Former U.S. President Donald Trump reignites national debate, insisting the 14th Amendment’s original purpose has been distorted by modern immigration practices.
News Story:
Former United States President Donald Trump has stirred fresh controversy over immigration and constitutional rights, asserting that birthright citizenship was originally designed for the descendants of enslaved people—not for wealthy foreigners seeking U.S. citizenship through childbirth.
Trump made the statement while addressing supporters during a political event, arguing that the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, has been “misinterpreted and misused” for decades. According to him, the amendment’s framers intended it as a path to full citizenship for formerly enslaved African Americans following the Civil War, not as a loophole for what he described as “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. to give birth.
The former president insisted that the current application of birthright citizenship fuels illegal immigration and places undue strain on American resources. He reiterated his long-standing position that the U.S. should revise or reinterpret the amendment to reflect what he claims is its “true historical purpose.”
Legal scholars, however, continue to counter Trump’s argument, maintaining that the 14th Amendment is explicit, and its guarantee of citizenship has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. They note that any attempt to alter birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment or a landmark judicial decision.
Trump’s remarks have once again revived national debate, drawing sharp reactions across political lines. Supporters argue that the policy needs modernization to curb immigration abuses, while critics accuse Trump of promoting exclusionary rhetoric and misrepresenting historical facts.
As the 2026 political season intensifies, Trump’s comments are expected to remain a major talking point, influencing both immigration discussions and broader constitutional interpretation debates in the United States.
Post a Comment