In the US, expectant Indian mothers rush to beat Trump’s deadline

US president Donald Trump's executive order targeting birthright citizenship stirred up a lot of anxiety, particularly among immigrant communities who see this as a way to secure a more stable future for their children.

For many expectant Indian parents, the prospect of losing that guarantee is driving them to extreme measures like scheduling preterm C-sections.

While C-sections are common in the US and sometimes medically necessary, opting for one when the pregnancy isn't quite full term can lead to complications such as respiratory issues or developmental delays for the baby, not to mention the risks to the mother. The fact that some women are opting for C-sections several weeks before full term really underscores the high stakes of the situation as they see it, given the looming deadline and the uncertainty around the fate of the birthright citizenship executive order.

For doctors, it’s a delicate balance between securing legal status and ensuring the health and safety of both the baby and the mother.

It also shows how far some people are willing to go to ensure their child’s citizenship, especially with the changing political landscape.

Dr S.D. Rama, who works at a maternity clinic in New Jersey, is seeing a notable surge in requests, The Times of India reported.

As more doctors report similar trends, it might force medical institutions and policymakers to rethink how they handle such cases. On one hand, there’s the ethical consideration of whether it is a responsible choice to schedule a preterm delivery for non-medical reasons; on the other, there’s the pressure to respect the wishes of patients who are concerned about their child’s future.

Meanwhile, a 14-day temporary block on Trump’s order by judge Coughenour is a key moment in the legal fight over birthright citizenship. By calling it “blatantly unconstitutional,” the judge clearly signaled that the policy likely runs counter to the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. This legal challenge is significant because it’s pushing back against one of the president’s more controversial immigration policies, aimed at limiting citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

Coughenour's decision is a significant temporary win for those who oppose the policy and for families concerned about their children's citizenship rights. For now, it means the executive order to deny automatic citizenship for children born to parents in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas cannot be enforced. This ruling gives time for the legal system to further examine the case, which could lead to a more permanent resolution—either in favor of or against the order.

While the order has been stayed for a time, the original 20 February deadline does a sense of urgency, in case things change.

Meanwhile, if the c-section trend continues to grow, it could spark broader debates within the medical community about the balance between legal and ethical obligations.

Birthright citizenship, granted under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, gives children born on US soil automatic citizenship, which has long been a topic of considerable debate in immigration discussions in the run-up to the 2024 US presidential elections.

Successfully ending automatic birthright citizenship would be a monumental shift in US immigration policy — with significant consequences for families, especially those on temporary visas, like many Indian immigrants. The ability to have a child born in the US and automatically receiving citizenship has been a key factor for many families choosing to work or study abroad, offering a sense of security and a potential pathway for future immigration opportunities.

Indians, of course, make up the largest group of immigrants in the US.

However, if the appeals court upholds the ruling against Trump’s order, it would be a big setback for the administration's broader anti-immigration policies.

It would also likely strengthen the argument that the current law, as it stands, is constitutionally protected.