Amid the Trump administration鈥檚 legal challenge to birthright citizenship, is among a group of scholars who have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, providing social science evidence for the justices to consider as they hear a case this spring.
The argues that birthright citizenship 鈥� the legal right to citizenship for all children born in the United States 鈥� strengthens the country鈥檚 economy and promotes better educational and health outcomes. It also warns that ending birthright citizenship would have far-reaching consequences, including expanding the country鈥檚 undocumented population.
鈥淭he research overwhelmingly shows that birthright citizenship has profoundly positive effects on individuals and society,鈥� said Hsin, professor of migration in the University of Notre Dame鈥檚 and a core faculty affiliate of the school鈥檚 .
Background: a legal challenge to birthright citizenship
Hsin was one of the scholars who contributed to the amicus brief in . The case centers on a legal challenge to a by President Trump that would restrict birthright citizenship.
The order says that U.S. citizenship applies only to children whose parents have permanent legal status, but challengers have cited the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It states: 鈥淎ll 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.鈥�
In U.S. law, this has long been understood through the principle of 鈥渏us soli鈥� (鈥渞ight of the soil鈥�), which dictates that people are U.S. citizens because they are born here, not because of their parents鈥� legal status. The Trump administration has argued for a narrower interpretation, saying that the children of parents without legal status are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Brief outlines consequences of narrowing citizenship rights
Research cited in the brief highlights the negative consequences the authors say would occur as a result of revoking birthright citizenship, including:
- Harming the economy. The brief cites research showing that immigration increases economic growth, workforce participation and innovation. It notes that children benefiting from birthright citizenship are projected to contribute about $7.7 trillion to the U.S. economy over the period from 1975 to 2074. It also says second-generation immigrants provide a net lifetime fiscal contribution of about $85,000 per person, meaning they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The research shows that citizenship increases earnings and upward mobility, while a lack of legal status reduces productivity and earnings.
- Reducing educational opportunity. The brief highlights evidence that legal status strongly influences early childhood learning, K-12 progress and college access. It says that without legal status, students face barriers such as ineligibility for financial aid, restricted employment opportunities and uncertain futures, all of which reduce their incentives to pursue education.
- Worsening physical and mental health. Research cited in the brief shows that citizenship affects access to health care and long-term health outcomes, with undocumented immigrants experiencing measurably worse outcomes than those with documentation. This affects a range of health issues, from hypertension and cancer to anxiety and suicide.
- Expanding the undocumented population. The brief says ending birthright citizenship would prevent millions of U.S.-born children from becoming citizens 鈥� 4.8 million by 2045 and 12.8 million by 2075. That change could affect approximately 255,000 children per year, or about 1 in 18 U.S. births.
鈥淲e would, for the first time in U.S. history since slavery, create an underclass of people who have no pathways to formal inclusion into the country in which they are born,鈥� Hsin said. 鈥淭his would mean the erosion of fundamental rights that have been the foundations of who gets to claim citizenship in the United States.鈥�
Providing evidence for decision makers
Hsin is one of the 10 scholars who wrote the amicus brief and one of the approximately 140 scholars who signed it. The brief widely cites immigration research, including research by Hsin and fellow Keough 91视频 faculty member . It builds upon Hsin鈥檚 earlier work to provide evidence that can inform courts as well as lawmakers.
Hsin previously contributed to a 2019 amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients, following the Trump administration鈥檚 attempt to rescind the program.
In January, she contributed to a policy report outlining the benefits of the landmark 1982 Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court decision, which has faced growing challenges at the state level in recent years. The report highlighted how reversing the decision would disrupt the U.S. workforce and undermine child welfare.
The new brief continues Hsin鈥檚 work to inform decision makers by sharing relevant research.
鈥淚鈥檓 happy to be part of this group of scholars who have worked together on this important document,鈥� Hsin said. 鈥淲e hope it will contribute insight as the justices consider this case.鈥�
Originally published by Josh Stowe at on March 24.
Contact: Tracy DeStazio, associate director of media relations, 574-631-9958 or tdestazi@nd.edu.