IndigenousNetwork was able to attend a recent briefing hosted by American Community Media examining the possible consequences of President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. (!)The briefing focused not only on the constitutional questions now before the Supreme Court, but on the larger social and economic consequences that could follow if the order were upheld. Speakers repeatedly returned to one central issue: who is allowed to belong in America, and who is not.
The conversation arrives during a broader political moment where immigration has become increasingly tied to ideas of national identity, labor shortages, demographic anxiety, and public fear. At the same time, several states are now considering legislation that would challenge the long-standing right of undocumented children to attend public schools. For Indigenous communities, where questions around citizenship and state recognition have shaped generations of policy and survival, the discussion carried obvious parallels.
Sunita Sohrabji, health editor at American Community Media and moderator of the briefing, opened by pointing out that the administration’s reasoning largely ignores “the long-term economic consequences, potentially in the trillions, of shrinking the American-born workforce,” as well as the possibility of creating “an underclass of children born in the US but without status.”
One of the briefing’s central speakers was Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA law professor and co-director of the university’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy. Motomura has spent decades studying immigration law and citizenship. Speaking during a prerecorded interview, he argued that the issue extends far beyond immigration enforcement itself. “Fundamentally it’s really about a national vision,” he said.
Motomura explained that birthright citizenship emerged after the Civil War through the 14th Amendment, which overturned the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision denying citizenship to Black Americans. But he emphasized that the amendment eventually came to represent something larger than that historical moment. “The 14th Amendment embodies an inclusive vision of the United States,” he said. “Citizenship is a vehicle for belonging.”
That idea of belonging surfaced throughout the entire briefing. Again and again, speakers described the executive order as a shift away from the idea that being born in the United States creates a stake in the country’s future. Motomura warned that the order sends a message “that this country is not for everyone, but only for a relatively few.”
The briefing also spent significant time examining the economic implications of restricting birthright citizenship. Philip Connor, a research fellow at Princeton University’s Center for Migration and Development, presented findings estimating that birthright citizenship beneficiaries contribute at least $7.7 trillion to the US economy over a century-long period. Connor and his research team analyzed census and labor data to estimate the educational and economic outcomes of children born to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.
Connor explained that roughly two-thirds of those individuals eventually work in jobs requiring at least some college education. “Having access to US citizenship will lift populations to be able to access post-secondary education,” he said. He warned that the country is already facing workforce shortages, particularly as the population ages, and argued that reducing future generations of workers would have consequences extending decades into the future.
Other speakers focused less on economics and more on the social effects of creating a population born in the United States but denied legal status. Julia Gelatt of the Migration Policy Institute estimated that ending birthright citizenship would increase the unauthorized immigrant population by millions over the coming decades.
Gelatt described how children born without citizenship could face restricted access to healthcare, financial aid, and educational opportunities. She also pointed to the psychological effect of growing up understanding that legal and professional opportunities may remain permanently limited. “What is the value of striving toward a college degree or graduate degree if you can’t use it to work in a professional job?” she asked.
Much of the briefing centered on labor shortages in healthcare and technology, particularly in rural America. Xiao Wang, CEO of Boundless Immigration, argued that the order could discourage highly skilled immigrants from building long-term lives in the United States. Wang focused specifically on rural hospitals, nursing homes, and clinics already struggling to recruit workers.
“If you’re a highly skilled worker,” Wang said, “you’re asking the bigger question around can I build a stable life in that place? Can I raise my family there?” He noted that countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are actively expanding immigration pathways for healthcare workers while the United States is becoming increasingly unstable and unpredictable for immigrant families.
One of the more striking moments came when Wang described the broader global consequences of the policy shift. “Other countries are leaning in at the moment when the US is leaning out,” he said.
The discussion repeatedly circled back to the same question: what kind of country is the United States attempting to become? Speakers argued that birthright citizenship has historically functioned as a stabilizing idea. If a child was born here, they belonged here. That clarity shaped how generations of immigrant families understood their future.
Whether the Supreme Court ultimately strikes the order down or not, the debate itself is already reshaping public discourse around citizenship and belonging. For Indigenous communities, where federal definitions of identity and recognition have long shaped access to rights, resources, and political visibility, those debates are not abstract. They are familiar political territory, even if the context is different.
Near the end of the briefing, Wang described the United States as a place that, for decades, attracted people hoping to build a better future for their families. “That monopoly,” he said, referring to America’s ability to attract global talent and ambition, “created the decades of prosperity and progress that we have all benefited from today.”
What speakers made clear throughout the briefing is that this debate is not only about immigration paperwork or constitutional interpretation. It is also about whether the United States continues moving toward a broader definition of belonging, or toward a narrower one.
