As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, his plans for sweeping changes to U.S. immigration laws are raising significant legal and constitutional questions. From mass deportations to efforts to revoke birthright citizenship, Trump’s ambitious promises appear to challenge long-standing legal frameworks, raising doubts about their feasibility and legality.
One of the most contentious promises is the revocation of birthright citizenship. In his first interview after the election, Trump stated his intent to “absolutely” end the practice that grants citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. His plan would seek to bypass the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which has granted birthright citizenship since 1868. This amendment specifically states that anyone born on U.S. soil, except children of foreign diplomats, is a citizen.
Changing or eliminating this provision would require more than an executive order, as the Constitution cannot be altered by the President alone. Legal experts argue that Trump would need to justify that children of undocumented immigrants are not “under the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government, a claim that would likely face intense legal challenges and potentially be taken up by the Supreme Court. UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura highlights the radical nature of such a move, which would undo more than 160 years of precedent and fundamentally alter the U.S.’s identity as a nation of immigrants.
The possibility of a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment could spark an intense battle in the courts. The Supreme Court, now dominated by conservative justices, could potentially be swayed by Trump’s arguments. However, legal experts caution that such an attempt would provoke a constitutional crisis with profound implications for American law and history.
Trump’s promise to carry out the “largest deportation in history” also raises serious concerns regarding legal precedents. The new administration’s push to broaden the scope of deportation raids, particularly in so-called “sensitive locations” like schools, hospitals, and religious institutions, contradicts prior protections established under President Obama. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents currently observe guidelines prohibiting arrests in these locations to safeguard vulnerable communities.
Under the Project 2025 plan, part of Trump’s proposed immigration overhaul, ICE would have broader discretion to make arrests in schools and other sensitive places. This could potentially lead to massive disruptions, with many fearing that immigrant families will live in constant fear of deportation. Furthermore, this approach could be challenged under constitutional protections, such as the right to education for all children, regardless of immigration status, established by the 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.
Trump’s push for expedited deportations across the entire country, bypassing the need for hearings before an immigration judge, also faces significant constitutional hurdles. While expedited deportations were initially limited to border areas, Trump has voiced a desire to expand this practice nationwide. However, this would require proof that the detainee has been in the U.S. for fewer than two years, and many deportees may not be able to meet this requirement.
Additionally, the president’s previous policies on family separations, which saw children removed from parents during the last administration, could return with devastating consequences. Trump’s promise to deport entire families, including U.S. citizen children, would likely face both legal and ethical challenges, with many questioning whether it violates fundamental family rights and human dignity.
As President Trump reclaims the White House, the future of immigrant protections such as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and TPS (Temporary Protected Status) is at risk once again. These programs, which provide temporary protection for certain undocumented immigrants, were under threat during Trump’s first term but were ultimately upheld by the courts. Now, advocacy groups are bracing for renewed legal battles as Trump has indicated his intention to end these programs entirely.
While Trump has suggested he may work with Democrats to find a solution for DACA recipients, the uncertainty surrounding these programs remains high. Legal experts believe that Trump’s efforts to end DACA and TPS could face fierce resistance from both advocacy organizations and the courts, as the current administration will need to prove that its actions are legally justified.
Beyond the legal obstacles, Trump’s immigration agenda will require substantial financial investment and cooperation from state and local governments. With limited resources and political divisions at the state level, the feasibility of implementing these sweeping changes remains unclear.
The Trump administration will also face significant ethical questions regarding the treatment of immigrants and families, particularly those who have lived in the U.S. for years or who are protected under various immigration programs. As legal battles continue, the future of U.S. immigration policy remains uncertain, with both potential for major change and significant legal resistance.
Read more: