logo
As an immigrant, I don't expect shortcuts. Birthright citizenship is our right.

As an immigrant, I don't expect shortcuts. Birthright citizenship is our right.

USA Today4 hours ago

Trump's executive order reflects growing hostility toward all immigrants, regardless of how they arrived. The national rhetoric has grown more cynical and suspicious to all foreigners.
'Welcome home.'
That's what a border protection agent said to me after a recent vacation. His words struck a chord with me because he acknowledged that the United States was my home. The irony of the situation being that I am not a U.S. citizen, I am an immigrant.
As an immigrant, I often wonder whether I'm truly accepted in the country where I've spent the past 21 years of my life.
Now the decision by the Supreme Court on President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order makes me question that even more. Trump ordered an end to automatic citizenship for those born here ‒ unless at least one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. And while the court's June 27 ruling didn't deal with the birthright citizenship question directly, their 6-3 decision lifted a temporary block on the president's unjust order.
That order was the latest attempt to alienate immigrants and erase the immigrant history that built this nation. It undermines the idea that any immigrant, legal or not, can ever truly belong in America.
Opinion: Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship – but that's not the real case
When I immigrated to this country as a child, I was once welcomed with open arms and integrated into the culture. However, for years, it's felt like my country has been slowly closing its doors to immigrants like me. While attacks on undocumented immigrants have often dominated the headlines, legal immigrants have been quietly targeted as well through backlogs, unnecessary barriers and, more recently, executive actions.
Aging out of legal immigration visa
My family immigrated to the United States when I was 5 years old on the H-1B visa. My father was invited to work here because of his skills in IT, and we eventually settled in Pittsburgh.
Like many immigrant families, we built a life here. I went to school, made friends and followed the typical American path. That path eventually led me to Pennsylvania State University, where I earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering.
But on my 21st birthday, I aged out of my parents' immigration status because as far as immigration rules were concerned, I wasn't a child anymore. In a cruel twist of fate, four months later my parents received their green cards. That small gap meant they would become permanent residents, while I was forced to start over from the back of a broken immigration system.
Opinion: I joked about getting deported. In Trump's America, it's not funny.
I first realized that I was different from my friends in high school when I wasn't allowed to get a job and help support my family. In college, this realization became even more apparent when I had to switch to an F-1 student visa and had to legally prove that my 'home' address was in India, not in Pittsburgh where I lived with my family.
Once I graduated and wanted to enter the workforce, I was denied most job opportunities ‒ not because I am unqualified, but because companies could not or would not sponsor immigrants. Every piece of paperwork I filed had to be absolutely perfect. Something as minor as a technical error on the immigration forms could have, and once nearly did, jeopardize my entire immigration status.
Because of that four-month gap, I will continue to be treated as a visitor in the only country I have ever known and called home.
Growing hostility toward immigrants
I share this to make a simple but important point: Despite what the headlines might suggest, legal immigration is anything but easy.
When the Biden administration announced in 2024 protections for Dreamers who as kids were brought to the United States illegally, I questioned the omission of children like me who continue to be left behind.
Trump's executive order reinforces this message of exclusion by taking it even further and signaling that none of us belong here.
Although the executive order does not apply directly to me, because I was born in India, it could have changed everything for my younger brother, who was born in Detroit. If this executive order had been in effect when he was born, he would not have been granted citizenship and he would be just like me, stuck in limbo and questioning his sense of acceptance.
The executive order reflects the growing hostility toward all immigrants, regardless of how they arrived. Over the past decade, the national rhetoric has grown more cynical and suspicious of all foreigners. Immigrants are increasingly portrayed as threats, as job takers and outsiders, even when we are contributing to industries America depends on or are the only ones willing or capable of performing a job.
I do not expect a shortcut. I do not expect special treatment. But I do expect the country that I love to treat me and people like my brother as if we belong here.
Because this country was founded by immigrants, and her promise should still include all of us.
Tanay Raje graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 2021 with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. He is now working as an engineer at a sterile pharmaceutical company in Philadelphia. Tanay is also a member of Improve the Dream, one of the more than 250,000 children of long-term visa holders, raised and educated in America.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its 'egregious Tax' on technology firms
Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its 'egregious Tax' on technology firms

San Francisco Chronicle​

time26 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its 'egregious Tax' on technology firms

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that he's suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue with its tax on technology firms, which he called 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the U.S. that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,' Trump said in his post. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country would 'continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation.' Trump's announcement was the latest swerve in the trade war he's launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the U.S. president poking at the nation's northern neighbor and repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a U.S. state. Carney visited Trump in May at the White House, where he was polite but firm with Trump. Trump last week traveled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Carney said that Canada and the U.S. had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion U.S. bill due at the end of the month. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the U.S. was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as 25% tariffs on autos. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period set by him would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Trump's first term.

University of Virginia president resigns facing DOJ pressure: Report
University of Virginia president resigns facing DOJ pressure: Report

The Hill

time26 minutes ago

  • The Hill

University of Virginia president resigns facing DOJ pressure: Report

University of Virginia's president has resigned amid a Department of Justice probe into the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, according to reports from the New York Times. Ryan's resignation will be effective 'no later than August 15,' a person familiar with the matter told the Times. University board members had alleged the school was not in compliance with President Trump's January executive order barring DEI practices at institutions that receive federal funding. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote a letter to Ryan on April 28 saying the office had received complaints the university's administration had failed to follow Trump's directive. The Times reported that the DOJ wrote another letter on June 17 saying, 'Time is running short, and the department's patience is wearing thin.' The school and Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter. Axios reported earlier on Friday that the Trump administration was trying to push out Ryan. A university spokesperson told the outlet, 'UVA is committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries. The federal government's support of the University is essential to continue the core mission of research, education and clinical care.' Ryan previously served as the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education prior to joining the University of Virginia in August 2018. Virginia's Democratic senators blasted the Trump administration following news of his departure. 'It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth's globally recognized university remove President Ryan — a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward — over ridiculous 'culture war' traps,' Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said in a statement. 'Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future.' The Trump administration has picked fights with various high-profile universities over diversity programs and their alleged failure to tackle anti-semitism on campus. Columbia University caved to those demands in an attempt to maintain federal funding, while Harvard has so far stood its ground. The Times reported this week that Harvard's leaders are debating how to reach a deal without being seen as capitulating to Trump.

5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling

The Hill

time26 minutes ago

  • The Hill

5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling

The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. But the cases aren't over yet, as a new phase of the battle commences in the lower courts. Here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling. Friday's opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the court who has recently faced a barrage of criticism from the president's own supporters. The heat grew as Barrett this spring ruled against the administration in several emergency cases, including Trump's bid to freeze foreign aid payments and efforts to swiftly deport alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. By tradition, the most senior member of the majority decides who authors the opinion. So, Chief Justice John Roberts would've assigned Barrett as the author soon after the May 15 oral arguments. On Friday, Barrett ultimately wrote for all five of her fellow Republican-appointed justices, being the face of the Trump administration's major win. Barrett rejected the challengers' notion that nationwide injunctions were needed as a powerful tool to check the executive branch. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' she wrote. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order — the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction. The Democratic-led states suing are also vowing to press ahead. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. And the American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. 'In cases where classwide or set-aside relief has been awarded, the losing side in the lower courts will likewise regularly come to this Court if the matter is sufficiently important,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a solo concurring opinion. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, cautioned lower courts against creating a 'significant loophole' to Friday's decision by stretching when plaintiffs can file class action lawsuits. 'Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools,' Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the chief dissent, arguing that the rule of law is 'not a given' in America and the high court gave up its 'vital role' in preserving it with Friday's opinion. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she claimed that the Trump administration sought to tear down nationwide injunctions because it can't prove the president's order narrowing birthright citizenship is likely constitutional. Trump's order made a 'solemn mockery' of the Constitution, she said, and his request to instead curtail nationwide injunctions is obvious 'gamesmanship.' 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' Going further than her liberal peers, Jackson wrote in a solo dissent that the court's decision was an 'existential threat to the rule of law' — drawing a harsh rebuke from Barrett, a dramatic exchange between the two most junior justices. Jackson argued that the majority uses legalese to obscure a more basic question at the heart of the case: 'May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' At another point, she said that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' suggesting that the Trump administration's efforts to 'vanquish' universal injunctions amounts to a request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior' — and that the majority gave the president just that. The rhetoric in Jackson's opinion amounts to a 'startling line of attack,' Barrett said, condemning her argument as 'extreme.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' She urged Jackson to 'heed her own admonition' that everyone, from the president down, is bound by law. 'That goes for judges too,' Barrett said. Trump and his allies hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for his administration, promising to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with judges' power significantly curtailed. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said at a press conference Friday afternoon. He specifically slammed 'radical left judges' he said used nationwide injunctions as a tool to 'overrule the rightful powers of the president' to stop illegal immigration. The decision means his administration can now move forward on a 'whole list' of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. 'We have so many of them,' Trump said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store