Stephen Miller ignites debate with a modern call to evaluate birthright citizenship, invoking historical interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
Quick Takes
- Stephen Miller supports President Trump’s executive order to redefine birthright citizenship.
- The 14th Amendment’s historical intent is highlighted by Miller’s arguments.
- Contemporary issues of national security and economy are linked to the citizenship debate.
- The U.S. Supreme Court will soon examine the legality of Trump’s order.
Miller’s Advocacy on Birthright Citizenship
Stephen Miller, a long-time adviser to President Trump, is a vocal advocate for reevaluating birthright citizenship within the United States. He supports President Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which challenges the automatic granting of citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. Miller’s efforts align with the drive to reshape modern interpretations through a historical lens.
Miller stresses financial and national security threats as core concerns with extensive birthright citizenship claims. His perspective updates understandings of the 14th Amendment’s historical context, suggesting citizenship rights should be restrained to those it originally intended—freed slaves and their descendants.
Historical and Legal Perspectives
The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868, asserts citizenship for all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., traditionally interpreted to encompass a wide scope. Miller argues that contemporary frameworks extend this to unintended beneficiaries. His views challenge the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed citizenship rights to children born to non-citizen parents.
The dialogue gains momentum as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on President Trump’s executive order on May 15. The order seeks to redefine citizenship criteria, challenging automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. without at least one American citizen or lawful permanent resident parent.
Contemporary Advocacy and Critiques
Stephen Miller continues to play a critical role in Trump’s circle, validating claims of birthright citizenship as a significant financial and security threat. The order faces opposition from several state attorneys general and immigrant advocates, asserting violations of the 14th Amendment. The debate has garnered attention, with voices expressing both anticipation and critique.
“Birthright citizenship” is the biggest, costliest scam in financial history. An illegal alien can come here nine months pregnant or on a tourist visa —nine months pregnant — have a baby, that baby is then declared an automatic citizen, which then entitles the entire family to come here and live here and every one of them get welfare. Yes, they can get unlimited welfare, applying as the custodian of this citizen — so called — child — the biggest financial rip-off of Americans in history, not to mention the fact that it’s the number one magnet for illegal immigration and invasion,” Miller explains.
Miller’s positions continuously evoke contentious responses, yet underscore a sustained engagement with pivotal American principles. His articulation echoes larger discussions on citizenship’s scope and its implications for national integrity.
