GAINESVILLE, Fla. — President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship — the 157-year-old constitutional right granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil — has ignited legal battles at the Supreme Court and increased anxiety among immigrant families nationwide.
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship. The move is part of his broader goal to reduce immigration by denying citizenship to children born in the United States to immigrants who are on temporary visas or are not legally documented.
Just after signing the order Trump said, “This executive action is necessary to protect the integrity of our immigration system and uphold the Constitution as originally intended. The unchecked practice of birthright citizenship has created significant legal and economic challenges that this administration is committed to addressing.”
Residents of Gainesville and University of Florida students have differing opinions on President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. While some consider the move a necessary step for reforming immigration policies, others perceive it as an attack on a long-standing constitutional right.
Anna Not, a 22-year-old UF student and U.S. citizen born to Nicaraguan immigrants, said the proposal struck a nerve.
“My gut reaction had been a mix of disbelief and anger,” Not said. “I’ve heard the idea kind of being thrown around before, but never thought anyone would actually go through with it, especially because it was a constitutional right.”
She said the fear quickly followed.
“If they just decided to go against the Constitution, then who knows what else could happen?” she said.
Not said she believes the proposal directly challenges the meaning of American identity.
“We’re always sold the idea of the ‘American dream’ — that you can build your life in the U.S. no matter who you are or what your background is,” she said. “By stripping away that right, we’re limiting who can achieve that dream, people like me included.”
Although she doesn’t expect legal status to change for current citizens, Not said the social effects are already noticeable.
“Especially with the recent news of legal citizens being deported or detained by ICE, I feel like certain people are redefining what they think are citizens,” she said. “It’s making people more aggressive toward immigrants and birthright citizens alike.”
ICE, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security that enforces immigration laws and oversees deportations. In recent years, it has faced criticism for detaining legal residents and citizens, fueling fear in immigrant communities
Grace Kessinger, a 22-year-old student at UF’s Levin College of Law, said the proposed change is particularly alarming as she studies constitutional law.
“As a law student, it’s a shocking time to be learning constitutional law,” Kessinger said. “In fall 2024, I learned how substantive due process was changing after Dobbs was decided. Now, watching the president attempt to remove birthright citizenship through executive order — when there’s a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right — seems like an evasion of the Constitution.”
Sai Harshitha Baskar, 21, a UF student, said she believes Trump’s proposed changes would be unfair. She expressed concern that immigrant families would have children who feel as though they belong nowhere.
“Parents who claim citizenship,” Baskar said, “often lose it from another country, leaving their kids stateless.”
She added that it seems obvious citizenship should go to those born in the country: “If not them, then who are you giving citizenship to?”
About 32% of Americans believe former President Donald Trump’s order may be going too far, while 29% say it doesn’t go far enough, according to a February 2025 NPR and Ipsos survey, a global market research firm. The survey also found that partisanship plays a significant role in shaping opinions on both sides of the issue.
At least 32 countries currently grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders — a policy known as birthright citizenship. Among them are Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Guatemala. While about 25 of those countries are in the Americas, a handful can also be found in Africa and other parts of the world.
A Myat, 25, a UF employee, said the executive order contradicts the U.S. Constitution.
“It’s in the 14th Amendment, so he shouldn’t be able to take that away,” Myat said. “History shows that most people are from native regions, so everybody is coming from different parts of the world, and he can’t revoke that.”
Myat also pointed to Trump’s ancestry as an example of how deeply immigration is rooted in American identity.
“Trump’s grandfather was from Germany, which highlights that America was built by immigrants,” Myat said. “He cannot overrule that fact, and there’s no way he should get away with this.”
Not everyone agrees.
Jacob Saperstein, 24, a Gainesville resident, said he supports the executive order and believes children born to undocumented immigrants should not be granted automatic citizenship.
“I was all for it,” Saperstein said. “I do not believe it is fair to let illegal immigrants squat over the border, give birth and have their babies land on the American side, gaining citizenship and taking my tax dollars without any proper naturalization process.”
He said he supports citizenship for children born to legal residents or visa holders, but not to undocumented individuals.
“You are a citizen if you are born to a citizen or become naturalized,” Saperstein said. “Maybe even if your parents reside in America legally on some form of legal visa, and then their kid is born on American soil, then I’m fine with the kid gaining citizenship too.”
He added that legal dependents of naturalized citizens should also be considered for automatic naturalization.
“The policy change should have zero bearing on legal immigration and legal immigration processes,” he said. “It is meant to prevent an abundance of border babies.”
Changes to birthright citizenship law could significantly affect millions of people born in the United States, making the ongoing legal battle a critical issue for immigration policy and constitutional law.
Ending the policy would result in about 255,000 children being born without U.S. citizenship each year, potentially leaving many at risk of being stateless and limiting their access to essential services such as education, health care and legal protections, according to estimates from Penn State’s Population Research Institute and the Migration Policy Institute.
The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1866, is at the heart of the debate. It guarantees that individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
Trump’s order was set to take effect 30 days after signing but faced immediate legal challenges and backlash. Several federal judges issued injunctions blocking its enforcement. Additionally, 18 states—including California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts—have filed lawsuits against the federal government, arguing that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As of now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the order but has not yet issued a decision, leaving the lower court injunctions in place and preventing the executive order from being enforced. The Supreme Court could issue their opinions before the term concludes at the end of June.