Birthright citizenship grants automatic citizenship to individuals born within a country's territory, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. In the United States, it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:;xNLx;;xNLx;"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.";xNLx;;xNLx;Despite its deep-rooted history, President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January 2025 attempting to strip birthright citizenship, bypassing the constitutional amendment process.;xNLx;;xNLx;This timeline traces the historical background, legal struggles, and ongoing battles surrounding this fundamental right.
The first act in the U.S. to define parameters for citizenship by naturalization.
This case determined that testimony from a Chinese immigrant against a white man was inadmissible in court.
This landmark case resulted in the denial of citizenship from all individuals of African descent in the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born in the U.S.
This landmark agreement granted privileges to China and favored treatment of its citizens.
In practice, this act prohibited Chinese women from entering the U.S.
This treaty recognized the power of the U.S. government to regulate labor immigration from China.
To subvert the institutionalized racism entrenched in American immigration, many Chinese alleged familial connections to native-born citizens.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first act of its kind to place broad restrictions on immigration and set the stage for a barrage of similar targeted immigration legislation.
This landmark case determined that all children, including immigrants, were entitled to public education.
This ruling upheld that Chinese immigrants were afforded equal protection under the law through the Fourteenth Amendment.
This act strengthened the authority and enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
This act extended the Chinese Exclusion Act.
This case ruled the Geary Act of 1892 to be constitutional.
This act addressed some of the challenges to immigration established in the Geary Act.
This landmark case cemented the principle of birthright citizenship and set a crucial precedent for defending the rights of children born to immigrants.
This act required all U.S. immigrants to learn English in order to become naturalized citizens.
An informal agreement between the United States and Japan severely restricting Japanese immigration into the U.S.
This landmark decision determined all Issei ineligible for citizenship.
This act established a national origins quota in order to severely restrict the number of immigrants entering the U.S.
This act granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.
The Supreme Court ruled that Chinese wives of American citizens were themselves ineligible for admission into the U.S.
The United States incarcerated over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
Congress finally repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943; however, Chinese immigrants were still not allowed to enter the U.S.
This act continued the controversial quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924.
The Supreme Court afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections under the Equal Protection Clause to non-citizens and their children.
Official condemnation of the Chinese Exclusion Act
On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second presidency, Donald Trump issued an executive order seeking to strip certain babies born in the United States of their U.S. citizenship.
At least ten lawsuits were filed to stop the executive order.
This case was filed by (ACLU), along with its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, the Asian Law Caucus, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Legal Defense Fund at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
This case was filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights at U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Thien Le filed this lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
State of Washington, along with Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, filed this lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The State of New Jersey, along with 17 other states, San Francisco, Washington DC, filed this lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts . At least 72 jurisdictions across 24 states have joined the legal challenge
CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and individual plaintiffs Maribel, Juana, Trinidad Garcia, Monica, and Liza filed this lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
This is a class action lawsuit filed by Cherly Norales Castillo, Alicia Chavarria Lopez, and Delmy Franco Aleman at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
OCA- Asian Pacific American Advocates filed this lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
County of Santa Clara filed this lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Enter story info here
We'd love to hear from you. Please send questions or feedback to the below email addresses.
Before contacting us, you may wish to visit our FAQs page which has lots of useful info on Tiki-Toki.
We can be contacted by email at: hello@tiki-toki.com.
You can also follow us on twitter at twitter.com/tiki_toki.
If you are having any problems with Tiki-Toki, please contact us as at: help@tiki-toki.com
Close