Fact check: Why did trump wanna get rid of birthright citizenship

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Trump's motivation for ending birthright citizenship is not explicitly stated in any of the sources examined. However, the legal reasoning behind his executive order becomes clear through court proceedings and Justice Department arguments.

The Trump administration's core argument centers on a constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment ^[1]. Specifically, Justice Department attorneys argued that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship ^{[1] [2]}. This interpretation suggests that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone ^{[3] [2]}.

Trump's executive order aimed to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people in the country illegally ^{[4] [5]}. However, federal appeals courts have consistently ruled that Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional ^[4], stating it "contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'" ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant missing context regarding Trump's stated motivations, policy goals, or campaign promises related to birthright citizenship. The sources focus primarily on legal challenges rather than the political or ideological reasoning behind the policy.

Alternative constitutional interpretations are notably absent from the analyses. While the Trump administration argued for a restrictive reading of "subject to the jurisdiction," the sources don't explore historical precedents, scholarly debates, or other legal perspectives on this constitutional phrase.

Political stakeholders who might benefit from either supporting or opposing birthright citizenship changes are not identified in the analyses. This includes immigration advocacy groups, legal organizations, political parties, or specific constituencies that could be affected by such policy changes.

The analyses also lack broader immigration policy context - how this executive order fits into Trump's overall immigration agenda or how it relates to other immigration enforcement measures.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question assumes Trump "wanted" to get rid of birthright citizenship without acknowledging that he actually took concrete action through an executive order ^{[4] [5]}. This framing could minimize the significance of the actual policy implementation.

The question's phrasing suggests this was merely a desire or intention, when in fact the policy has been the subject of a complicated monthslong legal back-and-forth ^[4] and has resulted in multiple federal court rulings ^[1].

Additionally, the question doesn't acknowledge the constitutional controversy surrounding the issue. The analyses consistently show that courts have found the order unconstitutional ^[4], which is crucial context for understanding why this policy faced immediate legal challenges rather than straightforward implementation.