Opinion: Supreme Court decision on citizenship and injunctions divides American unity

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In the summer of 1992, my father arrived in the U.S. ready to begin his master’s degree. A friend offered him a root beer, and, German boy that my dad was, he replied that he never says no to a beer. It tasted like cough syrup, still does to him, but he’s been in this country long enough now to know the difference between cracking a cold one and a root beer float.

Longing to be a U.S. citizen without giving up his country of origin completely, he’s been here legally, green card in hand, but an unwavering German code kept him from taking the steps toward U.S. citizenship.

However, last May, my father was inducted into the U.S. hall of fame: He became a U.S. citizen. He’s a dual citizen — allowed to keep his German roots while (finally) gaining acceptance into the hard-fought club. At his naturalization ceremony, Gov. Tim Walz spoke to the crowd of 499 immigrants soon to take the oath and exclaimed that the U.S. is a better, stronger entity when new people raise their right hand and finalize their path to citizenship.

The Trump administration certainly doesn’t think so. An executive order in January reinterpreted birthright citizenship — that conferred by being born within a territory. After a series of nationwide injunctions issued by federal district courts prevented the order from taking effect, the U.S. Supreme Court late last month limited that practice.

But the meaning of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship has been in place for over a century. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that if you’re born on U.S. soil, you enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship.

Linus Chan, associate professor of clinical law at the University of Minnesota Law School, is an immigration attorney and details the critical separation between the universal injunctions that faced the Trump administration and the core debate on birthright citizenship.

“Thirty days after this Supreme Court decision” — the time the court gave plaintiffs to adjust to its ruling before the executive order takes effect — “there may be certain parts of the country where some people born in the United States won’t be recognized as U.S. citizens and won’t be able to get passports or other recognition,” said Chan. “Until the Supreme Court actually decides the birthright citizenship question, they will be in that uncertain state. Most people assume that the court will eventually make that decision, even if we can’t be sure when that will happen.”

President Donald Trump’s initial executive order indicated that children with one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident would be considered citizens. So, I, the child of an immigrant, am safe, and my father’s now being a U.S. citizen certainly helps my case, but that doesn’t mean my empathy vanished. Others in similar circumstances face a confusingly uphill battle in trying to make sense of the nation’s new code.

The American identity, which is pushed and pulled with every incoming presidential administration, has been left all the more confusing since the Supreme Court’s announcement. My connection to the classic American identity struggles leaves me dwelling on questions that only immigrants and the children of immigrants can truly sympathize with: What is an American? What constitutes the ever-changing definition of American? Do I even belong to this great experiment?

If, come July 27, someone is considered a citizen in one state but not another, where does that leave American unity?

“If a person born in Minnesota is a U.S. citizen, while a person from Texas is not, how does that work?” said Chan. “What happens if they move to Minnesota? What happens if the person from Minnesota moves to Texas? Does geography get to be so much of a trump over whether or not someone’s a citizen?”

Much more is at stake with this new decision than just the citizenship status of immigrants and their children. The united American front looks kaput as well.

The great federalist experiment — unique compared to any other country’s government structure — promises the states the ability to govern themselves. But when the basic components of something as integral as citizenship are up for debate state by state, then are we even allowed to call ourselves a country, let alone the United States?

There’s already enough confusion and mixed feelings about the American identity as it is. Adding more restrictions and qualifications doesn’t make the vision clearer.

My father’s path toward citizenship was different; he was naturalized. But now birthright citizenship, which is owed to anyone else as much as it was owed to me, lies in jeopardy.

Caroline Siebels-Lindquist, who’ll be a senior this fall at Drake University, is a summer intern for Minnesota Star Tribune Opinion.