For nearly a year, thousands of families have lived with uncertainty.
Would children born in the United States to undocumented parents still become U.S. citizens? Would babies born after President Trump’s executive order suddenly be denied passports, Social Security numbers, or proof of citizenship?
The answer is now clear.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. The Court held that the Constitution—not the President—determines who becomes a U.S. citizen at birth.
For now, the law remains exactly as it has been for more than 150 years.
Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to many children born in the United States if their parents were:
Undocumented;
Present in the United States temporarily (such as students, tourists, or many work visa holders); or
Otherwise not considered to have permanent lawful status.
The order represented one of the most significant proposed changes to American immigration law in modern history.
Almost immediately, lawsuits were filed across the country.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court concluded that the President does not have the authority to change the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment through an executive order.
The Court reaffirmed a principle that has existed since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868:
With very limited exceptions, a person born in the United States is a United States citizen at birth.
The decision also reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has long been considered the foundation of modern birthright citizenship.
Following this decision, birthright citizenship remains unchanged.
A child born in the United States is generally a U.S. citizen even if the parents are:
Undocumented;
Awaiting asylum;
In removal proceedings;
Holders of temporary visas, such as F-1, H-1B, L-1, B-2, or other nonimmigrant classifications; or
Have no lawful immigration status at all.
The longstanding exceptions remain extremely limited, such as children born to accredited foreign diplomats.
For most immigrant families, this decision changes nothing, which is exactly the point.
Children born in the United States continue to be eligible for:
U.S. passports;
Social Security numbers;
Citizenship documentation;
The protections and rights of U.S. citizenship.
Federal agencies, including USCIS, the Department of State, and the Social Security Administration, should continue applying the same citizenship rules that have existed for generations.
The Court made an important point: the Constitution cannot be rewritten by executive order.
That does not necessarily mean the debate is over.
Some lawmakers may continue advocating for legislation or even a constitutional amendment. Others may attempt to narrow the scope of the Citizenship Clause in future litigation.
However, after this decision, any effort to eliminate birthright citizenship faces an exceptionally high constitutional hurdle.
If you are expecting a child or recently welcomed a baby born in the United States, this decision should provide significant reassurance.
Continue obtaining your child’s:
Birth certificate;
Social Security number; and
U.S. passport, when appropriate.
There is no need to delay these steps because of the executive order that the Supreme Court has now invalidated.
Immigration law changes frequently. Executive policies come and go. Court decisions are sometimes reversed.
The Constitution, however, remains the highest law of the land.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a reminder that while immigration enforcement policies may change from one administration to another, constitutional rights cannot be altered by presidential decree alone.
For millions of immigrant families, one of the most fundamental questions has now been answered:
If your child is born in the United States, the Constitution continues to recognize that child as an American citizen.
Home Blog
USCIS Just Changed the Adjustment of Status Policy. Here’s Why Families Should Pay Attention.
On May 21, 2026, USCIS released a new policy memo that could affect thousands of families applying for green cards from inside the United States.
For many immigrants, adjustment of status has long been the path to permanent residence without having to leave the country. It is especially common for spouses, parents, and certain children of U.S. citizens.
Until now, many families approached these cases by focusing only on eligibility. Those questions still matter. But USCIS is now signaling that eligibility alone may not be enough.
In its new memo, USCIS says adjustment of status should be granted only in “extraordinary circumstances.”
Adjustment of status is discretionary. That has always been true legally. But in practice, many immediate relative cases were adjudicated primarily based on whether the applicant met the legal requirements.
This new guidance suggests officers may place greater weight on whether an applicant deserves discretion—not just whether they qualify on paper.
Meeting the requirements may no longer be the end of the analysis.
For many families, adjustment of status is the safest option because it allows them to stay together in the United States while the green card case is pending.
If USCIS applies this policy aggressively, applicants may face more requests for evidence, closer review of immigration history, heavier scrutiny of past violations, more discretionary denials, and increased risk after a denial, including possible referral to removal proceedings
Not every case will be affected in the same way. But the stakes may now be higher across the board. If you are planning to file for adjustment of status, do not assume that filing is routine. Even cases that appear straightforward deserve a careful legal review. Look at your full immigration history before filing. Past entries, visa overstays, prior petitions, arrests, or prior contact with immigration authorities may matter more than before.
Prepare your case thoroughly from the beginning. Strong documentation is increasingly important, not just proof of eligibility, but proof of positive factors in your life.
Get legal advice before filing if your case has any complexity. A filing mistake can have consequences beyond a denial.
This policy memo creates real uncertainty for immigrant families. For many people, filing for a green card is not just an application. It is the difference between stability and separation. Between staying with family and facing the possibility of being forced out of the country.
Immigration law has always been complicated. It is becoming even more discretionary. And that means strategy matters now more than ever.
What Is Derivative Citizenship? How Children Can Gain U.S. Citizenship Through a Parent
Derivative citizenship is a way some children automatically become U.S. citizens through a parent, without applying for naturalization themselves. It does not happen by filing a form or taking an oath. Instead, citizenship is acquired by operation of law when specific legal conditions are met. Because those rules have changed over time, derivative citizenship is one of the most misunderstood—and frequently overlooked—areas of U.S. immigration law.
Derivative citizenship means a child becomes a U.S. citizen because of a parent’s citizenship, either at birth or later during childhood. The child does not “apply” for citizenship in the usual sense. If the legal requirements are met, the child is already a citizen, even if no certificate or passport was issued at the time.
Some children are U.S. citizens at birth because at least one parent was a U.S. citizen when the child was born. These cases often involve children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents and depend on factors such as the parent’s citizenship status, how long the parent lived in the United States before the child’s birth, and whether the parents were married. These rules are technical and vary by year.
Other children may derive citizenship after birth if certain conditions are met before they turn 18. In general terms, this may include situations where at least one parent becomes a U.S. citizen, the child is under 18 at the time, the child is a lawful permanent resident, and the child is living in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent. All of these conditions must be satisfied at the same time, and timing matters.
Many people do not realize they may already be U.S. citizens because no one ever applied for proof of citizenship, immigration paperwork continued unnecessarily, the law changed during their childhood, or family court or custody issues were misunderstood. Some individuals discover derivative citizenship only after years in the immigration system—or even during removal proceedings.
Derivative citizenship is about status, not paperwork. A person may be a U.S. citizen even if they never received a Certificate of Citizenship or a U.S. passport. Small details can completely change the outcome. Two people with similar stories may have different results simply because they were born in different years.
Bottom Line
Derivative citizenship is not rare, but it is often overlooked. Some people are U.S. citizens without realizing it. Because the rules are technical and time-sensitive, determining whether someone derived citizenship requires careful review of their history and the law in effect at the time. Questions about citizenship status, proof, or prior immigration filings should be addressed through individualized guidance from an authorized professional.
Who Can Apply for the Diversity Visa Lottery? Understanding Eligible Countries
Each year, the Diversity Visa Lottery resurfaces in conversations about immigration as one of the few pathways to lawful permanent residence that does not rely on family ties, employment sponsorship, or humanitarian relief. The program distributes up to 55,000 immigrant visas annually, but participation is far more limited than many people realize. Eligibility turns on a single, decisive factor that often surprises applicants: place of birth.
The Diversity Visa program was created to rebalance immigration flows to the United States by favoring countries that have sent relatively few immigrants in recent years. To achieve that goal, the government reviews immigration data from the previous five years and excludes any country that sent more than 50,000 immigrants during that period. The result is a numerical filter, not a moral or political judgment, that determines who may even submit an entry.
Because of consistently high levels of immigration, individuals born in countries such as Mexico, India, China (mainland-born), the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and much of Central America are frequently excluded. For those applicants, long residence abroad, lawful status in another country, or even a new citizenship generally makes no difference. The law looks backward to birthplace, not forward to present circumstances.
There are, however, narrow exceptions built into the statute. An applicant may still qualify if eligibility can be “charged” to a spouse’s country of birth, provided the spouse was born in an eligible country, and both immigrate together. In limited cases, eligibility may also be derived from a parent’s country of birth when neither parent was born in, nor legally resident in, the applicant’s country of birth at the time. These exceptions are technical and fact-specific, but for some families, they are decisive.
Country eligibility alone does not complete the picture. Applicants must also satisfy an education or work requirement, demonstrating either completion of a high school education or qualifying work experience in an occupation that requires specialized training. The process may be random, but the baseline standards are fixed.
One critical detail is often overlooked: the list of eligible countries is not permanent. It is recalculated every year, and a country that qualifies one year may be excluded the next. The only authoritative source for eligibility is the annual instructions published by the U.S. Department of State, and entries must be submitted through its official system. Claims that fees or intermediaries can improve lottery odds are unfounded.
The Diversity Visa Lottery is often framed as a symbol of opportunity, but in practice, it operates as a statistical gatekeeper. Birthplace, timing, and numerical thresholds matter more than intent or effort. Winning does not guarantee a green card; it merely opens the door to further scrutiny, deadlines, and discretionary review. For some, that door opens briefly. For others, it never opens at all.
Can I Work While an Immigration Application Is Pending?
Few questions create as much anxiety as whether someone is allowed to work while an immigration case is still pending. The uncertainty is understandable. Employment is not just about income; it is about stability, dignity, and the ability to plan for the future. Yet in U.S. immigration law, the right to work is not automatic simply because an application has been filed.
In general, filing an immigration application does not, by itself, give someone permission to work in the United States. Work authorization exists only when the law specifically allows it and when the government has issued formal proof, usually an Employment Authorization Document, commonly called a work permit. Without that authorization, working can create serious legal consequences, even if the underlying immigration case is otherwise strong.
Some categories of applicants may apply for a work permit while their cases are pending. Asylum applicants, for example, may become eligible to request employment authorization after a waiting period set by regulation. Certain family-based and humanitarian applicants can also apply for work authorization once a qualifying application has been properly filed and accepted. Approval is never automatic, and processing times can stretch for months, leaving applicants in limbo.
Other applicants are already authorized to work incident to their status. Individuals in certain nonimmigrant visa categories, such as H-1B or L-1, may continue working for their sponsoring employer under the terms of their visa, even while a separate immigration application, such as adjustment of status, is pending. In those situations, the right to work comes from the visa itself, not from the pending application.
There are also situations where people assume they are allowed to work but are not. Having a receipt notice, a pending petition, or even a scheduled interview does not equal work authorization. Neither does paying taxes or using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. The government treats unauthorized employment seriously, and in some cases it can bar future immigration benefits or complicate an otherwise straightforward case.
The agency responsible for issuing work permits and setting eligibility rules is U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS evaluates eligibility based on immigration category, filing history, and compliance with technical requirements. A small mistake, such as filing too early, filing under the wrong category, or continuing to work after authorization expires, can have outsized consequences.
For many immigrants, the hardest part is not the rule itself but the waiting. Processing delays mean that people who are ultimately eligible to work may spend long periods without authorization. That gap often forces difficult choices and exposes people to risk. Understanding whether work is permitted, when authorization can be requested, and what proof is required is essential before accepting any employment.
Immigration law draws a sharp line between having a case pending and having permission to work. Knowing where that line is can protect not only a person’s livelihood today but also their ability to remain in the United States tomorrow.
What Is Unauthorized Work in the United States, and Why It Matters?
In the United States, the question of who is allowed to work is not just a matter of employment law. It is a core feature of the immigration system, one that quietly shapes people’s futures long before they ever sit across from an immigration officer or judge. Unauthorized work, often misunderstood and frequently minimized, can have lasting legal consequences that surface years later when someone applies for a visa, a green card, or citizenship.
Unauthorized work generally means engaging in employment without the specific permission required under U.S. immigration law. For some, this looks obvious. A person who enters the country without inspection and begins working immediately is clearly outside the legal framework. For others, the line is far less visible. A tourist who helps out at a family business, a student who works more hours than allowed, or a visitor who accepts paid freelance work online may not realize they have crossed into prohibited territory. Immigration law does not measure intent or fairness. It measures authorization, and without it, the work is considered unlawful.
The federal government regulates employment authorization through agencies like U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which issues employment authorization documents, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which enforces compliance in the workplace. Authorization is not automatic. It depends on immigration status, visa category, and in many cases, the specific employer. A valid visa alone does not always grant the right to work. Permission must be explicit, current, and aligned with the activity being performed.
Why does this matter so much? Because unauthorized work can trigger penalties that linger long after the paycheck is gone. In family-based immigration cases, it may complicate adjustment of status. In employment-based cases, it can undermine future petitions. In some situations, unauthorized work can contribute to findings of status violations or even allegations of misrepresentation if the work was concealed on official forms. These issues rarely appear at the moment the work happens. They emerge later, often at the most vulnerable point in a person’s immigration journey.
There are limited exceptions written into the law. Certain applicants adjusting status through immediate relatives of U.S. citizens may be forgiven for past unauthorized employment. Other categories offer no such flexibility. The difference between a forgivable violation and a permanent barrier often turns on technical distinctions that are invisible to nonlawyers. This is why casual advice, online anecdotes, or assumptions based on someone else’s experience can be dangerous.
Unauthorized work also matters beyond individual cases. It reflects how tightly employment and immigration are intertwined in the United States, and how survival decisions made under economic pressure can collide with a legal system that leaves little room for nuance. Many people work not because they disregard the law, but because rent is due and options are limited. Immigration law, however, does not weigh necessity. It records compliance.
Understanding what counts as unauthorized work is not about fearmongering. It is about clarity. Before accepting any paid activity, before helping out “just this once,” before assuming that a visa label answers all questions, it is worth pausing. In immigration law, small decisions often carry outsized consequences, and unauthorized work is one of the quietest ways a future application can be put at risk.
What Are Diplomat Visas?
Diplomat visas are special U.S. visas for people who are coming to the United States on official government business for another country. These visas are not for tourism, work in the private sector, or school. They are for diplomats and government officials whose jobs involve representing their country in meetings, negotiations, or international organizations while in the United States. These visas are handled through governments, not through normal visa sponsorship, and are issued with the involvement of the U.S. Department of State.
People who use diplomat visas include ambassadors, consular officers, government ministers, and certain employees of international organizations like the United Nations. Immediate family members may also qualify if they are traveling with the official. The visa is tied directly to the person’s official role. It exists only because of the job they are sent to do, not because of personal plans or long-term goals in the U.S.
Diplomat visas come with some special protections and benefits, which can include easier entry into the country and, in some cases, limited diplomatic immunity. These protections are meant to allow diplomats to do their jobs without interference, not to give them extra personal rights. What protections apply depends on the person’s position and international agreements between countries.
There are also strict limits. Diplomat visa holders cannot take regular jobs, run businesses, or stay in the United States once their official assignment ends, unless their status is formally changed. These visas are not a shortcut to a green card and do not automatically lead to permanent residence.
In simple terms, diplomat visas exist to make sure governments can talk to each other, cooperate, and resolve issues in an orderly way. They are a behind-the-scenes part of international relations that most people never need to think about, but they play an important role in how countries work together inside the United States.
The Fiancé(e) Visa Rule Most People Miss
Most people don’t read the fine print on visas, and that’s understandable. The U.S. immigration system is dense, technical, and often unforgiving. But one rule catches many people completely off guard: If you enter the United States on a fiancé(e) visa (K-1) and do not marry the person who sponsored you, you cannot stay and adjust your status by marrying someone else.
Yes, even if the new relationship is real.
Yes, even if the new spouse is a U.S. citizen.
Yes, even if you never intended to break the rules.
A fiancé(e) visa comes with a single condition: you must marry your original petitioner within 90 days of entry. That’s it.
If you marry your sponsor after the 90-day window, the process does not automatically continue. Your sponsor must file a new petition to restart the case.
If you do not marry your sponsor at all, you are expected to leave the United States. Remaining in the country means accumulating unlawful presence, and once that happens, you generally cannot apply for a green card from inside the U.S., even through marriage to another U.S. citizen.
This is not a technicality. It’s how the law was written. When Congress created the fiancé(e) visa, the intent was narrow: to reunite a specific couple, allow them to marry, and let that same couple apply for permanent residence together. The visa was never meant to be a general entry visa or a way to “change plans” after arrival.
We know that life happens. Relationships end. People meet someone else and fall in love. All of that is human and valid. But from an immigration standpoint, once the original K-1 relationship ends, the visa no longer serves its purpose. A new path, such as a marriage-based green card, usually requires leaving the U.S. and applying from abroad.
Immigration law isn’t just about eligibility. It’s about timing, structure, and understanding exactly what each visa allows, and what it doesn’t.
If you’re on a fiancé(e) visa, your ability to stay in the U.S. depends on following its terms. And if life takes a different turn, there may still be options, but only if you proceed carefully and with accurate information. A trusted immigration attorney can help assess next steps.
Real facts. No fluff.
At USA Immigration Today, we break down confusing topics like this not to scare you, but to empower you. The more you understand the rules, the better positioned you are to avoid costly mistakes.
Understanding the Trump Gold Card
In February 2025, President Donald Trump introduced a new idea in immigration discussions: the Trump Gold Card. The proposal centers on a simple concept, allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to obtain U.S. permanent residency, commonly known as a Green Card, by making a significant financial contribution directly to the U.S. government.
On September 19, 2025, the President signed Executive Order 14351, formally launching the Trump Gold Card program. On the official program website, the President is quoted as saying, “They can invest in America, we can continue to build the greatest economy on earth.” The framing is clear: the Trump Gold Card is presented as a way to attract capital while offering immigration benefits in return.
Despite the name, the Trump Gold Card is not a standalone visa category. It operates as a fast-track layer built onto existing high-skilled immigration pathways, specifically the EB-1A category for individuals with extraordinary ability and the EB-2 National Interest Waiver for those with exceptional ability whose work benefits the United States. Under this framework, a financial contribution of $1 million or $2 million is treated, in practice, as satisfying the “national interest” or “exceptional ability” requirement, at least under the current administration’s interpretation.
The application process for the Trump Gold Card reflects this structure. Applicants must file Form I-140G with documentation of the required contribution. The program requires a $1 million donation for an individual, an additional $1 million for each dependent seeking a card, and $2 million when a corporation sponsors one or more employees. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security vets all applicants to confirm admissibility, and they must demonstrate that their funds come from lawful and traceable sources.
The process begins with a nonrefundable $15,000 fee paid to the Department of Homeland Security. After vetting, the donation is submitted by international transfer, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicates the petition under EB-1A or EB-2 National Interest Waiver standards. Because the Trump Gold Card relies on existing visa categories, it remains subject to visa availability and the consular process, with additional fees payable to the U.S. Department of State.
Although Trump Gold Card petitions may be processed in a matter of weeks, immigrant visa issuance still depends on priority date movement and the applicant’s country of birth. Applicants from countries with high demand may face significant delays due to existing EB-1 and EB-2 visa backlogs, meaning that the financial contribution does not eliminate all waiting periods.
At the same time, a related concept, the “Platinum Card”, has been discussed but not formally implemented. As described publicly, it would allow investors to obtain a visitor visa permitting stays of up to 270 days per year without triggering the Substantial Presence Test, potentially avoiding U.S. taxation on foreign income. The proposed contribution is $5 million. The September 2025 executive order did not reference this program, and significant legal and tax questions remain unresolved, particularly if a holder later seeks U.S. citizenship.
Recent testimony suggests the Trump Gold Card program is still in its early stages. At a House subcommittee hearing on April 23, 2026, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that only one applicant had been approved, with hundreds more in the queue. Even so, the Trump Gold Card has already been described as a potential pathway for high-net-worth individuals willing to make substantial payments directly to the U.S. government. Unlike the EB-5 program, it does not focus on investing in a business or creating jobs, but instead centers on a direct financial contribution.
The Trump Gold Card signals a different approach to immigration policy. It is framed as a way to attract capital and support the U.S. economy, but it also raises broader questions about how access to immigration benefits should be structured. Its legality remains uncertain. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to define immigrant visa categories, quotas, and eligibility criteria. As a result, the Trump Gold Card program is likely to face legal challenges as implementation continues.
What to Know About U.S. Deportations to Third Countries
Recent headlines suggesting that immigrants are being deported to Cuba, El Salvador, or “Africa” have sparked fear and confusion. The assumption that people are being removed at random or without legal process is understandable but largely incorrect.
What these stories describe is a narrow and long-standing feature of U.S. immigration law known as third-country removal. It applies almost exclusively to individuals who already have final orders of removal, have exhausted their appeals, and do not currently hold legal protection such as asylum, Temporary Protected Status, or withholding of removal. These are not new arrests, new categories of enforcement, or people awaiting their day in court.
Under the law, the government must first attempt to remove a person to their country of citizenship. When that is not possible, U.S. law does not permit removals to undefined regions or arbitrary destinations; removals may occur only to specific countries that agree to accept the individual.
Recent reporting has referenced some countries, including El Salvador, Ghana, Mauritania, Nigeria, and Senegal, reflecting renewed diplomatic cooperation rather than any new deportation policy.
Much of the public attention has focused on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who had protection from being returned to El Salvador but still had a final order of removal. When his home country was unavailable, the U.S. sought removal to a third country, even though Costa Rica was reportedly willing to accept him. The controversy was not about legal authority, which courts have long recognized, but about how far government discretion should extend when multiple destinations are possible.
What is often missing from the headlines is what happens next. Removal to a third country does not usually mean freedom or permanent status. Some individuals are detained on arrival, others released temporarily with conditions, and many remain in legal limbo under the receiving country’s immigration laws.
There is no new mass deportation regime underway. But the anxiety is real and understandable, because the law allows outcomes that feel counterintuitive and harsh when explained without context.
Real facts. No fluff.
At USA Immigration Today, we break down confusing topics like this not to scare you, but to empower you. The more you understand the rules, the better positioned you are to avoid costly mistakes.