Birthright citizenship doesn't exist, and never did. The naturalization of foreigners absolutely requires that all foreign allegiances are renounced and that they are not under foreign jurisdiction.
Constitutional text and meaningThe 14th Amendment, Section 1 (ratified 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 is the clear textual basis for jus soli (citizenship by place of birth). The Citizenship Clause was intended to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and secure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes narrow categories: children of foreign diplomats (immune from US law), children born to invading enemy forces during occupation, and (historically debated) certain tribal Indians not taxed. It does not exclude children of legal or illegal immigrants who are domiciled here. The Supreme Court confirmed this in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): A child born in the US to Chinese immigrant parents (who were not US citizens and remained subjects of China) was a US citizen. The Court held that "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the territorial jurisdiction and authority of the US government—i.e., owing it temporary allegiance while within its borders—not full political membership or absence of any foreign nationality claim. This has been the prevailing interpretation for over 125 years.Naturalization vs. birthrightYou are correct on naturalization (for those not born citizens):The Naturalization Act and oath require renouncing "all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty."
Applicants must generally be lawful permanent residents for years, pass civics/history tests, show good moral character, and take the oath.
This is distinct from birthright citizenship. The two are separate tracks in the Constitution ("born or naturalized"). Dual nationality is tolerated in practice today (the US does not force renunciation of foreign citizenship at birth), though the US requires renunciation only of foreign allegiance upon naturalization.Historical contextEnglish common law (which influenced the Framers) recognized birth within the sovereign's domain as creating citizenship, subject to exceptions like diplomats.
The 1866 Civil Rights Act (precursor to the 14th Amendment) used nearly identical language: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."
Debates during ratification focused on freed slaves and Chinese immigrants, not creating a blanket exclusion for children of foreigners.
No Supreme Court case has overturned Wong Kim Ark. Challenges (e.g., to "anchor babies" or illegal immigrants' children) have not succeeded at the highest level. Executive attempts to reinterpret "jurisdiction" via order have been viewed as exceeding presidential power without amendment or legislation.
Trump’s lawyer directly cited the Framers of the 14th Amendment to Justice Kagan arguing that birthright citizenship requires full allegiance to America not any foreign power.
President Trump attended the courtroom hearing. The exchange framed this standard as essential to protecting the value of American citizenship.
“In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.
“Tested by this rule, Wong Kim Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed.”
Temporary sojourners are not to be included in citizenship at birth.
Birthright citizenship doesn't exist, and never did. The naturalization of foreigners absolutely requires that all foreign allegiances are renounced and that they are not under foreign jurisdiction.
Constitutional text and meaningThe 14th Amendment, Section 1 (ratified 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 is the clear textual basis for jus soli (citizenship by place of birth). The Citizenship Clause was intended to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and secure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes narrow categories: children of foreign diplomats (immune from US law), children born to invading enemy forces during occupation, and (historically debated) certain tribal Indians not taxed. It does not exclude children of legal or illegal immigrants who are domiciled here. The Supreme Court confirmed this in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): A child born in the US to Chinese immigrant parents (who were not US citizens and remained subjects of China) was a US citizen. The Court held that "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the territorial jurisdiction and authority of the US government—i.e., owing it temporary allegiance while within its borders—not full political membership or absence of any foreign nationality claim. This has been the prevailing interpretation for over 125 years.Naturalization vs. birthrightYou are correct on naturalization (for those not born citizens):The Naturalization Act and oath require renouncing "all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty." Applicants must generally be lawful permanent residents for years, pass civics/history tests, show good moral character, and take the oath.
This is distinct from birthright citizenship. The two are separate tracks in the Constitution ("born or naturalized"). Dual nationality is tolerated in practice today (the US does not force renunciation of foreign citizenship at birth), though the US requires renunciation only of foreign allegiance upon naturalization.Historical contextEnglish common law (which influenced the Framers) recognized birth within the sovereign's domain as creating citizenship, subject to exceptions like diplomats. The 1866 Civil Rights Act (precursor to the 14th Amendment) used nearly identical language: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." Debates during ratification focused on freed slaves and Chinese immigrants, not creating a blanket exclusion for children of foreigners. No Supreme Court case has overturned Wong Kim Ark. Challenges (e.g., to "anchor babies" or illegal immigrants' children) have not succeeded at the highest level. Executive attempts to reinterpret "jurisdiction" via order have been viewed as exceeding presidential power without amendment or legislation.
TL:DR
The 14th amendment was intended for the sole purpose of giving citizenship to freed and slaves and their children.
Trump’s lawyer directly cited the Framers of the 14th Amendment to Justice Kagan arguing that birthright citizenship requires full allegiance to America not any foreign power. President Trump attended the courtroom hearing. The exchange framed this standard as essential to protecting the value of American citizenship.
SOURCE: https://x.com/GOP_is_Gutless/status/2058980546500321339
Kagan, Sodamyarse and Brown should be removed from the court.
Agree. "Obscure" ? She's corrupt 100%
Yes obscure. I mean:
And it brightly contrasts with her argument: no one uses it that way .....
Just to think that this is a SCOTUS judge ....
this will be a tough case, but it would be going with 1898 Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s dissent, I hope we win
some important points in the fmr. Chief J.’s dissent https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898
“In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.
“Tested by this rule, Wong Kim Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed.”