In a panel organized by American Community Media (ACoM), legal, demographic, and immigration specialists examined the potential elimination of birthright citizenship, warning of economic, social, and generational consequences that could reshape the country’s structure.
As the issue returns to the forefront of the U.S. political agenda, the possibility of eliminating birthright citizenship — guaranteed by the 14th Amendment — raises questions that go beyond the legal sphere.
Is this a constitutional debate or a redefinition of who belongs to the country? That question framed the panel organized by ACoM, where experts analyzed the implications of a measure that could affect millions of people.
At the center of the discussion is a Supreme Court decree promoted by President Donald Trump, which seeks to restrict automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants or those with temporary status.
Moderated by journalist Sunita Sohrabji, the panel featured law professor Hiroshi Motomura (UCLA), researcher Phillip Connor (Princeton), demographer Julia Gelatt (Migration Policy Institute), and Xiao Wang, CEO of Boundless Immigration.
More than a legal reform: a redefinition of the country
For Motomura, the debate cannot be reduced to a legal interpretation. In an interview presented during the panel, the academic argued that birthright citizenship is rooted in a historical vision of the United States as an inclusive nation.
“The fundamental issue is what kind of country the United States is,” he said.
He also explained that the 14th Amendment not only corrected historical exclusions — such as the Dred Scott decision — but also established a concept of belonging based on birth, rather than family origin.
In that sense, he warned that limiting this right would represent a profound shift in the country’s identity, excluding individuals born and raised in the United States who could cease to be recognized as citizens.
A Population Without Status: Social and Educational Effects
One of the most frequently cited consequences during the panel was the creation of a population without legal status. Julia Gelatt explained that, if birthright citizenship were eliminated, thousands of children would begin their lives in the United States without legal recognition.
According to her estimates, around 255,000 children per year could be born without status, which, over time, would significantly increase the unauthorized immigrant population.
For the specialist, this would not only have immediate consequences — such as limited access to public programs — but also long-term structural effects.
“A permanent class of excluded people would be created,” she warned, noting that these limitations would restrict access to higher education, formal employment, and economic stability.
She also emphasized that these barriers could lower educational aspirations among young people, who would know that, even with advanced studies, they would be unable to access legal employment.
The panel also examined how eliminating birthright citizenship could affect access to basic rights such as education. Panelists recalled the precedent set by Plyler v. Doe (1982), which guarantees access to public education for all children regardless of immigration status. However, some states are already considering measures that could restrict this right, opening the door to new legal challenges.
Experts warned that excluding children from the education system would carry not only individual consequences, but broader social ones. Limited access to education could result in a less prepared population, reduced job opportunities, and increased vulnerability.
Economic Impact and Loss of Talent
The economic analysis presented by Phillip Connor introduced another key dimension: the long-term impact on the U.S. economy.
Using census data, the researcher estimated that millions of individuals who currently benefit from birthright citizenship have made significant contributions to the country’s economic growth. In total, he calculated that these populations have generated at least $7.7 trillion in income over the past century.
He also projected that, if current policies remain in place, future generations could contribute at least an additional $1 trillion in the coming decades. However, he warned that eliminating this right would result in a substantial loss of skilled workers.
“Two-thirds of these individuals access occupations that require higher education,” he explained.
He further noted that citizenship facilitates access to university education and, in turn, to better job opportunities.
From another perspective, Xiao Wang emphasized that such a policy would also undermine the country’s ability to attract international talent. “People don’t just evaluate a salary or a job, but whether they can build a stable life for their children,” he said.
In a context where the United States could face a shortage of more than 86,000 doctors by 2036, immigration uncertainty could discourage professionals from coming to the country, particularly in critical sectors such as healthcare and in rural communities.
A Decision That Can Redefine Lives
One conclusion shared by the panelists was that birthright citizenship cannot be confined to an immediate legal debate. Its effects extend beyond the economy and politics to the lived realities of millions of migrant families.
Questioning this right, therefore, opens the door for thousands of children to grow up without legal recognition in the country where they were born. This risk is not abstract: it is directly tied to the U.S. immigration detention system, administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which already faces numerous allegations of abuse.
In 2025, according to reports in The Guardian, at least 32 people died in ICE custody — the highest number in two decades — amid overcrowding, medical negligence, and deteriorating detention conditions.
By 2026, that number continued to rise, with new deaths recorded in the first months of the year. Investigations and reports have also documented cases of prolonged isolation and physical abuse.
Eliminating birthright citizenship not only redefines who belongs to the country, but also who is exposed to this system. More than a legal reform, what is at stake is the expansion of a structure of vulnerability that would disproportionately affect those born there.