Medhas Law is a Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) and Managed Legal Services (MLS) firm that collaborates with various attorneys (both internal and external) to assist our clients. Medhas Law does not accept any liability for the content of this website or for actions taken based on the information provided. Please note that communications via this website are not completely secure or confidential. While we take reasonable measures to ensure that transmissions are free from viruses or other harmful components, we recommend notifying support@medhaslaw.com immediately if you suspect any issues. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this website is strictly prohibited. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Birthright citizenship, as outlined in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, has long been a cornerstone of American constitutional law. However, the interpretation of this clause, specifically the requirement that an individual must be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, remains a topic of significant debate. This discourse has resurfaced with a proposed order aiming to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship, particularly concerning children born to undocumented immigrants and those born to lawful residents who have overstayed their visas.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, 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.” This clause was primarily intended to grant citizenship to former slaves and ensure equality under the law. However, its broader implications for individuals born on U.S. soil, irrespective of their parents' legal status, have been debated ever since.
The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that children born in the U.S. to parents who were lawful residents and subject to U.S. jurisdiction are entitled to birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were Chinese immigrants legally residing in the U.S., a critical factor in the Court’s decision. The ruling emphasized the principle of jus soli, or “law of the soil,” rooted in English common law.
However, critics argue that the decision did not definitively address whether this principle extends to children of undocumented immigrants or those born to legal residents who later fell out of lawful status. This ambiguity has fueled ongoing legal and political debates.
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” is central to the debate. Legal scholars such as Lino Graglia have asserted that this clause was originally intended to exclude specific groups, such as foreign diplomats’ children and members of sovereign Native American tribes at the time. Graglia and others argue that it could logically extend to children of undocumented immigrants, as these parents are not “fully subject” to U.S. jurisdiction in the same way as lawful residents.
Similarly, Yale law professors Rogers Smith and Peter Schuck, in their 1985 publication, contended that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause in Wong Kim Ark left room for Congress to address the status of children born to undocumented immigrants. This interpretation suggests that legislative action, rather than judicial precedent, may ultimately resolve the issue.
The proposed order aims to limit birthright citizenship to children born to lawful residents, applying prospectively to births occurring after February 19. Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, have been directed to issue guidance on implementing this policy. If enacted, this order would mark a significant shift in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and could have profound implications for immigration policy and family dynamics in the United States.
Given the constitutional and historical complexities, this policy is expected to face substantial legal challenges. Opponents may argue that it contravenes established interpretations of the Citizenship Clause, while proponents will likely emphasize the original intent and language of the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, the judiciary may need to provide clarity on whether the children of undocumented immigrants or overstayed residents fall within the scope of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
The evolving interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment highlights the intersection of constitutional law, immigration policy, and societal values. As this issue progresses through legal and political arenas, it will shape the future of citizenship rights and responsibilities in the United States. For now, the question remains open: How should the nation define and apply the principle of jus soli in a modern context?
