As expected, one of the first official acts of newly inaugurated US President Donald Trump was to issue an executive order addressing American birthright citizenship.  

In a nutshell, the controversial first-day directive, slated to take effect 30 days from 20 January, ends the automatic vesting of US citizenship on children born in the country unless either the birth mother or the biological father is an American citizen or a lawful US permanent resident. 

In other words, if the birth mother is undocumented or in an unlawful immigration status, or even in lawful status but the status is only temporary, the child is not considered an American citizen by birth — unless the child’s father is himself a US citizen or a lawful US permanent resident. 

From an immigration lawyer’s perspective, this executive fiat isn’t a perfect rule-making material, yet is much more palatable, legally speaking, than the previous proposals floated around. In fact, it is muted in scope and reasonable in design. 

Assuming that this presidential issuance will survive legal and constitutional challenges — of which there will be plenty — here’s this corner’s personal take on the matter. 

First off, the new policy will effectively eliminate the so-called US “birth tourism,” in which expectant non-American mothers from abroad with temporary US visas are lured by unscrupulous travel agencies (for hefty fees) to fly to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth on American soil — to ensure automatic US citizenship for their newborns.

As noted in a previous piece, this practice borders on visa fraud. It takes advantage of an outdated system set in place during a time when global travel was reserved for a privileged few. 

Secondly, the new policy will also quash, albeit in a gradual fashion, one of the principal motivations driving millions of impoverished Latin American people to illegally cross the US border with Mexico. 

 By giving birth on American soil, the offspring of these unauthorized border crossers become US citizens by operation of law, spawning a sociological dilemma called “anchor” migration.

Having originated mostly from impoverished nations, the jus soli birth of their “anchor” babies in America becomes their golden ticket out of extreme poverty. 

Thirdly, although the new policy will also legally zap the automatic US citizenship of children born to foreigners with long-term or semi-permanent nonimmigrant status in the US, such as those with H working visas, F student visas, or G international organization visas (unless married to US citizens or US permanent residents), still the US-born offspring of these non-immigrants can continue to enjoy, as legal derivatives, the benefits of their parents’ lawful nonimmigrant status, including the privilege to become lawful US permanent residents or US citizens in the future.

Lastly, the new policy will level the playing field for those playing by the rules — people who have been waiting in line for years and even decades for their lawful turn to migrate to America.

By not granting automatic US citizenship to the descendants of people who flout the rules and “jump” the line, there will be no unjust reward for immigration law violators. 

Who knows? Perhaps more of the forthcoming immigration directives will be imbued with similar noteworthy surprises — crafted with marked restraint and judicious rationality while devoid of any color of racial bigotry.