Nigerians in the diaspora have criticized President Donald Trump’s effort to revoke birthright citizenship, stating that an executive order cannot change constitutional provisions. They believe the ultimate decision on the legality of Trump’s action will rest with the U.S. courts and the Supreme Court.
Upon assuming office, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully present or on temporary visas. The order specifies that, effective 30 days from its issuance, the federal government will not recognize these children as U.S. citizens and will stop issuing citizenship documents for them. This move has prompted immediate legal challenges, with 22 Democratic states and several civil rights groups filing lawsuits to halt its implementation.
In response, Mr. Ralu Ajekwe, a U.S. resident, acknowledged that while the order might be intended to protect national interests, its legality is questionable. He questioned whether an executive order can amend a constitutional issue and emphasized that the government’s role is to safeguard national interests both domestically and internationally.
He emphasized the importance of aligning policies with the government’s goals, values, and objectives. Regarding Trump’s ban on citizenship by birth, he raised key questions about the motives behind the decision: What are Trump’s goals? Do they reflect the interests of the American people?
Are Americans supportive of this policy, and does it promote the greatest good for the majority? If the answers to these questions are affirmative, then the policy may be justified. However, he also stressed the need to examine its legality. A Nigerian diaspora member and legal practitioner based in Canada, who chose to remain anonymous, criticized Trump’s move to end citizenship by birth, calling it mere showmanship aimed at his supporters. He highlighted two key issues: the legality of the executive order and its deviation from the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. who is subject to its jurisdiction.
He argued that Trump’s proposal misinterprets the amendment by suggesting that citizenship should depend on a parent’s immigration status. He noted that children of temporary residents should still be considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction, with the exception of children of diplomats who enjoy immunity. He predicted that the executive order would face legal challenges, ultimately requiring a ruling from U.S. courts or the Supreme Court. If the courts rule against Trump, those affected by the policy would regain their citizenship.
He emphasized that the constitution does not exclude children of undocumented migrants from citizenship, as the clause “All persons born” could work in their favor. He argued that many undocumented migrants actively seek to be part of U.S. jurisdiction, suggesting that it would be inappropriate to claim they are not subject to it.
Peter Obiora, an online editor at InvestAdvocate residing in the U.S., argued that ending birthright citizenship through executive order is impossible without a constitutional amendment, as the constitution takes precedence. He predicted numerous lawsuits challenging such a move, recalling that a similar proposal was rejected when it was first introduced. He believes Trump cannot achieve this goal before his tenure ends.
Johnpaul Nwafidelie, living in Canada, stated that Trump’s initiative is an attempt to control immigration to the U.S. He mentioned that Canada is considering a similar policy, but it is being addressed through parliamentary channels. He advised Nigerians seeking dual citizenship for their children to follow the appropriate legal processes given the current situation.
The speaker noted that Nigerians benefited from birthright citizenship while it was available, but now that the policy has changed, individuals should adapt and follow the current guidelines if they wish to obtain citizenship. He stressed that the previous system inadvertently granted citizenship to individuals who might not have deserved it due to criminal or terrorist activities.
He believes the new approach aims to better regulate immigration into the country. He reassured that while the process has changed, opportunities remain for those willing to navigate the proper channels to achieve their goals.