As outlined -- including in the article I posted -- Birthright citizenship is granted by the Constitution. You will need to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified to eliminate it (which I support). Eliminating birthright citizenship by a simple Executive Order obviously violates the Constitution and will not be held up in court.
Oh, the Executive Order will be challenged in court? Shocker. But the Executive Order seems to be crafted in a way that he is ordering departments to not document the alleged citizenship of children born of an illegal mother. He has the authority to do that and it shifts the burden over to the party seeking documentation. Rather than coming in from some other angle where the government takes the lead on arguing for the deportation of children born of illegals or some such approach. Not a bad plan because it puts something on the record immediately stating what the government's position is going to be discourages all the birth tourism business and anchor baby schemes. That is a good tact knowing that it will take years in the courts but that remains the governments position in the interim. The other approach Camp Trump is taking in the order is to stick with the position that that is not a change but a clarification of the current constitutional position. There is the valid argument that the court may say that it is for the Congress to clarify and I don't disagree with that. But I have basically just thrown up my hands in that are because we have seen decades years and years under Obama and Biden of just inventing new immigration law by executive order. Every week there is new category of immigrant with new rights to be here or stay here and what rights they have. It has just been a deluge. I don't now or have I ever doubted though that if Trump did any of that, there would be an immediate focus on what the limits of executive order are or should be. I don't yet see what the constitutional barrier would be though if Congress did enact that change or clarification.
Let's see how governors will deal with Trump ordering government entities to not document the citizenship of babies. Remember state and local governments control the issuance of birth certificates and associated paperwork -- not the federal government. Most of these government entities will just keep on operating as they have done for decades while ignoring Trump's EO. 'Will not follow an unconstitutional order': Dem governor vows to defy key Trump action https://www.rawstory.com/trump-executive-orders-2670901098/
The courts will soon overturn this unconstitutional executive order. Action is already underway. 18 States Sue to Stop Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order The lawsuit against President Trump’s order, which seeks to deny citizenship to babies born to unauthorized immigrants in the United States, is the opening salvo in what promises to be a long-running legal fight. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/us/trump-birthright-citizenship.html
As I said, not that simple. It is not just a question of "whether it is constitutional" as the simplistic ones want to do. The question of what the president can do with just executive order alone is one question. Then the other question is what Congress can do. So if Congress ends out with the ultimate power then that starts another dynamic and pathway altogether. So I don't know about the "soon" part on this. Also as I said the question embedded within this is whether Congress has authority to define categories and classes that Congress clearly does not intend to be "subject to the jurisdiction of the law". Most likely it does per the makeup of the court. The court has always been insistent that immigration laws are a legislative matter for the Congress (even though the dems cheered Biden on to do renegade things). While it is true that the language of "subject to" is in the constitution, it is not clear who defines what falls into that category. There one category mention specifically mentioned in the constitution (children of foreign diplomats)but that does not mean it is limited to that, and as I said the court likely to confirm the power of congress to specify and define further. Plaintiffs might get a quick injunction to block implimentation of this while in the courts but that does control the ultimate outcome. And as discussed, this is about messaging too. There are very families in central american that have not heard Trump's "do not come message" by now, versus Biden's telling them to come. So that will cut down some of the invaders right off. You may be cock sure of what the outcome of the legal action will be longterm. Not sure all the folks in El Salvador who were planning to head out are as sure as you are. It has a chilling effect. Whether that is a 5% number or a 25% number we don't know but it is not an incentive to come unlike everything Biden and Kamala did.
Not that you don’t make rational arguments based on fact but try to remember the court is 6-3 conservative.