Overview
As the nation awaits a landmark Supreme Court decision, the answer may redefine not only who is American, but whether the United States remains recognizably the nation immigrants have long trusted it to be
Who Gets to Be American?
The battle over birthright citizenship has reemerged not simply as a constitutional question, but as a profound reckoning with America’s identity—one that resonates deeply across immigrant communities, including millions of South Asians who have built their lives in the United States.
At its core lies a question both legal and existential: Is citizenship an inherited privilege, or a promise rooted in place, belonging, and shared future? As the nation awaits a landmark Supreme Court decision, the answer may redefine not only who is American, but whether the United States remains recognizably the nation immigrants have long trusted it to be.
Signed by Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, the executive order seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented parents and to those on “lawful but temporary” visas—categories that include international students, temporary workers, and many families navigating the long, uncertain pathways of the U.S. immigration system. Following oral arguments on April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to issue a pivotal ruling in June—one that could reshape American identity for generations.
South Asian Americans face uncertainty
For South Asian Americans, the implications are not abstract. A significant portion of the community has arrived through temporary visa pathways—H-1B professionals, international students, and their families—often spending decades in legal limbo while awaiting permanent residency. For them, birthright citizenship has functioned as a stabilizing anchor, ensuring that their U.S.-born children are not similarly trapped in uncertainty.
The prospect of its rollback introduces a new and deeply personal layer of uncertainty. While legal arguments have dominated headlines, experts warn that the broader consequences have received far less scrutiny. At an April 10, 2026 national briefing hosted by American Community Media, scholars across law, demography, and economics cautioned that the policy could disrupt labor markets, strain public systems, and create a large, permanently marginalized population.
Birthright citizenship is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision and guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved Black Americans. Its framers sought to reject the idea that status could be inherited or denied by lineage. As Dr. Hiroshi Motomura, teacher and scholar of immigration and citizenship, explained, the amendment affirms that those born on U.S. soil are fully part of the nation’s future.
According to Motomura, “The 14th Amendment embodies an inclusive vision of the United States—one that rejects inherited citizenship and ensures people born here are part of the nation’s future. The real point of the executive order and its profound impact is to send a message about who belongs to America and who doesn’t. The message that the country is ‘not for everyone’ will linger, no matter what the Supreme Court decides.”
Increase in the undocumented population
That vision, scholars warn, is now at risk—not only in law, but in spirit. Dr. Motomura suggests, the executive order carries psychological consequences that could outlast any single court decision. For immigrant families, such signals shape choices about where to build lives, raise children, and invest in the future.
Paradoxically, research suggests the policy could produce outcomes opposite to its stated goals. According to Dr. Julia Gelatt, Associate Director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, “Repealing birthright citizenship threatens to really harm and jeopardize decades of successful immigrant integration. Denying citizenship to U.S.-born children would increase, not reduce, the unauthorized immigration population.” She estimates it would add 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants over 20 years and 5.4 million over 50 years. By severing a key pathway to integration, the policy risks entrenching long-term exclusion.
The downstream effects could be especially visible in education and public health. Several states are already considering measures that would bar undocumented children from public schools, directly challenging the precedent set by Plyler v. Doe. Critics warn that such efforts could institutionalize what Gelatt describes as a “permanent underclass”—a population with limited access to education, healthcare, and upward mobility.
Economic implications
The economic implications are equally significant. Dr. Phillip Connor, an advocacy researcher on immigration, asserts that these individuals are not peripheral to the economy; they are central to it—particularly in high-demand sectors such as healthcare, technology, and engineering. He states, “At least $7.7 trillion in their income is contributed to the U.S. economy throughout that century period…they are part of a pipeline of workers that the country will desperately need.”
Dr. Connor notes that roughly two-thirds of birthright citizenship beneficiaries enter high-skill occupations requiring some college education. Without them, the United States could lose more than 400,000 such workers in the coming decades—weakening a labor force already under pressure from demographic aging and global competition.
Dr. Connor notes that roughly two-thirds of birthright citizenship beneficiaries enter high-skill occupations requiring some college education. Without them, the United States could lose more than 400,000 such workers in the coming decades—weakening a labor force already under pressure from demographic aging and global competition.
Loss of skilled migrants
That competition is intensifying. Xiao Wang, co-founder and CEO of Boundless Immigration, warns that uncertainty around birthright citizenship may fundamentally alter how skilled immigrants perceive the United States. According to him, “A ban on birthright citizenship is not just about changing the legal rule. It changes how talented people around the world think about building a life in the United States. Birthright citizenship has long done more than just confer legal status. It offered clarity. It told families that if your child is born here, your child can belong here. Now, at a time when other countries are leaning in, in the moment, the United States is leaning out.”
For highly skilled migrants weighing options, perception matters as much as policy. Countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia are actively expanding pathways designed to attract global talent. If the United States signals retreat, legally or symbolically, it risks ceding its long-standing advantage as the destination of choice for ambitious, globally mobile professionals.
Does birth on US soil guarantee belonging?
Each year, more than 250,000 children are born in the United States to noncitizen parents. For decades, their citizenship has been unquestioned, a reflection of a national commitment that transcends politics and administrations. Now, their status hinges on a question that has defined the country since Reconstruction: Does birth on U.S. soil guarantee belonging? For more than 150 years, the Fourteenth Amendment has answered yes.
In the weeks ahead, the Supreme Court will decide whether that answer still holds. In doing so, it will shape not only the legal contours of citizenship, but the lived reality of millions of immigrant families—and the future character of the American nation itself.
