Politics

Understanding Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

by Brother Carlton 
01/23/25
Free to Share
Author requests article critique

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

Donald Trump stirred up controversy by declaring, through an executive order, that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. This view, also shared by Ron and Rand Paul, challenges the common assumption that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen.

While critics reacted strongly, there’s a compelling argument supporting Trump’s interpretation of the Constitution.

The Key Clause: "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof"

The Fourteenth Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The pivotal phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Advocates for Trump’s position argue that this phrase excludes illegal immigrants, as they remain under the jurisdiction of their home countries. Therefore, their children wouldn’t automatically qualify for citizenship under this clause.

This interpretation isn’t new. It’s rooted in the intent of the amendment’s framers:

• Senator Jacob Howard, who drafted the citizenship clause, clarified its meaning: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers… but will include every other class of persons.”


• Congressman John Bingham, often called the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, explained that a natural-born citizen is “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

These historical statements emphasize that allegiance matters when determining citizenship.

Modern Scholarship Supports the Argument

Two Ivy League professors, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, support this view in their book Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity. Although they personally favor more immigration and amnesty for undocumented immigrants, their research concludes that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

In a 2018 article, they argued:

• The assumption that the Constitution mandates birthright citizenship is flawed.


• Congress, not the Constitution, should decide the matter through legislation and public debate.

They drew comparisons to how Native American citizenship was handled in the past, noting that Congress had the authority to regulate it, despite Native Americans’ long-standing presence in the U.S. This precedent suggests Congress also has the authority to decide the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants.

Honesty vs. Assumptions

What makes Schuck and Smith’s conclusion noteworthy is that it contradicts their personal beliefs. Despite favoring immigration reform, they acknowledge that the evidence against birthright citizenship is too strong to ignore.

Their message is clear: This isn’t about personal politics. It’s about what the Constitution actually says—and doesn’t say.

Why This Matters

If the Constitution doesn’t mandate birthright citizenship, it becomes a decision for Congress and the American people. It’s a debate worth having, grounded in both legal history and the realities of today’s immigration challenges.

The question is simple: Should citizenship be automatic, or should it be something we collectively decide?

Brother Carlton ministers the gospel to the Los Angeles area. Formerly a Hollywood actor (SAG member) and property cleanup expert, he now spends most of his time studying the scriptures, writing articles, hymns, and poems, and doing street preaching. See all his videos on YouTube Brother Carlton.