Diaspora Nigerians Challenge Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban, Label It Unconstitutional

Nigerians in the diaspora have expressed strong disapproval of President Donald Trump’s controversial move to end birthright citizenship, a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

They argue that an executive order alone cannot override a constitutional provision, leaving the ultimate decision to the U.S. courts and the Supreme Court.

President Trump, upon assuming office on the 20th of January, 2025, signed an executive order seeking to abolish automatic citizenship for children born on American soil to parents who are unlawfully present or on temporary stay in the country.

The order declared that the federal government would no longer issue citizenship documents to such children, applying this policy to those born in the U.S. 30 days after the order’s implementation date.

The move has sparked immediate legal challenges, with 22 Democratic-led states and civil rights groups filing lawsuits to block the order.

Reacting to the development, Mr. Ralu Ajekwe, a Nigerian living in the U.S., acknowledged the intent to safeguard national interests but questioned the legality of the order.

“Is it consistent with existing laws? Can an executive order amend a constitutional issue?
Governments are meant to protect national interests locally and internationally, but this must align with the law and the people’s values,” he said.

Ajekwe added, “If the policy is aimed at advancing the goals and happiness of the American people, then perhaps it holds merit. However, legality remains paramount.”

Similarly, a Nigerian legal practitioner based in Canada, who wished to remain anonymous, dismissed Trump’s action as mere political grandstanding.

“There’s a difference between playing to the gallery and implementing legal policies.
The limits of executive orders will soon be tested,” he remarked.

The legal expert highlighted a potential conflict with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly states: “All persons born… in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

He questioned the validity of excluding children born to temporary residents or undocumented migrants, noting, “Most undocumented migrants actively seek to be under U.S. jurisdiction. How can one argue they are not?”

He further explained that diplomatic exceptions to citizenship are the only recognized precedent, as children of foreign diplomats are typically not granted U.S. citizenship due to diplomatic immunity.

Peter Obiora, an online editor at InvestAdvocate residing in the U.S., echoed similar sentiments, asserting, “An executive order cannot supersede the Constitution.

For Trump to end birthright citizenship, there would need to be a constitutional amendment. Until then, this is unlikely to materialize.”

Johnpaul Nwafidelie, a Nigerian resident in Canada, viewed the move as an immigration control strategy, noting that Canada is considering similar measures but through parliamentary processes.

He advised Nigerians seeking dual citizenship for their children to adapt to the evolving policies and comply with legal procedures.

“Nigerians benefited from birthright citizenship when it was in place, but times have changed. If people truly desire it, they should navigate the new pathways legally,” he said.

Nwafidelie also justified the policy shift, citing concerns about crime and terrorism, which the previous system inadvertently accommodated.

As the debates intensify, the judiciary will ultimately determine the legality of Trump’s order. Until then, it remains a contentious issue, with critics questioning its constitutionality and proponents defending it as a necessary measure to protect national interests.