In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which addressed the rights of a U.S. citizen, born in Louisiana to non-citizen parents from Saudi Arabia, who was detained by the United States in Afghanistan as an “enemy combatant.” The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that Hamdi should not be recognized as a citizen, because he was the child of non-citizen visitors to the United States.730 For the first time, this thesis was raised as a means to establish a state of exception— placing Hamdi outside of the protection of the law—thus creating a license to engage in acts widely renounced as contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. The episode serves as a reminder that abhorrent state crimes have been repeatedly facilitated by the creation of stateless masses, robbed of their political agency and recognition before the law. Conclusion Unlike other sections of this report, this chapter address a threat that is still largely theoretical. However, President Trump’s suggestion that he could introduce an executive order denying citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants in the United States is real. The initiatives covered in earlier chapters could all be deployed and expanded to support the same broad nativist agenda. They also serve to sensitize the American public to the idea that an executive order restricting “birthright citizenship” is not altogether far-fetched. If these efforts are allowed to continue and grow, U.S. citizenship will be irreparably destabilized, to the detriment of millions and the benefit of the intolerant and the powerful. This report seeks to document this exclusionary strategy and provide a call and a roadmap for its neutralization and demise. 160 UNMAKING AMERICANS