US Birthright Citizenship - Time for a Change?

[AviatorTom]

Caveat: I am not a lawyer, although this post deals with discussions on the legality of US Citizenship.

On January 20, 2025, shortly after his inauguration as the 47th US President, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order concerning Birthright Citizenship.

The basics of the order state that a person born to a mother who is not a US citizen and is in the country illegally, is not entitled to citizenship unless the father is a citizen.

The complete text of the Executive Order may be found here:

PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

This Executive Order has stirred controversy, with many pointing out that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution automatically makes anyone born in the United States or its territories a legal US citizen. The Order has been shot down by a Federal judge as being unconstitutional.

But does birth automatically bestow citizenship?

PEOPLE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS

There are some distinct cases where a person born in the United States is not a citizen of the United States.

Children of ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries who are born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.

People born and living in American Samoa, a US territory, are considered US nationals but not US citizens.

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

After the Civil War, slaves were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to slaves and heir children, one of the main reasons for the passage of the amendment.

It is questionable whether the creators of the Fourteenth Amendment ever considered that it might be used to grant citizenship to those born here illegally.

ISSUES WITH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

There are some issues with birthright citizenship, when it is applied to illegal immigrants.

Under the existing system, if a mother enters the US illegally and then gives birth, her child is a US citizen. However, since she is in the US illegally, she can be deported, but her child (a US citizen) cannot. If she is deported, that separates mother from child, which is frowned upon, and typically means the mother is allowed to stay in the US as an illegal immigrant, essentially bypassing the law.

As the child gets older, the child is entitled to the benefits of citizenship, but the mother is not, creating some obvious social problems. For example, she cannot work legally, but has to somehow care for her child, which requires government assistance.

ISSUES WITH CHANGING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Many people, including the 47th President, believe it's time for a change, to put some restrictions on birthright citizenship. That too, creates some issues.

Many Americans, those born in the US, unless they have a passport, have no documentary evidence of citizenship. A birth certificate just certifies that a person was born in the US, it says nothing about the legality of that birth, nor whether either parent was a legal US citizen.

If birthright citizenship is changed, then government agencies (ex: the State Dept and its issuance of US passports) will have to make additional checks; a valid birth certificate by itself is not enough, the status of the parent(s) must be validated. This may also require cities, counties and states that issue birth certificates to include the citizenship status of the parents. All of that involves additional time, effort and cost.

Or, the government might start issuing citizen ID cards, as is done in some other countries. That would be a major undertaking, frowned on by many, but could have additional benefits, being an easy way for a voter to prove their right to vote, and possibly replacing the need for a social security card.

OTHER COUNTRIES

It's interesting that most countries do not automatically grant citizens to anyone born in the country, as shown on the map above.

Most countries require at least one of the parents to be a citizen in order for their child to be granted citizenship. Interestingly, almost all birthright-citizenship countries are in the Americas (North and South America), the result of colonization by European countries wishing to expand their populations.

IS IT TIME FOR A CHANGE?

Perhaps it is time to change birthright citizenship in the United States. Or maybe not.

At least one positive comes from Trump's Executive Order ... People are discussing the benefits, and issues, with birthright citizenship.

[purplepoppy]

I was under the mistaken impression you automatically became a citizen anywhere. I'm sure I've heard of British teens been sent army conscription papers because mother gave birth on holiday in Spain.

I've had a look at the UK government website on this matter and it's complex, it includes "settled status" parents which looks like people with permission to stay, I'm going to assume we're talking about professional people like doctors. It's also pretty expensive £1,214 for under tens and £1,481 for over plus £130 for a ceremony. Interestingly you don't have to pay if you can't afford it.

As for America, it feels like it something that needs dealt with but it needs careful planning and not just gimmicky executive orders to delight his base. For example is this for new entrants or will it stretch back decades? Will anyone who isn't white be continually harassed to show proof?

[monorprise]

It is actuary quite straightforward. Your Birth certificate in most states says whom your parents are. All you got to do is prove one of them is a citizen.

[DrPepper12]

@monorprise easier for those of privilege

[monorprise]

@DrPepper12 Not sure what your point is, yes it is a privilege to be a citizen of one of the untied States.
Some people from other countries have a similar opinion if they are balanced.

[OlderAndWiser]

This is a well written and well organized, basic discussion of this topic, written with a neutral perspective. I am impressed.

[monorprise]

If it was neutral he wold have quoted there 14th amendment itself including its qualification clause "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

He would also mention that the only court case on the matter ignored that clause and the stated propose by the author in 'deciding' a case regarding Legal permanent residents NOT invaders.

So not only was the case itself anther example of judicial activism pushing their agenda and ignoring the written law the case had nothing to do with invaders.

Instead it was emphasize again and again that the parents were legal permanent resents, not invaders.

[AviatorTom]

@monorprise FYI, I thought about including the 14th Amendment text and court cases that have been tried. But I wanted this MyTake to stimulate discussion, and maybe even independent investigation, which it has done. You are the perfect example of that. Thanks for your opinion.

[OlderAndWiser]

@monorprise I am not a grammar/spelling Nazi, but sometimes, errors produce Freudian-like results.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[malarkey]

All that needs to be done is to enforce the law properly. Constitutional rights comes down to residency in a state. The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the states and federal government. The states yield authority to the United States government to manage the nation's borders and to determine whether foreign nationals may come within our territory. If they are permitted entry, then they need to take the appropriate steps to establish residency within one of the states legally. Once they legally reside in a state (have residency), then if they have a child on US soil that child becomes a citizen under the custody of the resident of a state. Illegals in contrast, do not have legal residency and can not be granted legal residency under sanctuary laws due to conflicts with federal law and immigration policy. Thus they are under the jurisdiction of their home countries. The Constitution does not apply to them. For a long time Democrats have twisted the law through dishonest interpretation. With an honest interpretation of the constitution the problem of illegal anchor babies is resolved. It really just comes down to a court ruling recognizing residency as a requirement to be under the jurisdiction of a state. People that are not residents of the United States aren't a party to the contract that is the Constitution of the United States. Thus what is set out in it, does not apply to them. US territories do not have Constitutional rights because they are not residents of any of the states. Slaves did not have Constitutional rights, because they could not own property and declare residency, they were legally classified as property. Illegal immigrants don't have constitutional rights because they can not legally gain residence in a state. It's pretty simple, but Democrats will continue to lie about the law because they want to continue slavery. Same as it ever was...

[Syntosi]

You either believe in the constitution or you do not. Even if you want to argue that the authors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to apply to the current situation, that is still how it has been interpreted and adopted into American culture.

The traditional American value has been that the country is made by immigrants and FOR immigrants. To quite the poem at the statue of liberty for the N'th time:

==

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

==

The idea that America should only accept the best, smartest or "clean" immigrants into the country is quite frankly unAmerican. Had people actually upheld the traditional spirit then they should have accepted these illegal immigrants as neighbors and welcomed them as citizens of the greatest country in the world.

But where we are in a world of broken dreams and promises, trying to rewrite something that made USA more than the rest of the world.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Trump believes in Trump, not the U. S. Constitution.

[molonski2]

Yes , extremely well reasoned post first of all. I feel in a way unworthy to comment not being a US citizen , and the fact you are showing my country in red ( I didn't know that ) , I know virtually all are considered Australian , yet there probably must be one parent , eg My friend had a child to a Thai girl and she came back to Thailand to give birth , that girl is an Australian citizen , also Thai , and now Swedish also !

I understand the complications yet , my believe is that birthright should remain.

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@AviatorTom I agree with @OlderAndWiser; this is extremely well-written and presented. I respect the evenhandedness here, as well as the discussion prompt. Thanks and bravo!

The 14th amendment already contains a clause to prevent misunderstandings of its' purpose. :D In case there was any doubt as to it's meaning, here's a quote from one of the representatives involved at the time:

{Senator Lyman]Trumbull stated that "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Allegiance first, then citizenship. Context matters.

[Ladsin2]

There's no need to change anything. Just enforce the law as it's written and intended. The 14th 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." People who are illegally here, or legally here on a short term basis (ie a foreign diplomat) do not qualify as they are not subject to our jurisdiction or legal residents.

Your concerns aren't significantly difficult to work around. If some sort of national ID were to be required it would only be needed going forward. New children would have a national ID and current citizens could choose to opt in.

[monorprise]

If the court disagrees Trump can literally tell them to go take a hike thanks to division of power. The court only has the power to decide cases of law not tell the other 2 branches & levels of goverment what to do.

An illegal alien born in America is no more entitled to be given citizenship papers than Marbuy was entitled to be given his his writ to be a judge.

marbury vs madison 1803

[goaded]

If they're illegally in the US, they can't be held to US laws? That's a novel idea!

[Ladsin2]

@goaded Native Americans live within the territory of the US but often are not considered to be subject to our jurisdiction. This is why a second amendment was passed to clarify they can be considered US citizens despite not being subject to our jurisdiction at certain times.

Illegal aliens aren't subject to our jurisdiction which is why we remand them to the countries that are responsible for them. If they happen to commit other crimes while on US soil then we can choose how we want to deal with them. They were granted no immunity by us when crossing the border.

[goaded]

"Illegal aliens aren't subject to our jurisdiction"? Ridiculous. If they're not in US jurisdiction, you can't say they've broken your laws. They're where your laws apply; they're in the jurisdiction of the United States.

Words have meanings.

[Ladsin2]

@goaded Just because someone is in the US doesn't mean they're subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't mean they're a resident either. RE Natives and Diplomats.

[goaded]

I didn't say that! I said if someone's liable to be subject to US laws, they're in US jurisdiction. That's the meaning of the word.

[Ladsin2]

@goaded They're in it, but not subjects of it. Just like how foreign diplomats are physically within US jurisdiction, but not subjects of it. Nobody at the time of the writing of this amendment thought, well, if someone happens to run across our border and drops a baby they're going to be citizens and enjoy full treatment as such. And fuck it, we might as well go ahead and let their parents stay too! And rainbow unicorns and fairies! If that's what you want then change the constitution via amendment. I don't see that anywhere in there.

[goaded]

OMG, for the unpteenth time: diplomats are immune from the country's laws. Nobody else is.

The current law is unambiguous and says anyone other than foreign diplomats' babies born in the US are US citizens. At the time the amendment was written there were no immigration laws restricting people from coming to the country unless their country was at was with the US. In fact, two years earlier a law was passed to encourage immigration.

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_United_States_immigration_laws

[Ladsin2]

@goaded Natives are immune in many cases.
The law is unambiguous but you're wrong. If it were the case that everyone born in the US were automatically a citizen then the amendment would've said so. It wouldn't add "AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF". So I mean that's just that I suppose. We won't come to an agreement on this apparently.

[goaded]

What if that were to excluded diplomats? Diplomatic immunity had been a British (therefore also colonial American) law from 1709.

Being "immune in many cases" means that they're not in all the other cases. So they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Hell, it's US law that makes them "immune in many cases".

[Anonymous]

As shortsighted as the authors of the 14th amendment were they did in fact consider this issue which is why that clause as the qualification of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That means it excluded Indians and forign nationals as the people who actual wrote it said.
The idea of birth place citizenship came from a later 4-6 federal court edict that deliberately ignored that fact and illegal disallowed such evidence to push their own agenda par-for the court of the unaccountable federal politicians in black robes.

Even in that case however the forign subjects in question were legally permanent residents which is a kind of low grade citizen. So the court has yet to even question if this apples to mere invaders with no legal status whatsoever.

[goaded]

If I committed a crime in the US, I'd be tried and convicted for it. I'd be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even though I'm not American. I know you like to re-write history, but it's bullshit.

[NoDecision]

@goaded Not really. You would not go to prison and instead be deported. You see that with a lot of illegals here not being held accountable for their crimes. They get deported and just come right back. Or at least they did on Biden's watch. They may find that harder to do now, but not impossibly so.

[DrPepper12]

@NoDecision they're deported AFTER prison, not upon conviction.

[NoDecision]

@DrPepper12 Not all of them. I guess it depends on the crime. Maybe because there is not enough room in our already overcrowded prisons? They were at one time releasing people early because of that, ones with minor crimes at least. I don't know when they last built a new prison.

[goaded]

@NoDecision They'd still have been tried and convicted under the laws of the US, that couldn't happen if they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[NoDecision]

@goaded There are a lot of people tried and convicted that just get ankle monitors and stay imprisoned in their homes. People who commit minor crimes are housed with lifers and killers. We need new prisons built, and run humanely and not run by some "for profit" business that doesn't care and lets the prisoners run the prison. How well does that work out?

[goaded]

@NoDecision Are we talking about US prisons now? Yes, there shouldn't be so many and there shouldn't be a profit motive. That doesn't affect that everyone but diplomats with immunity are subject to the jurisdiction of the US when they're in the country.

[Kayla45]

I know in Canada, anyone born here is a citizen of Canada. Doesn’t matter where your parents are from, even both of them. Like they couldn’t be Canadian at all and still give birth here making the child automatically Canadian.

I think the USA had the same but now the US president wants to change that. I’m curious if the parents birth countries would accept their US technically born children, IF the US kicks them out too?

[exitseven]

The fourteenth amendment was created to grant citizen ship to former slaves and their children. It was not intended to be a loophole for an illegal alien to have an anchor baby and automatically get welfare benefits that citizens do not ever get.

[monorprise]

@exitseven
Indeed that is why they added a "Subject of the jurisdiction thereof" clause.

[goaded]

If they're illegally in the US, they can't be held to US laws? That's a novel idea!

[monorprise]

@goaded Subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause means your a subject of the jurisdiction not that the laws don't apply to you. The laws apply to everyone regardless of what jurisdiction they are subject to. That includes ambassadors with "diplomatic immunity". This was discussed at the time.

[goaded]

@monorprise What do you think the word "jurisdiction" means? C:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzapwLAZP2k

[monorprise]

@goaded Nobody is disputing that a jurisdiction is a area of sovereign control. You are either a subject of that sovereign or not.

The way it talks about it implying there are many jurisdictions makes even more sense given citizenship in America is the obligation to the sovereignty of your state. Hence the war between the states each jurisdiction being sovereign claimed the loyalty of the citizens thereof.

The 14th amendment invented the separate concept of Federal citizenship and thus sovereign derived from State Citizenship and thus sovereign. Still to this day your technically a Duel citizen now of both the jurisdiction of your state and of the new federal state.

[goaded]

@monorprise You don't have to be a subject to be in someone's jurisdiction. Every tourist in the US is in the US's jurisdiction, unless they have diplomatic immunity.

Your "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause means your a subject of the jurisdiction not that the laws don't apply to you." is an oxymoron.

[DrPepper12]

Yeah. The Trump's & Vance's are full up loaded with anchor babys

[goaded]

@DrPepper12 Didn't Trump run a business putting up pregnant Russian women so their children could be American?

[exitseven]

@goaded That never haoened.

[goaded]

www.thedailybeast.com/.../

[lightbulb27]

Id never thought about it much, good overview of the difficulties.

Raises the question of how to become a citizen if they were born here but are not.

If both parents are mexican (not American citizen)... are they citizens of mexico... or any other country?

As long as the child has a country, it's ok. Cannot leave children in limbo.

[goaded]

Why does your map say "restricted" and not "denied"? Strictly speaking, the US is also "restricted", because people with diplomatic immunity aren't "subject of the jurisdiction thereof". What are the grey areas?

If you can lock up a parent for a crime, the child is a US citizen, it's obvious.

[DrPepper12]

I'm all for a national ID AND free passport for citizens. I'm also good with birthright citizenship.

I also think employers should be FORCED to use eVerify for employees and any company that hires illegal should be fined HEAVILY but the uni party won't bite their corporate masters.

[Bklynbadboy12]

Honestly I feel like if your here illegally and you have a baby here that shouldn't apply. The 14th ammendment was made because of slavery my ancestors was forced to come here we have our culture and heritage stripped from us so when slavery was finally abolished we had no place to go back to. So was given citizenship if you was born here you was a citizen now all I need is my 40 acres and my mule

[goaded]

Then you're saying that people in the US illegally aren't "Subject of the jurisdiction thereof". How does that work?

[Bklynbadboy12]

Sorry but you can't pick and choose what laws you can break. If your here illegally you should be sent back. Sorry but that's facts!

[goaded]

If a baby is born in the US to anyone but foreign diplomats (who aren't subject to US laws), they're a citizen. That's the clear meaning of the amendment.

If you want to amend the constitution, free free, but I'd suggest limiting the pardon power, making it even more plain that the president is not above the law (in words even this corrupt SCOTUS can't ignore), requiring a supermajority to confirm supreme court justices, and getting big money out of elections would be more important things to consider.

[Bklynbadboy12]

Stay on topic! Laws are laws you can't choose which ones you can break and which ones you can. If your here illegally and have a baby the you child shouldn't be a citizen cause you we're supposed to be here.

[douglas_1170]

When are you people going to realize that the North lost the Civil War? Brother, Lincoln got shot in the head. That was the end of your 40 acres. No one every promised you shit. The 40 acres idea came from a Union General who thought he had confiscated enough land from the Confederate states to be able to give freed blacks a place to live. It was a short-lived idea because the South won. Boo hoo!

[goaded]

@douglas_1170 "Stay on topic!" What? The law, the constitution, as it currently stands is that if you're in the country and subject to its laws, any baby born to you will be a US citizen.

To change that law, you'd have to amend the constitution.

[Red_Arrow]

Since you brought up American Samoa, let us look at Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico exists as a country. It's people share a unique Puerto Rican identity. But by U. S. laws, no one can technically be a citizen of Puerto Rico. As per US law and the Supreme Court, people born on the island of Puerto Rico automatically become citizens of the United States. Born in another country, not here, and may never have been here, but they are US citizens.

[blueonblack22]

So many illegals abused the “birthright citizenship” loophole for so long that I’m happy Trump finally ended this crap.

[DrPepper12]

He hasn't ended shit. He's not a the god emperor you think he is

[blueonblack22]

@DrPepper12 you know it’s funny I never heard the phrase “Biden supporters” during that senile sack of sh*t’s calamity of presidential term in office.

Sure there was plenty of well deserved vitriol thrown AT Biden himself. But there wasn’t the same amount of hate thrown at actual people who voted him in vs there is towards the people who voted for Trump.

Most of the people who voted for Trump don’t “worship” him as a MAGA demigod the way you want to believe.

[DrPepper12]

The Trump Store™ by me says different

[blueonblack22]

@DrPepper12 where are you from anyway? Texas? Alabama?

[DrPepper12]

NYC! So nice they named it twice!!

[blueonblack22]

@DrPepper12 yep that’s making more sense. However, I do cut some leftists who live in heavy red conservative areas (some) slack. Just a bit. I can see how they feel about living in a microcosm where you are surrounded by neighbors who don’t like your ideology.

For exampleI know oddtobeme is from Texas. I disagree with him politically about 80-90% of the time BUT I get how he feels. Because that’s how I feel about living in 2025 Colorado (which used to be a swing state).

But you are in a part of the country that votes 80%+ democrat. So you are the status quo when it comes to your ideology.

Have you been enjoying the “safe” and comfortable subway rides for the last few years? Just had to ask. Also really nice you got a racist governor who believes black people don’t know how to use computers.

Anyway I am also wondering if you are a white leftist or a minority. I’m guessing the latter.

Not that I like identity politics. Not that I even like bringing up race I actually don’t. But you represent a political party that was absolutely obsessed about identity politics for the last 10+ years or so. So I think it’s a fair question to ask.

[DrPepper12]

Subway is just fine, guv is a B- with me tbh. I am a SJW, an ALLY, a teacher. Oh, white male too!

[AManOnTheWeb]

No need to change birthright citizenship...

[Surely]

I agree with a change is needed. Just because a woman decides to come to the US to give birth to her child. Shouldn’t mean that the child is a US citizen. Especially when the parents are not in this country legally.

[Berethor]

No more anchor babies, sounds good to me, Donald Trump knows what he doing.

[onedarkcloud]

The 14th Amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship after the Civil War. Since then it has been bastardized by just about any child born here of Foreign parents are given birthright citizenship [ also known as anchor babies]. The rest of the family is allowed to stay to care for the American baby

[Miristheiss]

Definitely get rid of. Our babies do not become citizens if giving birth abroad. It is dumb.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Why? Birthright citizenship was begun in 1868 to give recently manumitted African Americans citizenship rights denied them as slaves.