Born in the U.S.A.: Protecting the right of birthright citizenship

Born in the U.S.A.: Protecting the Right of Birthright Citizenship

Born in the U S - Birthright citizenship, a foundational principle of American law, is defined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The 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." This clause guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, according to Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

Frost emphasizes that the citizenship clause is clear and unambiguous, applying to all individuals born in the country except for specific exceptions. These include children of diplomats and those of foreign soldiers in an occupying military force, she notes. For the majority of cases, including children of undocumented immigrants, birthright citizenship is a birthright, not contingent on the legal status of their parents.

Poll Reveals Divided Public Opinion

A Pew Research Center survey highlights a stark divide among Americans regarding the granting of citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. The poll found that 50% of respondents support automatic citizenship for such children, while 49% oppose it. This split underscores the ongoing debate about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment in modern times.

Trump's Executive Order Challenges Birthright Citizenship

President Trump’s 2025 executive order redefined the understanding of the 14th Amendment, asserting that it does not universally grant citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. The order aimed to revoke citizenship for the majority of children born to parents who are here illegally or temporarily, affecting approximately 250,000 children annually. Despite initial legal challenges, the policy remains under review by the Supreme Court.

Historical Roots and Legal Controversies

The roots of birthright citizenship trace back to the 19th century, when the Supreme Court made a controversial decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. In 1857, the court ruled that no Black person, enslaved or free, could be considered a U.S. citizen. "Chief Justice Taney claimed, 'If you don't like it, you can amend the Constitution,'” Frost recalls. This ruling set the stage for the 14th Amendment, which sought to correct that injustice.

Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress passed the 14th Amendment in 1868 to affirm the citizenship of four million formerly enslaved individuals. At the same time, the amendment acknowledged the growing number of immigrants and their children, ensuring that future generations would also be granted citizenship. However, this clarity was later contested in Wong Kim Ark v. United States.

The Legacy of Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese-American born in San Francisco, faced denial of reentry to the U.S. after visiting China. He contested the decision, arguing his rights as an American citizen. "Wong wasn’t rich or famous. He had no extraordinary talents, but he stood up for his birthright," says Norman Wong, his descendant. The court’s 1898 ruling in his favor cemented the principle that birthright citizenship applies to all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents’ origins.

Modern Interpretations and Scholarly Debate

Rogers Smith, a political scientist, argues that the 14th Amendment’s wording is brief and leaves room for interpretation. "The clause didn’t resolve all modern concerns, like the citizenship status of children born to unauthorized aliens," he explains. This ambiguity has been exploited by those seeking to limit birthright citizenship, with Smith’s 1985 book cited in discussions about the issue.

Smith believes Congress, not the courts, should determine the boundaries of birthright citizenship. "For over half a century, Congress has pushed decisions onto the judiciary," he states. "That’s not the role the Constitution intended for them." Yet, despite his scholarly contributions, Smith expresses concern that his work is now used to justify policies he opposes. "It’s heartbreaking to see my research cited by those who want to restrict birthright citizenship," he admits in a

"It did become an argument that has been used by people who are virulently anti-immigrant and often making the case with derogatory stereotypes."