Key Takeaways
• California Assembly passed AJR 5 supporting birthright citizenship on May 21, 2025, opposing Executive Order 14160.
• Executive Order 14160 aims to end birthright citizenship for children of noncitizen or non-permanent resident parents.
• Supreme Court to hear May 15, 2025 arguments on constitutionality of Executive Order 14160 and birthright citizenship.
On May 21, 2025, the California State Assembly made a public statement in support of birthright citizenship. This statement took the form of Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 5, presented by Assemblymember Alex Lee. Its approval comes at a time when birthright citizenship is under threat from federal actions, mostly due to Executive Order 14160. President Trump issued this order on January 20, 2025. The order tries to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents.
AJR 5 is not a law but a formal expression of the California Legislature’s position. It says that California opposes any moves to weaken birthright citizenship. It also honors the legacy of Wong Kim Ark, the man whose fight to be recognized as an American citizen led to a famous Supreme Court case. His case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), confirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment gives citizenship to almost all children born in the country, regardless of their parents’ legal status. Wong Kim Ark’s great grandson, Norman Wong, was present when Assemblymember Lee introduced the resolution on the Assembly Floor on May 19, 2025, underlining how personal and historic this issue is for many.
This resolution passed after it moved through several committees earlier in the month. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the decision comes at a significant moment, right before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about whether President Trump’s executive order is constitutional. Several lower federal courts have already stopped the order from being enforced, pointing to the Fourteenth Amendment’s clear language and long-standing constitutional principles.
The History Behind Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship is part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was added to the U.S. Constitution after the Civil War. The amendment was a direct reaction to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857, where the court said that people descended from enslaved persons could not be citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment aimed to ensure this could never happen again, making it clear that anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country is a citizen at birth.
The 1898 Wong Kim Ark case cemented this principle. Wong was born in California to parents from China 🇨🇳 who were not U.S. citizens. When he returned from a visit abroad, officials tried to deny his reentry, saying he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to Wong, upholding that being born in the United States made him a citizen.
Why California Cares So Deeply
California is home to more immigrants than any other state, making this issue extremely important for local leaders and the public. The resolution makes several key points about California’s unique position:
- About one out of every four people living in California is an immigrant, meaning they were born outside the United States.
- Around half of California’s children have at least one parent who is an immigrant.
- Experts estimate that ending birthright citizenship would mean about 24,500 babies born in the state each year would not be given citizenship at birth.
If these children lose access to citizenship, they would not be able to receive U.S. passports, social security numbers, food assistance programs, school lunch programs, healthcare, or some student financial aid. This would not only harm affected children and families, but schools, medical providers, and agencies would face many new problems as well.
Legal Pushback and the National Debate
President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 brings up the question of what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a key phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The executive order tries to redefine it, arguing that children born to “unlawfully present” mothers, mothers here only on a temporary visa, or fathers who are neither citizens nor permanent residents should not be citizens at birth.
Federal judges in several courts quickly acted to block the order from being put into place. They found that the order goes against the Constitution, especially since the Supreme Court has already ruled that most children born in the country are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The Supreme Court has recognized for over a century, starting with the Wong Kim Ark case, that the Fourteenth Amendment makes birthright citizenship the law of the land. The Supreme Court was set to hear arguments about Executive Order 14160 on May 15, 2025.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers in Congress have also acted. H.R. 569, called the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025,” was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives the day after President Trump’s order. This proposed law tries to limit who can receive birthright citizenship by changing the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. If passed, it would limit birthright citizenship and could lead to legal battles about its constitutionality.
The California State Assembly’s resolution stands as a formal rejection of both the executive order and bills like H.R. 569. Instead, California calls for defending birthright citizenship as established by the Fourteenth Amendment and as interpreted by the courts for over a century.
Comparing State and Federal Responses
California’s leaders are not alone in responding to the current debate. However, the state’s high immigrant population and deep ties to immigrant communities make this resolution especially important. For generations, birthright citizenship has helped children of immigrants become fully part of American society, giving them the same rights and opportunities as any other child born in the country.
The federal government, led by President Trump, is taking a different path. Executive Order 14160 marks the first time in modern history that a president has tried to remove citizenship from a group of American-born children by executive action. Supporters of the order say that birthright citizenship encourages people to enter or stay in the country without legal status, while those opposed point to constitutional language and fairness. These different ideas have created heated debate in Congress, the courts, and the public.
California’s Assembly made clear in AJR 5 that lawmakers see the executive order as both unfair and illegal. They argue that taking away birthright citizenship would disrupt families and communities and go against the country’s deepest values.
How Does This Affect Families, Children, and Institutions?
If birthright citizenship were taken away from babies born to noncitizen parents, many families would face big problems. Children could be denied citizenship even if they spend their entire lives in the United States. As a result, they might lose access to basic documents like social security cards and U.S. passports. Without these, many public services—like healthcare or school aid—could be hard or impossible to get.
Employers could also face new paperwork requirements. Local governments, schools, and hospitals would have to find ways to serve children who might not be recognized as citizens, and many families would be left uncertain about their future. According to estimates noted in the California State Assembly debate, more than 24,000 California babies could be affected each year, showing how widespread the impacts could be.
Supporters of birthright citizenship, including leaders in California, argue that these children are every bit as American as those born to citizens and that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to protect all children born on U.S. soil.
Arguments for and Against the Changes
Both supporters and critics of Executive Order 14160 make strong arguments. Those who support the order say it would discourage illegal immigration and reflect the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, as they see it. They argue that limiting birthright citizenship would bring the United States 🇺🇸 in line with some other countries, and that it would help reduce the number of people without legal status.
On the other hand, many legal experts and civil rights groups say the Constitution’s language is clear. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was written to be simple, giving citizenship to anyone born in the country except children of diplomats or enemy soldiers. They say attempts to change this by executive order or simple law, rather than by a constitutional amendment, are both legally weak and unfair.
According to statements by members of the California State Assembly, many see any move to end birthright citizenship as not only likely to fail in court, but also as an attack on immigrant communities that goes against the country’s values. These leaders point to the long history of birthright citizenship as a way to welcome newcomers and their children into the American story.
The Legislative Process and Opposition
AJR 5 moved through committee hearings and a floor debate before being passed by the full California State Assembly. During the hearing on the resolution, Assemblymember Alex Lee spoke about Wong Kim Ark’s legacy, and Norman Wong (his great-grandson) was mentioned and present for the debate. The resolution had broad support, especially from members representing areas with large immigrant populations.
Despite this support, not all lawmakers agreed. Some raised concerns about clashes between state positions and federal policy. Others questioned whether the resolution would have any legal effect, since state resolutions cannot override executive orders or federal laws. However, supporters argue that state statements set an important example and help guide public opinion.
Court Challenges and What Happens Next
Federal courts moved quickly to block Executive Order 14160 from taking effect. At least a few district court judges have said the order cannot be enforced until the legal questions are settled. The main legal argument is that removing birthright citizenship for some children goes against the Fourteenth Amendment, as long understood by the courts. The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide the issue after hearing arguments on May 15, 2025.
In the meantime, the ongoing court fight creates a period of uncertainty. Families who could be affected are waiting to see if the courts will protect their children’s status. State and local governments are also watching closely, given the large number of residents who could lose access to basic rights and services.
Summary and What You Should Do Next
The California State Assembly’s passage of AJR 5 is a strong signal to both state residents and federal officials that California will stand up for birthright citizenship, no matter what path the federal government takes. The issue is not only legal or political—it affects thousands of families every year. As debate continues and the Supreme Court considers the future of birthright citizenship, those who could be affected should stay up to date by checking official sources and reaching out for legal help if needed.
For the exact text of AJR 5 and current legal updates, visit the official California Legislative Information page for AJR 5.
Anyone with questions about their or their children’s citizenship status should contact a trusted immigration lawyer or legal aid organization for personal advice. State-level resolutions do not change federal law, but they are important statements that show the position of lawmakers and may influence national discussion.
This article is based only on facts provided by official sources. For more information on ongoing immigration issues and the latest news about state and federal policy changes, VisaVerge.com remains a helpful resource. As always, you should talk to a professional if your situation feels uncertain or if you need help with paperwork or understanding your rights.
Learn Today
Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) → A formal statement by a state legislature expressing a position without establishing law.
Birthright Citizenship → Citizenship granted to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents’ immigration status, per the 14th Amendment.
Executive Order 14160 → A federal order issued to attempt ending birthright citizenship for children of certain noncitizen parents.
Fourteenth Amendment → A constitutional amendment granting citizenship to all born or naturalized in the United States.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark → Landmark 1898 Supreme Court case affirming birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This Article in a Nutshell
California’s AJR 5 affirms birthright citizenship amid federal attacks. The Assembly honors Wong Kim Ark’s legacy while opposing Executive Order 14160, reflecting strong immigrant community support ahead of a landmark Supreme Court case on May 15, 2025.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Pamela Albright cancels surgery after Temple University Hospital questions citizenship status
• Josephine Maurice jailed for UK citizenship test impersonation scheme
• Ana Navarro urges Donald Trump to take Citizenship Test on The View
• Oklahoma schools likely to drop citizenship documents rule after opposition
• Kasper William Eriksen detained by ICE in Mississippi after citizenship interview
