. Now, the White House is trying a narrower, more insidious approach.

Round Two: The new executive orders

Trump’s latest strategy splits the policy into two surgical strikes designed to test the limits of executive power:

The first order carves out citizenship exclusions, dictating that children born on U.S. soil to foreign diplomats, embassy staff, designated "alien enemies," or parents accused of immigration fraud will no longer receive automatic citizenship. It also lays the groundwork to strip birthright citizenship in US territories if Congress provides legislative backing.

The second order commands federal agencies to actively block "birth tourism" by tightening visa restrictions on pregnant foreign visitors and preventing agencies from issuing travel visas under those conditions.

White House immigration henchman Stephen Miller and regime enablers maintain they are on firm legal footing, banking on the idea that regulating visas and defining national security terminology falls under executive authority over immigration.

Civil rghts groups fire back

The backlash from civil rights organizations was instantaneous, fierce, and unified across the progressive ecosystem. Advocates warning that these directives seek to create a vulnerable, unprotected legal class were quick to point out that a president cannot simply rewrite the supreme law of the land.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) whose top attorney Cecilia Wang successfully argued against the regime's lawyers before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, joined the fight, promising that this latest piece of executive overreach will meet the exact same fate in federal court as the last one. 

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. "No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution. Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

The Asian Law Caucus (ALC), co-counsel in Trump v. Barbara and the nation’s first Asian American legal and civil rights organization, issued a blistering condemnation. Executive Director Aarti Kohli stated:

“This is a cynical distraction from a flailing administration – and AAPI and immigrant families would pay the price. The Constitution – as the Supreme Court already affirmed in June – does not allow the government to pick and choose which children born in this country belong. This is a desperate end run around the Court’s decision based on made-up legal theories. The administration already lost once and it will lose again.

“Asian Law Caucus fought this administration’s attacks on birthright citizenship from day one. Our work carries forward the legacy of Fred Korematsu, whose family, like thousands of Japanese Americans, was branded a so-called “alien enemy” in 1942 and whose conviction we helped overturn in 1983. Today’s unlawful orders revive that same label to decide which babies count as American. Our commitment is clear: we will continue to defend birthright citizenship and protect the AAPI and immigrant families these actions target.”

Frontline community reactions

The ACLU and Asian Law Caucus were not alone in quickly condemning Trump's newest executive orders.

Stop AAPI Hate Coalition: The advocacy network warned that the administration’s new directives will explicitly fuel racial profiling, visa discrimination, and xenophobia. Representatives from the Stop AAPI Hate Action Center noted that drawing arbitrary lines around which parents "belong" invites dangerous local scrutiny for anyone who looks or sounds Asian, regardless of their actual legal status.

APIAVote: Leading voting rights and civic engagement groups stressed that the administration's "made-up legal theories" are a desperate play to suppress the growing political power and demographic footprint of communities of color.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice: Legal and civil rights affiliates expressed outrage that the executive branch is trying to overrule a definitive, weeks-old Supreme Court ruling. They criticized the orders as a "cynical distraction" meant to instill fear in immigrant neighborhoods, discourage families from seeking medical care, and disrupt local communities.

Birthright citizenship is simply defined in the US Constitution.

View from the edge

For Asian American, Pacific Islander (AAPI), and immigrant communities, resurrecting the term "alien enemies" isn't just an abstract legal debate — it is a visceral echo of historical exclusion acts and wartime targeting.

From the bedrock protection secured in 1898 by a Chinese American in United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the dark chapter of World War II internment, marginalized communities have had to repeatedly defend their right to belong. Drawing arbitrary lines around which parents "belong" invites dangerous racial profiling and xenophobia for anyone who looks or sounds foreign, regardless of their actual legal status.

Legal experts agree that while the White House is attempting to use narrower, security-focused language to dodge judicial review, denying citizenship to any child born on US soil directly violates the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Activists, civil rights coalitions, and legal teams are already preparing their briefs to halt the implementation of these orders before they can take root.

No matter how many executive orders the White House drafts, the fundamental law of the land remains unchanged. Trump just doesn't get it. He's not a king.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please share.

Trump thwarted, birthright citizenship upheld by Supreme Court

CHINATOWN / FACEBOOK

San Francisco's Chinatown unveiled its newest mural hooring Wong Kim Ark.

The historic 128-year-old legacy of a San Francisco Chinatown cook has been vindicated, as the US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to reject a white nationalist-fueled executive order, firmly upholding constitutional birthright citizenship for all children born on American soil.

For Norman Wong and Sandra Wong, the great-grandchildren of civil rights icon Wong Kim Ark, the high court's decision was a moment of profound relief—and a stark reminder of the perpetual fight against the "forever foreigner" stereotype that still haunts Asian Americans.

The high-stakes legal battle erupted after Donald Trump tried to unilaterally dismantle the 14th Amendment. His executive order sought to strip automatic citizenship from children born in the US to temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants—a move that would have upended the lives of over 250,000 babies born each year.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that a president cannot rewrite the Constitution by executive decree. The court squarely reaffirmed the very precedent established by the Wongs' ancestor in the landmark 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Trump vows to continue fight to restrict immigration

Celebrate while you can. Although the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, other crucial Supreme Court victories for the administration are adversely affecting millions of legal visa-holders from Asia, the country's fastest-growing immigrant group.

The fact that the SCOTUS ruling wasn't unanimous in what legal experts thought would be a slam-dunk gives the Trump regime an open door to achieve what his weaponized DOJ sought to do.

Trump criticized the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down his executive order on birthright citizenship, calling the decision "too bad for our Country" but pivoting immediately to demand a legislative workaround through Congress.

In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump expressed deep disappointment, stating that while the court upheld the policy, "we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation."

He urged Congress to begin drafting legislation "today" to dismantle birthright citizenship, labeling the practice "expensive and unfair to our country" and promising lawmakers his "Complete and Total Support!."

Though Trump lost his fight against the 14th Amendment's birthright protections, immigration experts warn that the cumulative effect of the other Supreme Court decisions will heavily disrupt the lives of millions of lawful visa holders and employment-based immigrants.

Trump achieved his broader agenda against immigrants of color through the following wins at the Supreme Court: 

• TPS Terminations: In Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled 6-3 to bar judicial review of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) determinations. This greenlit the termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria, immediately placing roughly 350,000 work-authorized individuals at risk of deportation and the loss of their legal status. While the case specifically involved Haitian and Syrian immigrants, the ruling has broad implications for all immigrants, including those from Asia, such as Nepal, Burma (Myanmar) and Afghanistan.

• Asylum Restrictions: In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court determined that migrants attempting to seek asylum while standing outside the US border are not considered to have legally "arrived" in the country.

• Lawful Permanent Resident Admissibility: In Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the Court ruled 6-3 that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can defer the inspection of Lawful Permanent Residents who committed crimes until after their conviction, making it significantly easier to deport green card holders.

View from the edge

Immigrants from Asia make up the fastest-growing minority and racial demographic in the US, and they are disproportionately affected by the broader shifting legal landscape. While ending birthright citizenship would have primarily affected the US-born children of undocumented Latinos, studies have shown that the fastest relative growth of "unauthorized" births would have occurred among Asian families who are lawfully in the US on student and work visas. Many Asian immigrants face massive green card backlogs — often stretching over a decade — and thus rely on these temporary, nonimmigrant statuses for long periods.

The original battle began when Wong Kim Ark, a cook born in San Francisco, traveled to China and was blocked from re-entering his own country by racist immigration officials wielding the Chinese Exclusion Act. He refused to back down, forcing the Supreme Court to declare in 1898 that birth on U.S. soil equals citizenship, period.

In a poetic twist of continuity, the case defending our foundational rights was argued before the high court by ACLU national director Cecillia Wang — an American-born daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. Norman Wong, a 76-year-old Bay Area resident and veteran activist of the 1970s Third World Liberation Front at UC Berkeley, noted how "sweet" it was to see a Chinese American woman who herself is a US citizen by virtue of birthright citizenship, leading the defense at the frontlines of anti-Asian discrimination.

Norman Wong spent the morning of the decision at his Bay Area home, eating a bowl of oatmeal and anxiously tracking the news. Speaking with AsAmNews, he emphasized that this wasn't just a win for one community.

“Today's ruling shows that his victory remains as important now as it was in 1898... We’re fighting for rights for all Americans because these are fundamental rights.”

His sister, Sandra Wong, expressed disbelief that they even had to fight this battle in 2026. "This is Wong Kim Ark's legacy," she stated. "It is our legacy."

Just weeks before this modern victory, a vibrant new mural honoring Wong Kim Ark was unveiled and blessed with a lion dance in San Francisco's Chinatown. It stands as a permanent reminder that Asian Americans have never been passive bystanders in the story of American democracy—we built the legal bedrock that protects everyone.

"His fight was not just his own, it was for me and for generations to come," Norman Wong said in an earlier speech at a rally outside the Supreme Court building. "This is Wong Kim Ark's legacy. This is my legacy. It is our legacy, and now it is our responsibility to protect it for our children and for generations yet to come."

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.

in 2026: Will the Supreme Court rule against birthright citizenship?

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ILLUSTRATION

If you thought 2025 was crazy, 2026 will not offer any relief for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.

As the radical conservative US Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments the question of brithright citizeshp (iTrump v. Barbara) by summer 2026, the potential end of birthright citizenship isn't just a legal debate; it's an existential threat to the Asian American community—the very community that fought for and won this right over a century ago.

This new attack on birthright citizenship repeats our country’s history of targeting and excluding Asians,” said Bethany Li, executive director of Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund,“We already won this fight more than a century ago. But no matter the gains, unfortunately being Asian in America means constantly having to fight for our right to be here. Asian Americans are coming together once again to defend our right to citizenship and to call this country home."

        READ the full AALDEF amicus brief here

For those of us keeping watch from the edge, the current assault on birthright citizenship isn't just another headline—it’s a direct hit on a legacy our community fought to build. In 2026, the battle over Executive Order 14160 has reached the Supreme Court, and for Asian Americans, the stakes feel like a dangerous echo of the past.

”The administration’s push rests on a narrow, radical rewrite of the 14th Amendment. They’re zeroing in on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," claiming it requires political allegiance that temporary visa holders or undocumented parents supposedly don’t have, says Li.

Behind the legal jargon is a clear political goal: to end what they call "birth tourism" and strip automatic citizenship from children born to those without "lawful permanent" status. While lower courts initially blocked the order, a 2025 Supreme Court ruling against nationwide injunctions has left us with a confusing "patchwork" of rights across different states.

If the Court tosses out the 14th Amendment’s "bedrock" principle, the children of US citizens and immigrants, even those with the proper documents, will be vulnerable. 

Here is who stands to lose:

Children of Legal visa holders

While much of the political rhetoric targets undocumented immigrants, Trump''s 2025 executive order explicitly targets legal immigrants on temporary visas.

H-1B and F-1 Families: Asian Americans dominate high-skill work and student visa categories. Under current proposals, children born to parents on H-1B (work) or F-1 (student) visas would no longer be recognized as US citizens at birth.

A "Stateless" Generation: For many Indian and Chinese families facing decades-long green card backlogs, their US-born children could become "stateless"—lacking citizenship in the only home they’ve ever known while potentially ineligible for their parents' home-country citizenship.

        RELATED: A look back on 2025, the year racism became normalized

Future Political Power: Asian American advocacy groups like Stop AAPI Hate warn that ending birthright citizenship is a direct attack on the future political power of our community.

Second-Class Status: Without citizenship, these children would be denied the right to vote, run for office, or serve on juries.

Access Denied: These newborns could be blocked from essential lifelines, including Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC, creating a permanent "underclass" within the AAPI community.

Think you're safe because you're already a citizen? Think again.

If birth certificates are no longer enough to prove citizenship, every parent—regardless of status—will face new, expensive hurdles to prove their child belongs.

We’ve seen this movie before. Any system that questions citizenship at birth invites racial profiling against those perceived as "perpetual foreigners."

What’s powering the DOJ's challenge?

For the AANHPI community, this isn't a new fight; it's a hundred-year-old wound that's been ripped oopen again.

We must remember Wong Kim Ark, the son of Chinese immigrants who, in 1898, took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and won birthright citizenship for all. Today, organizations like AALDEF, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Asian Law Caucus are back in the trenches, filing amicus curie and joining lawsuits to ensure that this historically radicaly SCOTUS doesn't erase over 150 years of progress.

y empowering government officials to question people’s citizenship status, the order opens the door to discriminatory and arbitrary government interference in people’s daily lives, opines the Brennan Center for Justice. "This problem won’t just be limited to the children denied citizenship under the order: Under the new legal regime the order would create, everyone would be vulnerable to having their citizenship questioned."

The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause grants birthright citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," establishing that nearly anyone born on US soil, regardless of parents' status (even undocumented immigrants), automatically becomes a citizen, a principle reaffirmed by Supreme Court cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 

This amendment was crucial for giving citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, overturning the Dred Scott decision, and ensures equal protection under the law, though limited exceptions exist for children of diplomats or enemy forces

The administration’s push rests on a narrow, radical rewrite of the 14th Amendment. They’re zeroing in on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," claiming it requires political allegiance that temporary visa holders or undocumented parents supposedly don’t have.

Behind the legal jargon is a clear political goal: to end what they call "birth tourism" and strip automatic citizenship from children born to those without "lawful permanent" status. While lower courts initially blocked the order, a 2025 Supreme Court ruling against nationwide injunctions has left us with a confusing "patchwork" of rights across different states.

In plain, everyday language, the push to end birthright citizenship is just another battlefront in the Trump administration's overall to  fight the myth of "white displacement" by keeping Whites in the majority that carries with it, power and privilege.

A host of legal scholars and civil rights groups, including the ACLU and several states, believe the Court will likely strike down the executive order. Today, organizations like AALDEF, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Asian Law Caucus are back in the trenches, filing amicus curie and lawsuits to ensure that SCOTUS doesn't erase over 150 years of progress.

I hope they're right but I'm not holding my breath. This radical activist Supreme Court with its six conservative Justices led by Chief Justice John Roberts has astounded legal experts by showing that they are not against overruling precedents in order to "legalize" the far-right agenda of Donald Trump.

Critics of the Supreme Court argue it's increasingly politicized, too conservative, lacks transparency, suffers from legitimacy issues due to ethics concerns, and oversteps its bounds, leading to a perception that law is just "politics by other means" and undermining its role as an impartial arbiter, with concerns about judicial overreach, lack of accountability, and profound disagreement on key issues like abortion and presidential power.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, the decision “will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular—i.e., those who may not have the wherewithal to lawyer up and will all too often find themselves beholden to the Executive’s whims.”

SCOTUS will hear arguments in the Spring and a  ruling is expected by the summer of 2026 will decide if America remains a place where, as one advocate put it, "no matter where you come from ... within a generation you belong."

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

Birthright citizenship still in effect for now, but its future is uncertain

The great grandson of Wong Kim Ark protests the SCOTUS ruling.

"The legal upshot of the Supreme Court’s monumentally disastrous decision in Trump v. CASA (more commonly known as 'the birthright citizenship case') is chaos," reads the lede of the Nation's coverage of Friday's ruling by the activist jurists of SCOTUS.

"Utter legal chaos. In its ruling on Friday, the court’s usual six monarchists granted Donald Trump’s request to reexamine various nationwide injunctions preventing Trump and Stephen Miller from implementing their plans to revoke birthright citizenship to any American who doesn’t happen to be white."

 

I couldn't say it any better. Asian American legal advocates agree.

“Because of (the) 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions, we now live in a country where some children would get citizenship and otherswouldn’t, largely depending onwhich circuit court they live near," says Niji Jain, legal director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF). 

"Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the US Constitution, yet the administration is now empowered to continue its campaign to strip that right. Despite the unanimous response from all federal courts who have heard this issue to enterinjunctions preserving birthright citizenship,some children born in this country are now at risk of becoming stateless.”

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reminded her conservative peers to read the Constitution again. It clearly states: “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.”

She recognizes that this decision opens the door the court to a Trump-ordered elimination of birthright citizenship.

Even more ominous is that the ruling could be applied to other Trump orders, even if they are against the law. The power of the courts to curb actions of the executive branch has been significantly diluted.

“This Court endorses the radical proposition that the President is harmed, irreparably, whenever he cannot do something he wants to do, even if what he wants to do is break the law,” Sotomayor writes.

The Trump administration’s malicious attack on birthright citizenship continues to spread fear, anger, and confusion across immigrant communities. That includes the 3.6 million Asian Americans who are either undocumented, seeking asylum, or are in the US on student and work visas (e.g., H-1Bs).

The High Court's ruling means lower courts will have to determine to what extent, if any, the administration’s blatantly unconstitutional executive orders, including the one about birthright citizenship, can go into effect on a case-by-case basis.

 FYI: A copy of the court’s opinion is available here.

The decision took issue with the scope of the interim relief but did not disturb the fact that three District Courts concluded that the executive order is likely unlawful.

“Let me be clear: this case was never about the merits of the birthright citizenship executive order, it remains unconstitutional” explained John C. Yang, president and executive director of Advancing Justice | AAJC. “Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of our constitution. The administration knows they have little chance of winning on this issue. Instead, they used the lives of millions of immigrants as a poker chip in an effort to curtail nationwide injunctions, which have been one of the best tools we have to hold this administration accountable for unlawful actions,” Yang said.

With the Administration refusing to challenge the opinions of three different courts on the blatant unconstitutionality of this executive order, the Court today allows them to continue to try to sidestep these three court orders blocking a ban to birthright citizenship. The executive order represents an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of executive authority. It is a fundamental attack on the principles that have defined America for over two centuries. 

“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this President’s anti-democratic agenda,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Within 24 hours of the SCOTUS ruling Bonta joined a coalition of 19 other state Attorneys General suing Donald Trump.

In their lawsuit, the Attorneys General argue that the Trump's attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and should be immediately blocked from going into effect while litigation proceeds. In its decision, the Supreme Court announced a new standard for nationwide injunctions, sending consideration of the scope of the injunction back to the lower courts. The decision states that the executive order cannot go into effect for 30 days.

“The Supreme Court’s decision allows the lower courts to further consider the scope of the district court's nationwide injunction — which we believe is clearly necessary to provide full relief to the states," said Bonta. "We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure this unlawful, anti-democratic executive order never has the chance to be implemented.

“This decision potentially leaves many families unprotected against the Administration’s unlawful attack on birthright citizenship,” said Thu Nguyen, Executive Director of OCA. “Ever since the landmark case of the US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Asian American community has been at the frontlines of the legal fight to affirm birthright citizenship. Despite this setback, we will not stop,” says Nguyen.

The SCOTUS decision makes it easier for the court, now acting as the Trump administration's enabler, to continue its ultimate quest to eliminate birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, grants citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This principle was affirmed in the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the US to Chinese immigrants was a citizen.

In essence, birthright citizenship, as established by the 14th Amendment and upheld in the Wong Kim Ark case, ensures that individuals born in the US, including those of Asian descent, are granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status. 

However, Trump's Department of Justice attorneys argue that the 14th Amendment applies only to children of slaves and shouldn't be granted to generations of children born in the US to parents of immigrants from around the world.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly dissented the SCOTUS ruling.

Sotomayor warns that the decision by the conservative Justices will have an impact beyond the birthright citizenship debate.

“The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution,” she writes.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

What the ruling has done was essentially create two Americas, the 22 states which  abide by the three lower court injunctions and those to which they don't apply.

“The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other,” Sotomayor writes in her dissent. “It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

History lesson for Trump: Chinese American's case set precedence for 'birthright citizenship'

Wong Kim Ark's case set precedence bor 'birthright citizenship.' 

WONG KIM ARK must be turning over in his grave.

As if there aren't enough reasons to vote Democrat on Nov. 6, Donald Trump on Monday (Oct. 29) announced that he wants to make birthright citizenship illegal.

In brief, birthright citizenship, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, says that if a person in born in the United States, that person automatically is considered a legal citizen of the U.S.

“The president cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order, and the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee is clear," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. "This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms.”

“Not only is (Trump's proposal) unconstitutional, it is un-American and unapologetically a scare tactic a week before the elections. We are not fooled," said Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance Executive Director, Alvina Yeh. "We will continue defending the 14th Amendment as the Supreme Court did in 1898, when white nationalists tried to revoke 14th amendment rights for Chinese people." 

Prior to 1898, birthright citizenship, embedded in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, was applied to those of European descent.

Wong's case was the first instance when it was applied to an Asian American. It became the law of the land in the case involving Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco and whose parents were non-citizens living and working in the U.S.

At the age of 18 he visited China, the land of his parents, and upon his return was refused entrance because officials said he was not a U.S. citizen.

Wong was forced to wait on a ship in San Francisco harbor for months as his attorney pursued his case for citizenship. He was a test case, selected by the Department of Justice in an attempt to prove that people of Chinese descent weren’t citizens. 

His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled on behalf of the Chinese American in 1898. “The Fourteenth] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote associate justice Horace Gray in the precedent-setting opinion.

"The Constitution’s meaning could not be more clear. And the Supreme Court has agreed, ruling multiple times to uphold birthright citizenship," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA, who is chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, made up of AAPI senators and House members and whose districts have bustling and entrenched AAPI communities.

Trump says he can change the Constitution through executive order. Legal scholars disagree. There is a long and complicated process for changing the U.S. Constitution and it doesn't involve presidential decrees. 

Trump hopes to stem the practices that gives preferences to the relatives of U.S. citizens, a process employed by legal citizens to bring over family members, including children and parents.

"Trump’s action isn’t about what’s good or moral or legal or even effective. It’s just President Trump’s latest attempt to fuel anger in order to win votes. I can imagine no lower aspiration in government," said Chu. "What he wants is a debate on who does and does not belong here, because he knows xenophobia helps him win elections. But xenophobia also creates tension and increases the risk of violence."

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge.
______________________________________________________________________________

Make no mistake, the Midterm Elections is all about Donald Trump and his attempt to reduce immigration from Asia and Latin America and Africa. Everywhere, in fact, except immigration from Europe.

I won't mince words: The election is about Donald Trump and the racism and white nationalism that he uses to divide our country into white supremacists against everybody else.

Don't kid yourself: The election is about the social contract between the people of the United States and the government's social service net retaining Social Security, Mediare and Veterans Affairs, be





Congresswoman Judy Chu (CA-27), CAPAC Chair:

“With one statement, Donald Trump displayed the bigotry and the ignorance that have made his presidency so dangerous.

“I implore the President to read the case U.S. v. Wong Ark. In this case, despite the Chinese Exclusion Act being in place, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship for an individual who was born to immigrants. ‘All persons’ means ‘All persons’. The Constitution’s meaning could not be more clear. And the Supreme Court has agreed, ruling multiple times to uphold birthright citizenship. But Trump’s action isn’t about what’s good or moral or legal or even effective. It’s just President Trump’s latest attempt to fuel anger in order to win votes. I can imagine no lower aspiration in government. What he wants is a debate on who does and does not belong here, because he knows xenophobia helps him win elections. But xenophobia also creates tension and increases the risk of violence.

“Like all prejudice, this proposal is not rooted in logic or reality, but that does not make it any less dangerous.”

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), CAPAC Immigration Task Force Chair:



“President Trump should take a high school government class before so confidently claiming he can eliminate the 14th Amendment though executive action. Constitutional scholars and even members of his own party agree – this simply isn’t possible. This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant rhetoric, sow division and distract voters from this administration’s very real infringements against working families. To Senator Lindsey Graham and anyone looking to encroach on basic citizenship rights legislatively: we will fight tooth and nail against any kind of regressive action, in the streets, in Congress and beyond. Our country’s fabric is stronger because of the protections provided in the 14th Amendment. These efforts are nothing more than attempts to harm children who are just as American as any other child born in the United States of America.”





In a 6–2 decision issued on March 28, 1898, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship whichWong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."