
In determining citizenship, the United States has a very unusual approach. You’re a citizen if you were born here. (You’re also a citizen if you were born abroad under certain circumstances, but that’s a different issue.)
That’s a bit crazy, because it means that if a woman (aren’t you glad we don’t have to refer to them as “child-birthing persons” anymore?) makes it into the United States, legally or illegally, in time to give birth – right on the north bank of the Rio Grande, for example – her baby is an American citizen.
The mother doesn’t magically become an American citizen by giving birth in America, but through this loophole in the law her American-born baby does.
This has happened literally millions of times over the last few decades, though not always on the north bank of the Rio Grande. It happened especially after Joe Biden abolished the southern border.
The upshot is that millions of people are American citizens merely because their mothers managed to illegally enter the country to give birth here. Very few countries allow this.
I’m sure Joe Biden would have done this by Executive Order, or some such thing, just as he opened the southern border by Executive Orders, but he didn’t need to.
You see, this loophole isn’t just the law; it’s the Constitution. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was passed to ensure the citizenship of former slaves. The first sentence 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.”
It’s tempting to blame today’s outcome – millions of new American citizens born to illegal immigrants – on the people who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment.
Didn’t they anticipate that the American people over the next century and a half would permit the accumulation of extraordinary, extra-Constitutional power in the hands of the Presidents, and that the people would permit a particular senile, corrupt President to exercise those powers to abolish the southern border and thereby ensure citizenship to millions of babies born to illegal immigrants entering through that abolished border?
To ask that question is to answer it. The answer is no, they didn’t anticipate that. They thought their descendants would be smarter and more careful than that.
Ah, but there’s a loophole in this citizenship loophole, say those who are desperate to find one. The loophole, they say, is the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The immigrant babies, they say, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
But they are.
People without special immunities are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States simply by being present within the United States. That’s true of a tourist from France or an illegal immigrant from Mexico. That Frenchman and that Mexican are bound by our laws while they’re in our country, just as we are bound by their laws when we are in their countries.
So, what is the purpose in the 14th Amendment of the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
It was almost certainly to exclude rare individuals such as the babies of diplomats. A woman who is a diplomat or the wife of a diplomat has diplomatic immunity from the jurisdiction of the United States, as does her newborn baby. Therefore, that diplomatically immune baby, even if born in a Washington DC hospital, is not an American citizen.
Similarly, at the time the Amendment was passed, Native Americans (called “Indians” at the time, but at least they were never called “birthing persons”) on reservations were not United States citizens and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Consequently, their children, likewise, were not United States citizens. (This was revised by statute in 1924.)
In short, I wish it were otherwise, but intellectual honesty (the only kind I have, so-called friends say) compels me to conclude that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to the America-born babies of illegal immigrants.
This issue has been addressed in the last month by two Federal Courts, and each has concluded that the analysis set forth above is correct, and that it’s not even a close call. If this issue goes to the Supreme Court, the likely outcome is a 9-0 ruling.
There are other solutions to the problem. The 14th Amendment could be revised by a new Constitutional Amendment. But that takes an Act of Congress and the ratifying vote of three-fourths of the states.
Alternatively, we could secure the border to address this problem going forward, and we should, while embracing the citizens who became such, as newborns, when the border was open.
After all, they did not choose their womb or its location at the time of their birth. Those fortuitously born Americans are as likely as other new citizens to fulfill the American dream. Joe Biden dealt us a bad hand. Let’s not play it badly, too.
Glenn K. Beaton practiced law in the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
The proper answer is a Constitutional amendment. We did it 28 times already and as recently as 1992 so why can’t we do it again? I don’t get it….
I doubt we would get enough states to agree.
The jurisdiction of a baby born in the U.S. from an illegal alien, is the aliens’ country . . .
I assume you’re being flip. If not, then your position would present a curious outcome. If the baby is not subject to our jurisdiction, then he’s not subject to our laws — including our immigration laws, and so he can’t be deported.
No, I am not being flippant. The 14th amendment is about permanency and intent. A person traveling to the United States, that has a baby does not have right to become a citizen, nor does the baby, unless they go through the citizenship process. The same goes to the illegal alien. In breaking our laws, there is no way that person will become a citizen, and under proper enforcement that person and the baby born should rightly be deported. I can’t answer for our governments lack of enforcement, and lower court rulings, but I am extremely happy it is here now.
We will see what the Supreme Court says. I believe that is what President Trump wants.
Maybe this will give you some pause, no I’m not angry, you’re just wrong: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/02/19/why_the_argument_for_birthright_citizenship_is_not_the_slam_dunk_many_say_it_is_1092115.html
Mr. Wolfe, the author of the piece you linked to, Paul D. Thacker, is not even a lawyer. He has a BS in Biology, and then became a journalist.
No, his piece gives me no pause. It’ll be a slam dunk at the Supreme Court. I wish you — and Mr. Thacker — were right, but my wishes don’t color my analysis.
Want to put $1,000 on it?
I am sadly agreeing with you Glenn
I have never approved of the 14th amendment because it has been so abused by illegals in my lifetime.
If it comes to that, we should deport whole families, including minors. They go back to their parents’ home country. Then, they should register with the embassy or consulate. When they turn eighteen, they can come back, alone.
I kinda think citizenship should be earned, not granted without any requirement. An Amish child has the opportunity, at 16, to apply for membership in the church. But he/she must pass tests and then be approved in a sort of ‘hearing’ by members (this may not be universal now, but it used to be). Foreigners applying legally for U.S. citizenship must pass a test. Why not children born here? If I cannot demonstrate basic knowledge of the American system of law, perhaps even a modicum of support for if and intent to be a contributor (not an exploiter) to society, am I really a citizen ‘in good standing’? Why should those who have no understanding, much less respect for our system of law, our cultural values, have the privilege of voting, for example? or other benefits of citizenship? Our system assumes a measure of wisdom, integrity, knowledge and positive motivation (call it ‘creative contribution’). ‘But if the salt hath lost its savor…’. To get and hold a job I must demonstrate a measure of merit. I must be a positive contributor, else I will no longer be a ‘citizen’ of that company to which I applied for membership. Why should it not be similar for citizenship in this great country, lest we cease to be great (we already have)?
I could not agree more. Voting citizens need to have skin in the game. Pass the test, pass a background check, demonstrate adequate skill handling firearms (I’m not kidding), show a regular source of legal income (a non-government job will do), get three endorsements from other voting citizens. Skin in the game.
Pingback: Is it productive for Trump to push legal limits? | the Aspen beat
Pingback: Cat fight at the Supreme Court! | the Aspen beat