In the mere three weeks following his inauguration, President Donald Trump has ushered in a range of feelings across the nation regarding, what many may consider drastic, policy changes he has already enacted or plans to. There is no question about the nonconformist character that President Trump brings to American politics. When he burst onto the scene in 2016 with his unmistakable, “Make America Great Again” slogan and promise of a wall along the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration, many Americans ridiculed the notion that Trump would reach any political success. However, more than eight years later, it is clear that quite the opposite is true. 

One recent development is Trump’s attempt to challenge Section I of the 14th Amendment, which concerns birthright citizenship. On the first day of his presidency, he issued an executive order that severely restricts the bounds in which this long held constitutional value encompasses. In his executive order, Trump identifies two groups of individuals from which he does not believe should reap the benefits of birthright citizenship. The two scenarios are as follows: “(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary…and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

As famously argued by Rustow, national unity, that “the people must agree that they are a political entity”, is one of the four stages of democratization. In staking contradiction to this particular section of the Constitution, Trump’s action calls into question the stability of civic membership and status within America’s democracy. In the absence of a clearly defined population of citizens, democracy begins to falter. This is due to the fact that this model of government relies solely on placing major decision-making power in the people. The 14th Amendment has long been a tool that has helped define who “the people” comprises. With Trump’s executive order, these lines are becoming blurred.

Which begs the question of whether this is even allowed. Forbearance, a guiding principle in a democracy, has been arguably overstepped countless times by President Trump. Forbearance is the use of “restraint and tolerance” or “the action of restraining from exercising a legal right.” In other words, although a particular legislative action may be completely legal, it doesn’t mean that it should necessarily be taken. It is possibly this quality in his governing method that makes Trump such a divisive figure.

Multiple federal judges have now blocked this executive order citing the immorality in trying to rewrite a fundamental section of the Constitution. Judges have made reference to the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to two Chinese citizens. At age 21, Wong visited China to see his parents who now lived there having moved from the U.S. Upon returning, he was denied reentry into the country on the grounds that he was not a U.S. citizen. It was because of Section I of the 14th Amendment, however, that Wong was affirmed as an American citizen in a 6-2 majority decision. 

Only time will tell whether this executive order will be passed and fully implemented. As of now, the fact that there is clear opposition and legal measures being taken to stop this executive order can be interpreted as a positive step towards the preservation of American democracy.