Children of undocumented (illegal) immigrants who were, like their parents, born outside the United States have no more rights to U.S. citizenship than their parents do. However, children of undocumented immigrants who were born in the United States have historically become U.S. citizens automatically. The parent(s)' immigration status has not been taken into account. This is due to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads that:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
The second Trump Administration, however, is attempting to undermine grants of U.S. citizenship under this section of the law. Let's take a closer look at the current state of the law on this matter.
Citizenship is the highest status available under U.S. immigration law. As a native-born U.S. citizen, the child in question will be granted all of the rights that every other citizen is entitled to, such as the rights to vote, assume public office, and be immune from deportation (removal).
There are people within the United States who believe that children of illegal immigrants should not be given U.S. citizenship status at all. They argue that allowing such children U.S. citizenship was not the original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment. (Then again, the drafters did not address the topic of immigration at all, because no limits then existed on who could enter the United States.)
To that end, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) immediately upon taking office in January of 2025, stating that U.S. citizenship will no longer be allowed to children in either of these two situations:
The EO was not made retroactive; that is, it won't affect the validity of U.S. births that took place prior to its effective date (which date is itself currently uncertain).
As for the legal justification for the EO, the Trump administration posits that parents without permanent legal immigration status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus are not covered by the 14th Amendment. Various legal commentators have disagreed, observing that such immigrants must follow U.S. laws, pay U.S. taxes, and so on.
Lawsuits soon followed the Trump EO, and the issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling on June 27, 2025. It chose not to address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship directly, but instead held that when federal court judges issue injunctions like did in this case, they can't give them nationwide validity if the plaintiffs (those who brought the suit) would gain "complete relief" from an order that applies only within the court's jurisdiction. The matter then returned to the federal courts. A federal judge in New Hampshire, on July 10, 2025, certified a nationwide class of plaintiffs for purposes of a class-action lawsuit and blocked Trump's order from taking effect until the litigation is over. And a Ninth Circuit panel reaffirmed that the EO is unconstitutional and also issued a nationwide injunction.
The birthright citizenship issue is on its way to the Supreme Court again (as of a December, 2025 announcement), this time on the heart of the matter, namely whether every child born in this country is a citizen per the Constitution.
Although the parents of U.S. citizens are considered their "immediate relatives," the young citizen cannot use this as a basis to help the parents immigrate until turning 21. This is obviously a long time to wait.
If you are planning for the long term in this way, you should check in with an immigration lawyer, now and regularly, before the child turns 21. The reason is that, under current law, if you are living in the United States unlawfully after an illegal entry, you face major hurdles to actually receiving a green card (getting lawful permanent residence) through the child.
The first thing you should know is that, due to your illegal entry, you won't be able to stay in the U.S. and apply for the green card through the process known as "adjustment of status."
Why is that a big deal? Because once you leave the United States to use the alternate application procedure, called "consular processing" (where you attend your green card interview at a U.S. consulate in your home country), your past unlawful presence could subject you to a ground of inadmissibility popularly known as the "three- and ten-year time bars," whose effect is as follows:
Unless you are subject to the permanent bar, you can actually work off your time-bar period by leaving the United States either 3 or 10 years before your green card interview (or, roughly speaking, before your child turns 21). But you would obviously want to carefully discuss such a strategy with a lawyer first, particularly in case the laws change again.
If you have a child in the United States and either you or your spouse are within the country illegally, consult with an experienced immigration attorney for a personal analysis and to help you to explore your options.