The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds The Birthright Citizenship
Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship: What Families Should Know
In my recent conversation today with Radio Caracol, we discussed one of the most important immigration and constitutional issues affecting families in the United States: birthright citizenship.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Barbara. The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
This decision is important because the Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The executive order at issue attempted to deny citizenship to certain children born in the United States based on the immigration status or temporary presence of their parents. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation.
For many families, this decision brings clarity. Children who were born in the United States continue to be recognized as U.S. citizens, even if their parents were undocumented or were temporarily present in the country at the time of birth.
However, it is very important to understand what this decision does not do. A U.S. citizen child does not automatically give lawful immigration status to the parents, does not automatically stop deportation, and does not automatically create a green card case for the parents.
A U.S. citizen generally must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent. USCIS explains this requirement on its official page about bringing parents to live in the United States as permanent residents. In most family-based cases, the process begins with Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, but USCIS also explains that filing or approval of Form I-130 does not, by itself, give the relative immigration status or an immigration benefit. Families should also review the government’s general explanation of family-based immigration and sponsoring a relative.
During the interview, I also explained that this decision should not be confused with approval of “birth tourism.” The U.S. Department of State has stated that consular officers will deny a B visa application when they have reason to believe the applicant is traveling primarily to give birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child. You can read the State Department’s guidance here: Birth Tourism Update.
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Immigration law is deeply personal because it affects children, parents, homes, businesses, and futures. A headline may sound simple, but the consequences for each family can be very different. The correct legal answer often depends on the person’s entry history, current status, prior immigration record, possible inadmissibility issues, and whether the case must be handled inside the United States or through a U.S. consulate abroad.
Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney
Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney in Kendall
If you have questions about birthright citizenship, family petitions, consular processing, adjustment of status, or another immigration matter, I encourage you to seek legal guidance based on your specific situation.
For professional immigration legal services, call U.S. Immigration Law Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. and schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every immigration case is different, and you should consult with an immigration attorney about your specific circumstances.
ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT:
RADIO CARACOL:
Bueno, Martha, vamos a explicarle a la audiencia qué significa jurídicamente esto que acabo de leer sobre la decisión de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos.
ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, la decisión de la Corte fue una decisión muy específica. La pregunta que se le hizo a la Corte Suprema fue si las personas que nacen en Estados Unidos, de padres indocumentados o de personas que están temporalmente presentes en el país, si esos niños son ciudadanos americanos.
La Corte dijo que sí. ¿Por qué? Porque esas personas están sujetas a las leyes o a la jurisdicción de Estados Unidos. La Enmienda 14 de la Constitución de Estados Unidos dice que todas las personas que nacen en Estados Unidos están sujetas a la jurisdicción del país y si residen dentro del pais, son ciudadanos americanos.
El gobierno, cuando emitió esa acción ejecutiva el año pasado, sostuvo que los hijos nacidos de padres indocumentados, o de personas que estaban temporalmente en Estados Unidos, no eran ciudadanos americanos porque, según esa interpretación, no estaban sujetos a la jurisdicción de Estados Unidos porque no residian en Estados Unidos.
El que estaba indocumentado segun esta interpretacion no esta bajo juridiccion y el que esta solo temporalmente, no reside dentro de los Estados Unidos. Esto era como la interpretacion de ese memorandum de la administracion.
La Corte estuvo en desacuerdo. La Corte dijo que no; que la Enmienda establece claramente que las personas que nacen dentro de Estados Unidos están sujetas a las leyes y a la jurisdicción de este país. Entonces, esa interpretación, “sujeto a la jurisdicción”, fue básicamente lo que se interpretó.
RADIO CARACOL:
Bueno, Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, ¿quiénes se benefician directamente con esta decisión? ¿Aplica para hijos de inmigrantes indocumentados, para personas que están con visas de turismo, estudiantes o de trabajo? ¿Quiénes se benefician directamente?
ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Se benefician todos. Fíjate que esto tiene un efecto hacia atrás y hacia adelante, es decir, es retroactivo porque aplica para el pasado y para el futuro, a menos que el Congreso determine otra cosa.
Los hijos de inmigrantes indocumentados que han nacido en el país son ciudadanos americanos. Imagínate si la Corte hubiera dicho otra cosa. Básicamente, medio Estados Unidos se podría desocupar, porque ¿cómo se le va a quitar la ciudadanía a todas esas personas que ya nacieron aquí y que siempre se han considerado ciudadanos?
RADIO CARACOL:
Claro, esa era precisamente la pregunta que te iba a hacer. ¿Qué habría pasado si la Corte hubiera respaldado la orden del presidente Trump? Imagínate.
ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Un día me senté a tomarme un cafecito en la mañana y a pensar en eso. Me decía: vamos a suponer que se diera esa locura de que la Corte dijera que no tienen ese derecho. ¿Cuántos millones de ciudadanos de Estados Unidos serían despojados de su ciudadanía? ¿Qué impacto económico, social y de todo tipo podría tener eso?
Imagínate que, por decir una cifra baja, cinco millones de personas recibieran una notificación diciéndoles: “Mire, señor, usted ya no es ciudadano americano. Venda su casa, venda su carro, coja su maleta y váyase”. Personas que tienen títulos universitarios, empresas, empleados, familias y toda una vida construida aquí.
Yo pensaba en cuál sería el impacto de eso y realmente me parecía abrumador. No creo haber escuchado que algo así haya pasado en ninguna parte del mundo.
El efecto de esta decisión, entonces, es que todos aquellos que nacieron aquí, aunque sus padres fueran indocumentados, siguen siendo ciudadanos americanos.
Ahora, en segundo lugar, quienes vienen temporalmente y, por una emergencia o alguna circunstancia, tienen hijos aquí, también tendrían hijos ciudadanos americanos. Pero ahí sí yo les diría a las personas que tengan cautela y que no vengan a tener hijos a Estados Unidos con ese propósito, porque eso tampoco es correcto.
Esa es una de las razones por las que algunas personas apoyaban la iniciativa o la acción ejecutiva del presidente. Claro, a nadie le parece correcto que exista turismo de embarazo o turismo por nacimiento.
RADIO CARACOL:
Para allá iba yo con una pregunta más adelante. Estaba leyendo un artículo de The Guardian donde se menciona que, tras este fallo, el presidente Trump y algunos aliados estarían buscando la forma de hacerlo por vía legislativa, aunque enfrentarían importantes obstáculos constitucionales.
Por tu experiencia, Martha, ¿crees que esta decisión es definitiva?
ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Desde mi conocimiento legal y de jurisprudencia, considero que, bajo la Constitución de este país, es definitiva. Sin embargo, todos sabemos que el Congreso de un país, concretamente aquí en Estados Unidos, puede cambiar la Constitución.
Ahora bien, eso se ha hecho muy pocas veces. La Constitución de Estados Unidos es una de las cartas magnas que más ha perdurado en el tiempo y no ha tenido tantas modificaciones.
La Corte Suprema interpreta la Constitución, pero no la cambia. En este caso, el Congreso también tiene que seguir la Constitución, porque el Congreso no puede emitir leyes inconstitucionales.
Entonces, si la Corte ya dijo que esto es constitucional, yo no soy constitucionalista, obviamente, pero pienso que va a ser muy complicado que el Congreso pueda modificar la Constitución para cambiar esto.
Ahora, el gobierno, el Ejecutivo en este caso, sí tiene todo el derecho de actuar de otra forma. De hecho, ya lo estaba haciendo.
Por ejemplo, cuando mujeres embarazadas entran a Estados Unidos para tener sus hijos aquí y luego el consulado se da cuenta, he conocido muchos casos en mi oficina en los que les cancelan las visas. También les exigen mostrar prueba de que pagaron el parto, porque muchas de ellas venían, tenían a sus hijos con Medicaid y luego se iban.
Entonces, todo va en su punto medio. Creo que muchas personas estamos de acuerdo en decir que quienes pagamos impuestos en Estados Unidos no tenemos por qué pagar el parto de una señora que quiere venir únicamente a tener su hijo aquí.
RADIO CARACOL:
Sí, eso es el famoso turismo por nacimiento. Incluso se dice que ofrecían paquetes turísticos para que las mujeres vinieran a tener sus hijos acá. Los niños nacían, eran ciudadanos americanos, y después se iban sin pagar la cuenta.
ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactamente. Eso los consulados lo han tomado con mucho cuidado y, como te digo, están negando visas y también están quitando visas.
Yo tuve clientes que me llamaban y me decían: “Es que nosotros ya teníamos todo preparado, nos debemos ir”. Y yo les decía: “Me parece que ustedes no deben hacer eso”.
Incluso, muchos de ellos tenían a uno de los padres como ciudadano americano. Y en esos casos yo les decía: si ustedes son ciudadanos americanos, ese hijo, aunque nazca fuera de Estados Unidos, también puede ser ciudadano americano por el padre o la madre. Entonces, no hay necesidad de incurrir en eso.
Sé que este tema es controversial y no a todo el mundo le cae bien, pero así es. En muchos países del mundo, la persona que nace en ese país adquiere la ciudadanía de ese país. Son pocos los países cuya Constitución establece reglas distintas. Por ejemplo, Alemania tiene reglas más estrictas sobre este tema.
Me parece que va a ser complicado para el Congreso cambiar esto. Y si miramos el tiempo que le queda al Congreso actual, teniendo elecciones en noviembre, creo que el tiempo es corto para lograr un cambio constitucional de esta naturaleza.
RADIO CARACOL:
Martha, como el tiempo apremia, ahora vamos a dar tu número telefónico porque hay muchas preguntas e inquietudes sobre este tema y sobre otros asuntos de inmigración.
Me están escribiendo por Instagram una persona pregunta si esta decisión cambia algo para los procesos migratorios de los padres. Es decir, ¿el hecho de que un hijo sea ciudadano protege automáticamente a sus padres?
ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
El hijo que es ciudadano americano puede pedir a sus padres, y puede continuar haciéndolo. Ahora, si esos padres están indocumentados y el hijo todavía no tiene 21 años, eso no los protege automáticamente. El hijo tiene que esperar hasta cumplir 21 años para poder pedir a sus padres.
Y si el padre o la madre entró ilegalmente a Estados Unidos, tampoco significa que esté protegido simplemente porque el hijo sea ciudadano. Lo pueden deportar igual.
Pero, en términos de petición familiar, sí: el hijo ciudadano americano puede pedir a sus padres cuando tenga 21 años o después de cumplir los 21 años.
RADIO CARACOL:
Claro que sí. Pues vamos a hacer lo siguiente. En temas de inmigración hay mucha desinformación, especialmente con este tema de la Corte. Si usted quiere estar bien informado, si conoce a alguien que tenga una situación relacionada con un niño que nació aquí y es ciudadano americano, o si hay nerviosismo en su familia por este tema, lo invito a que se comunique con la abogada Martha Arias.
Ella es abogada de inmigración y tiene muchísima experiencia para responder preguntas sobre este tema y sobre otros asuntos migratorios.
Martha, vamos a dar muy despacio tus datos, tu número telefónico y tus redes sociales para que la audiencia de Caracol se comunique contigo.
ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Claro. El número telefónico es 305-671-0018. Repito: 305-671-0018. Tenemos otro número que es el 305-233-3110
Mi página web es [www.ariasvilla.com](http://www.ariasvilla.com). También pueden buscarme en Google escribiendo “Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración” o “Martha Arias immigration attorney”.
En Instagram nos pueden seguir como @martha_arias98.
RADIO CARACOL:
Perfecto. Y en tu página también estás compartiendo mucha información.
Parece que hemos perdido comunicación con la abogada Martha Arias, pero repito el número telefónico: 305-671-0018. Nuevamente, 305-671-0018. Ese es el número telefónico de la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias.
Si usted tiene esta inquietud o cualquier otra pregunta de inmigración, si conoce a un familiar o a un amigo que necesite orientación, puede comunicarse con ella. Repito: 305-671-0018. Ese es el número telefónico de la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias.
HOST:
Well, Martha, let’s explain to the audience what this legally means, what I just read about the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, the decision of the Court was a very specific decision. The question that was asked to the Supreme Court was whether people who are born in the United States, of undocumented parents or of people who are temporarily present in the country, whether those children are American citizens.
The Court said yes. Why? Because those people are subject to the laws or to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says that all people who are born in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the country and if they reside within the country, they are American citizens.
The government, when it issued that executive action last year, maintained that the children born of undocumented parents, or of people who were temporarily in the United States, were not American citizens because, according to that interpretation, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they did not reside in the United States.
The person who was undocumented, according to this interpretation, is not under jurisdiction, and the person who is only temporarily here does not reside within the United States. This was like the interpretation of that memorandum of the administration.
The Court disagreed. The Court said no; that the Amendment clearly establishes that people who are born inside the United States are subject to the laws and to the jurisdiction of this country. So, that interpretation, “subject to the jurisdiction,” was basically what was interpreted.
HOST:
Well, Martha Arias, immigration attorney, who benefits directly from this decision? Does it apply to children of undocumented immigrants, to people who are here with tourist visas, student visas, or work visas? Who benefits directly?
ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Everyone benefits. Notice that this has an effect backward and forward, that is, it is retroactive because it applies to the past and to the future, unless Congress determines otherwise.
The children of undocumented immigrants who have been born in the country are American citizens. Imagine if the Court had said something else. Basically, half of the United States could empty out, because how are we going to take citizenship away from all those people who were already born here and who have always been considered citizens?
HOST:
Of course, that was precisely the question I was going to ask you. What would have happened if the Court had supported President Trump’s order? Imagine.
ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
One day I sat down to have a little coffee in the morning and to think about that. I said to myself: let’s suppose that this craziness happened, that the Court said they do not have that right. How many millions of citizens of the United States would be stripped of their citizenship? What economic, social, and all kinds of impact could that have?
Imagine that, to say a low number, five million people received a notice telling them: “Look, sir, you are no longer an American citizen. Sell your house, sell your car, grab your suitcase and leave.” People who have university degrees, businesses, employees, families, and an entire life built here.
I thought about what the impact of that would be, and it really seemed overwhelming to me. I do not think I have heard that something like that has happened anywhere in the world.
The effect of this decision, then, is that all those who were born here, even if their parents were undocumented, continue to be American citizens.
Now, secondly, those who come temporarily and, because of an emergency or some circumstance, have children here, would also have American citizen children. But there I would tell people to be cautious and not to come to the United States to have children with that purpose, because that is not correct either.
That is one of the reasons why some people supported the initiative or the executive action of the president. Of course, it does not seem correct to anyone that pregnancy tourism or birth tourism should exist.
HOST:
That is where I was going with a question later. I was reading an article from The Guardian where it mentions that, after this ruling, President Trump and some allies would be looking for a way to do it through legislation, although they would face important constitutional obstacles.
From your experience, Martha, do you believe this decision is definitive?
ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
From my legal knowledge and jurisprudence, I consider that, under the Constitution of this country, it is definitive. However, we all know that the Congress of a country, specifically here in the United States, can change the Constitution.
Now, that has been done very few times. The Constitution of the United States is one of the fundamental charters that has endured the most over time and has not had so many modifications.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, but it does not change it. In this case, Congress also has to follow the Constitution, because Congress cannot issue unconstitutional laws.
So, if the Court already said that this is constitutional, I am not a constitutional attorney, obviously, but I think it is going to be very complicated for Congress to be able to modify the Constitution to change this.
Now, the government, the Executive in this case, does have every right to act in another way. In fact, it was already doing so.
For example, when pregnant women enter the United States to have their children here and then the consulate finds out, I have known many cases in my office in which their visas are canceled. They are also required to show proof that they paid for the delivery, because many of them came, had their children with Medicaid, and then left.
So, everything goes in its middle point. I believe that many people agree in saying that those of us who pay taxes in the United States do not have to pay for the delivery of a woman who wants to come only to have her child here.
HOST:
Yes, that is the famous birth tourism. It is even said that tourist packages were offered so that women would come to have their children here. The children were born, they were American citizens, and then they left without paying the bill.
ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. The consulates have taken that very carefully and, as I tell you, they are denying visas and also taking visas away.
I had clients who called me and told me: “It is that we already had everything prepared, we should go.” And I told them: “It seems to me that you should not do that.”
Even many of them had one of the parents as an American citizen. And in those cases I told them: if you are American citizens, that child, even if born outside the United States, may also be an American citizen because the father or mother is a citizen. So, there is no need to incur in that.
I know this topic is controversial and it does not sit well with everyone, but that is how it is. In many countries of the world, the person who is born in that country acquires the citizenship of that country. There are few countries whose Constitution establishes different rules. For example, Germany has stricter rules about this topic.
It seems to me that it is going to be complicated for Congress to change this. And if we look at the time that the current Congress has left, with elections in November, I believe the time is short to achieve a constitutional change of this nature.
HOST:
Martha, since time is pressing, now we are going to give your telephone number because there are many questions and concerns about this topic and about other immigration matters.
People are writing to me on Instagram, and one person asks whether this decision changes something for the immigration processes of the parents. That is, does the fact that a child is a citizen automatically protect his or her parents?
ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
The child who is an American citizen can petition for his or her parents, and can continue doing so. Now, if those parents are undocumented and the child is not yet 21 years old, that does not protect them automatically. The child has to wait until turning 21 years old to be able to petition for his or her parents.
And if the father or the mother entered the United States illegally, it also does not mean that he or she is protected simply because the child is a citizen. They can be deported anyway.
But, in terms of a family petition, yes: the American citizen child can petition for his or her parents when he or she is 21 years old or after turning 21 years old.
HOST:
Of course. Well, we are going to do the following. In immigration topics there is a lot of misinformation, especially with this topic of the Court. If you want to be well informed, if you know someone who has a situation related to a child who was born here and is an American citizen, or if there is nervousness in your family about this topic, I invite you to communicate with attorney Martha Arias.
She is an immigration attorney and has a great deal of experience answering questions about this topic and about other immigration matters.
Martha, we are going to give your information very slowly, your telephone number and your social media, so that the Caracol audience can communicate with you.
ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Of course. The telephone number is 305-671-0018. I repeat: 305-671-0018. We have another number, which is 305-233-3110.
My website is www.ariasvilla.com. You can also look for me on Google by writing “Martha Arias, immigration attorney” or “Martha Arias immigration attorney.”
On Instagram you can follow us as @martha_arias98.
HOST:
Perfect. And on your page you are also sharing a lot of information.
It seems that we have lost communication with immigration attorney Martha Arias, but I repeat the telephone number: 305-671-0018. Again, 305-671-0018. That is the telephone number of immigration attorney Martha Arias.
If you have this concern or any other immigration question, if you know a family member or a friend who needs guidance, you can communicate with her. I repeat: 305-671-0018. That is the telephone number of immigration attorney Martha Arias.
