14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens

The Constitution doesn't guarantee birthright citizenship

August 30, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Matthew Spalding is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

More than any other nation, America beckons those who seek opportunity and a better future for themselves and their families. Immigration strengthens our social capital, deepens our national patriotism, and expands our general economy.

Naturalization—the idea of a foreigner becoming an equal citizen as if by nature—follows directly from America's political principles. Individuals have a natural right to emigrate from their homeland, but they may only immigrate to this country with the consent of the American people as expressed through U.S. laws. With that consent, a person of any ethnic heritage or racial background can become, in every sense, an American citizen.

What about those who are born here?

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment (overturning, in part, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that no black could be a U.S. citizen) clarified the conditions of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

[Read more about U.S. immigration reform.]

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.

The broader reading is a constitutional misreading. Not only does it grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, it also gives full due-process rights to the likes of Taliban fighter Yasir Hamdi (born in the United States of visiting Saudi parents and captured fighting U.S. soldiers 20 years later in Afghanistan).

But it is the principle of the matter that is most problematic. The broad claim of automatic birthright citizenship traces its roots more to the feudal concept of perpetual allegiance of subjects to kings, rather than equal rights and the consent of the governed. It violates bedrock American principles and undermines the rule of law.

What is to be done?

While the Constitution defines the basic conditions, the decision whether and how far to offer citizenship beyond that (i.e., who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) is a policy judgment historically left to Congress. It could, for instance, extend birthright citizenship to legal permanent residents (consistent with Wong Kim Ark) but exclude, in the future, the children of illegal or temporary residents.

Nobody is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment, or taking away anyone's citizenship. Nor must we amend the Constitution. But Congress needs to clarify the extent of birthright citizenship. It should do so as part of a clear and meaningful policy concerning immigration, naturalization, and citizenship that is consistent with the core principles and highest ideals of the United States.

Read why ending birthright citizenship is a bad idea, by Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington, D.C., think tank. 

Tags:
Constitution,
Congress,
Supreme Court,
immigration reform,
Civil War

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Liberty of WI:

Those immigrants came here legally and passed through Ellis Island and at a time when we needed a larger labor force. That time has passed so we cannot accept as many immigrants as we once had. The problem is illegal immigration, not immigration itself. If they came here legally, paid taxes, and didn't benefit from our taxes it would be fine. We also did not have programs that these immigrants benefited from that cost the taxpayers money. An estimated $100 billion dollars is how much illegal immigrants are costing taxpayers every year, this is a substantial sum seeing our deficit is high as is.

If they want to come here legally, then congratulations to them. If they want to bypass the law and come here illegally then they should have no rights and no benefits.

Devon of MI 4:15PM March 26, 2011

When your parents, grandparents and great grandparents were escaping like rats from Europe in boats and they were immigrants a lot of then indigents and criminals by the way, no one was opposed to the citizenship of their children because they were white an European but now those that do not even know all the issues that cause illegal inmigration are trying to be patriots LOL you guys are pathetic....

because of people like you this country is going to hell...

Liberty of WI 3:23PM March 03, 2011

S. Smith,

Allow me to address your comments more specifically now that I've had a chance to read them again.

When I say "legal" immigrants, what I mean is immigrants in this country on some sort of visa, a 'green card' or whatever. Simply being in this country legally does not make them subject to full U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, their children born in the United States do not qualify for automatic birthright citizenship per the fourteenth amendment. Nor should they.

I make a distinction between immigrants and naturalized U.S. citizens who were once subject to a foreign jurisdiction but are now subject to full U.S. jurisdiction. Perhaps I misread you, but you seem not to make that distinction.

On the question you asked of me whether I would want my family to have to live like our unfortunate immigrants were forced to live in their own countries, you answer it correctly -- no I would not want that for my family. And that's precisely the reason that I wish to preserve (or, re-establish, as it were) the principles of the constitution as written, which is to say in this regard, to exempt the children of immigrants subject to a foreign jurisdiction from eligibility to automatic birthright citizenship.

Terry Morris of OK 5:10PM September 13, 2010

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

What the GOP Should Do if Obamacare Falls

If Obamacare is struck down by the Supreme Court, the Democrats are responsible for proposing another plan.

Barack Obama and George Bush Show Congress How to Act Like Adults

Obama and Bush are capable of acting like adults. Why isn't Congress?

Mitt Romney Should Put Up or Shut Up on Syria

The Republican candidate has proven he doesn't have the foreign policy credentials necessary to be president.

Mitt Romney's Colorado Disconnect

The presumptive GOP nominee seems unwilling or unable to talk about local issues in a swing state he desperately needs to win.

Donald Trump Makes Kim Kardashian Look Good

At least Kim Kardashian doesn't take herself seriously.

The Vietnam War Still Haunts Us

History rhymes once again, thanks so much.

'Transcripters' Make Birthers Look Smart

Now the fringe right wants the president's university grades to prove he wasn't a good student.

Obama Must Do More to Protect the Intellectual Property Industry

The Obama administration needs to protect the industry's creativity and innovation.

advertisement