In the wake of a recent Supreme Court ruling, two pregnant women, Monica in South Carolina and Trinidad in North Carolina, are grappling with fears concerning the citizenship status of their unborn children due to President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship.
Both women are Venezuelan asylum-seekers participating in a legal challenge against the executive order, which seeks to restrict citizenship rights based on parental status. This decision has left the fates of their children in limbo, especially given the complexities that arise from the differing legal circumstances in their respective states.
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not issue a conclusive judgment on the constitutionality of Trump’s order but significantly limited judges’ powers to block such federal actions nationwide. Consequently, this ruling is poised to affect only certain jurisdictions, with South Carolina not included among the 22 states that have legally contested the executive order. As a result, when Monica gives birth, she and her baby face considerable uncertainty.
The order restricts birthright citizenship in instances where neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, with specific stipulations affecting individuals in temporary statuses. Currently, all children born on U.S. soil are considered citizens under the 14th Amendment, but the emerging legal landscape adds anxiety about what may transpire after Trump’s order is implemented on July 27.
Monica articulated her distress during an interview, revealing the sleepless nights filled with worry about her child’s future. The pressure of possibly having to identify herself at the hospital has amplified her concerns.
As a participant in the class action lawsuit aimed at challenging Trump’s order, she, along with Trinidad, hopes to represent the multitude of women facing similar fates. Advocates fear that if enforcement goes into effect, the country could witness a fragmented legal reality akin to historic divisions, where some states uphold birthright citizenship while others do not.
The stress and anxiety affecting pregnant immigrant women are compounded by their existing worries about their impending motherhood. Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), described the overwhelming challenges these mothers face, who are already preoccupied with the tasks of impending childbirth.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also signifies potential changes to the operational execution of citizenship laws across the nation. Without clear federal guidelines, the consequences for children born in states that choose to enforce the order could be dire.
Trinidad, who remains in North Carolina, expresses her gratitude for being in a state that still upholds birthright citizenship, contrasting her situation sharply with Monica’s in South Carolina, which stands to enforce the executive order. Trinidad’s fear of potential complications weighs heavily as she anticipates her baby’s birth.
Amidst these challenges, pregnant women not included in ongoing lawsuits could face even more dire outcomes, particularly as they lack the protections afforded to the plaintiffs in the current legal challenges. Kursten Phelps, litigation counsel at the Tahirih Justice Center, highlighted the plight of a pregnant immigrant in Texas who fears her child may not receive U.S. citizenship, which raises distressing questions about her son’s future.
The implications of Trump’s birthright citizenship plan pose an array of uncertainties, leading many migrants to consider drastic measures, including the premature induction of labor, to ensure their children’s citizenship rights. This reaction underscores the extreme measures some expectant mothers feel compelled to consider out of fear of losing citizenship for their children.
Zain Lakhani from the Women’s Refugee Commission articulated that implementing the order would induce substantial chaos for immigrant women and pose extraordinary challenges for hospitals and governmental administrators tasked with navigating the resulting confusion.
Additionally, the potential of creating a generation of stateless individuals is a pressing concern, especially for children born to mothers from countries without citizenship transmission laws. If implemented, many children could risk being left without nationality, raising urgent questions about their rights and futures.
As the legal battles continue, the status of Trump’s executive order remains uncertain, underlined by the varying interpretations and implementations that may arise throughout the country. The Supreme Court retains the authority to either overturn the order or affirm its constitutionality in future rulings.
Cruz emphasized the long-term fears of plaintiffs regarding the potential for their children to uphold their citizenship status over time, suggesting a pervasive sense of insecurity and concern among those fighting for their rights as parents.
Monica remains hopeful that the democratic system will uphold constitutional rights, drawing parallels between her experiences in Venezuela and the current situation in the U.S.
As she reflects on her battle for her child’s rights, she articulates a poignant belief in this nation’s foundational principles as a refuge for the oppressed, driven by a desire to secure a better future for her family.
image source from：nbcnews
