The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Original Meaning of Birthright Citizenship
Problems ahead for the Trump administration
The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy has just published a symposium issue on the birthright citizenship debate. The focus of those contributions is on the original meaning of birthright citizenship in the United States and in the Fourteenth Amendment. Contributors include Ilan Wurman, Gerard Magliocca, and me. I am grateful to the heroic efforts of the editors at the journal for getting this issue ready and out in such a timely manner.
My piece -- By Birth Alone: The Original Meaning of Birthright Citizenship and Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States -- focuses on the content, scope, and qualifications of the common law rule of birthright citizenship as it developed in England and was carried into the United States and eventually embodied in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, it reaffirms the traditional view that birthright citizenship would extend to children of unauthorized aliens born in the United States and critiques revisionist theories old (Eastman) and new (Wurman, Lash).
From the introduction to the paper:
The conventional wisdom is right, and the Executive Order is wrong. Children born within the territory of the United States are natural-born citizens except under very narrow exceptions. Those historically recognized exceptions do not include the case of unauthorized aliens, and there is nothing about the logic of those exceptions that make them analogous to the modern situation of unauthorized aliens.
This Article reinforces the traditional view of the narrow exceptions to birthright citizenship by reconsidering the common law and statutory precursors that the constitutional language of the Fourteenth Amendment was understood to recognize and entrench. In particular, it pushes back against the new, revisionist view that alien parents must owe a robust form of allegiance to the United States and be members of the polity in order for their infants born within the United States to receive the benefit of birthright citizenship. This is a misreading—and indeed a reversal—of the common law rule that the Fourteenth Amendment embodies.
You can read the whole thing here.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump's executive order excluding birthright citizenship to children of unauthorized aliens and temporary visitors on April 1.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Only a lawyer can keep a straight face while arguing that, "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.", means something other than 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 explains both why lawyers are held in low regard and why a country largely governed by lawyers is screwed up.
What do you think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means?
If a tourist in the US commits a crime, do you think he can't be arrested for that?
"If a tourist in the US commits a crime"
That's not even the correct question to ask, in my opinion. The question is about jurisdiction with respect to the people born here, not their parents. Unless there is some legal principle by which the child is not subject to the jurisdiction, whether or not the parent is should not enter into answering the question. In the memory of just about everyone alive, the only people actually born in the US who were legally not then under US jurisdiction would be children of diplomats and the like.
Your diplomat example shows that the determination that the child is not subject to the jurisdiction was based on the parent's status. Ditto for invading armies.
No, it shows that "there is some legal principle by which the child is not subject to the jurisdiction."
What legal principle? The child is not a diplomat nor a member of an invading army.
But the connection between the parent and child is not due to the 14th Amendment. It is due to a law that grants immunity to families of diplomats immunity. If that law was revoked, going forward the children of diplomats born here would be natural-born citizens.
The invading army part is self-enacting. The US has no control over what goes on behind enemy lines and is not running a legal system there. But.... if there was some "invasion" in which the US courts still functioned and the laws were still enforceable on the child, then the child is a citizen.
Which is why the tactic of calling illegal immigration an "invasion" would not be enough even if conceded. The clause does not say "except in invasion", it says "subject to the jurisdiction". An invasion is irrelevant unless it effectively cuts off jurisdiction.
Fair point on diplomats, but I guess if the law provided immunity to the parent but not the child, you would then argue the child is a 14th citizen at birth. I'm not sure that would be the case.
As to invading armies, wouldn't your argument lead us to conclude the child of US citizen parents born within the USA in an area where US courts aren't functioning is not a 14th citizen at birth? That seems wrong to me.
"the child of US citizen parents born within the USA in an area where US courts aren't functioning is not a 14th citizen at birth"
Right wrong or indifferent, children born of American citizens outside the jurisdiction of the US are American citizens by birth. Consider our Canadian senator Rafael (who calls himsef "Ted") Cruz. Almost as if there is a clearly established legal principle.
They are citizens by statute. Is the child in my hypo a 14A citizen?
And yet, here's what Justice Story wrote, albeit in dicta:
In other words, if children are born in occupied territory and then the original sovereign retakes the land, we retroactively credit the children with having been born under the original sovereign — but if the occupation becomes permanent, then the children would not be citizens of the original sovereign.
"But.... if there was some "invasion" in which the US courts still functioned and the laws were still enforceable on the child, then the child is a citizen."
I don't think this is correct. IIUC at common law invading armies were not subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign as a matter of law. I suppose you could argue that it is no longer the case that children of invading forces are not citizens because more modern precedent allows invaders to be tried for war crimes. Hopefully we'll never have occasion to find out.
Like it or not, a newborn in the United States is as much subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as the newborn's parents.
Certainly. But can he be drafted? Must he file federal income tax returns? Must the baby, long after returning to his home country, and never to return here, register for the Selective Service, or file U.S. tax returns throughout his life; if he were to fight for his country against the U.S., is he committing treason?
The truth is, that the father, and the baby, are subject to US jurisdiction for some purposes, but not others, while present here. A US citizen is subject to U.S. jurisdiction for all purposes, wherever he may be.
I'm not entirely sure who the "he" is in your question. If you mean the aforementioned tourist, he can indeed be drafted while he's subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which he is as long as he's here. (Whether it would make sense to do so is another question, and in any case since we don't have a draft it's moot.) And he must pay income taxes if he earns income in the U.S., subject of course to any tax treaties between his home country and the U.S.
The tourist's baby, born here, is a citizen of the U.S. (and thus this is his "home country,") and thus must register for the Selective Service and file taxes just like every other U.S. citizen, regardless of where he is residing. And yes, if he fought for another country against the U.S. (without having renounced his U.S. citizenship) he would indeed be guilty of treason.
I would be surprised that a French married couple visiting Disney World, wife goes into premature labor in Orlando, soon go back to France with the kid, never to return….would be surprised that they think their kid isn’t a French citizen, has to register under Selective Service, pay US taxes, etc.
Well, that's the case.
I didn't say that their kid isn't a French citizen; whether that's the case is a question of French law. I said that their kid is an American citizen.
Obviously, if the kid never comes back to the U.S. and doesn't have assets in the U.S., the U.S. isn't going to send troops to France (well, that was obvious pre-Trump; not sure it still is) to seize the kid's assets and/or punish him for not complying with his obligations as a U.S. citizen.
It was a statutory choice to have the parent not register for Selective Service or declare overseas income. Congress making those choices does not make the parent no longer subject to the jurisdiction.
I’m sorry, which statutory choice? Could (supposedly) Congress make the opposite statutory choice?
The question should be: "What is the original public meaning of the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'."
Sort of like the second amendment?
The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy has just published a symposium issue on the birthright citizenship debate.
There is no debate. American constitutional scholars should stop acting as if there's a debate about something just because someone like Josh or the non-VC Ilya has written some BS that fits with their ideological priors. Just ignore them. The Supreme Court will do what it will, but that doesn't mean academia has to humour them.
I like to think they'll uphold long understanding tradition against upstart motivated interlopers. ("Conservative" principle, for those who bother to keep such score anymore.)
Regarding the Supreme Court, here's an opinion nobody will like, so what, I usually stand alone: it's one thing for the SC to give the president relief from innumerable prosecutions and indefinite-by-intent delays by injunction, in the context of the other side balls out against a political opponent on all of that over 10 years, and flipping concepts of freedom that made this country great because they're in your way at the moment.
It's some principle everyone can be proud of. Or should be.
American constitutional scholars should stop acting as if there's a debate about something just because someone like Josh or the non-VC Ilya has written some BS that fits with their ideological priors. Just ignore them.
I agree. These warring blog posts over BS are tedious, repetitive, pettifoggery.
I guess it beats actually teaching classes, though. Meanwhile, tuition rises while the people getting paid are off writing blogs and going to conventions to talk to each other.
"humour"
Europoor spelling detected; opinion disregarded.
At some point, one stops arguing with the legal equivalent of flat-earthers.
That was my first thought, but I think the audience for this is specifically 9 people, of whom only 2 are flat-earthers, though another 3 might be flat-earth curious.
Good point.
Those people will not vote to uphold the constitution just because some never-Trumper wrote something on a blog or in an academic journal.
He should lose on statutory grounds either way.
I actually agree with you on this point, and it is the easy way for the Court to dispose of the case without delving into the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". I believe Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment leaves this issue to Congress, not the President.
If the Supreme Court simply rules — a John Roberts minimalism special — that it need not decide what the 14th amendment means because the president has no authority to issue any rules relating to citizenship, and thus the EO is void, that will satisfy pretty much exactly nobody. Especially with the inevitable 4 different concurrences opining on the constitutional question.
that will satisfy pretty much exactly nobody
It would suffice for the time being. And I can't help but feel joy at any ruling including the words "the president has no authority to...".
In order for the president to have no authority, SCOTUS would have to hold that the clause is not self executing. If instead it was self executing, SCOTUS gets to define what it means and any EO consistent with that definition would be enforcebale.
But if the clause was not self executing, then Congress could define "subject to the jurisdiction" as it sees fit with no restraint from the judiciary. That may be hard for SCOTUS to swallow.
I don't know if I would phrase it that way.
One article summarizes:
But Executive Order 14160 also violates constitutional separation of powers, insofar as it directly flouts a clear 1952 congressional statute without any statutory authorization or independent constitutional basis for executive authority.
https://verdict.justia.com/2026/02/11/why-the-1952-immigration-and-nationality-act-requires-the-supreme-court-to-invalidate-president-trumps-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-in-any-event
That is not in any way inconsistent with what I wrote, and I don't disagree with it. I just don't think it's good enough. A ruling, "The 1952 statute grants birthright citizenship, and so Trump's EO, which contradicts it, is void" doesn't really resolve the controversy; it just kicks the can a short way down the road. It will just induce MAGA to spend the next few years trying to rewrite that law, and giving them something to run against Democrats on. I have no faith that said law wouldn't be amended by the cult. And if it were, then it would just go back to SCOTUS to rule on whether the new law violated the 14th amendment.
Now I get how SCOTUS could so rule without mentioning 14A citizenship (so my post above would not apply). If they did, I think it would be a tall order to get it amended. The can may be kicked far down the road.
The English idea of "birthright citizenship" (a phrase that first occurs in 1982, per Google Book search), that one born in the King's realms was forever a subject of the King, was not "carried" into the United States. The American Revolution, rather pointedly and obviously, rejected it.
What Whittington describes as today's "conventional wisdom", is, in fact, the "revisionist view". The original understanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was subject to the complete jurisdiction, that is, not owing any allegiance to a foreign power. That was the understanding of both the majority and the dissenters in the Slaughter-house Cases (1873), as well as Attorney General George Henry Williams, who had been a Senator during the debate and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, as set forth in an official opinion in 1873.
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (majority opinion).
Id. at 91 (Field, J., dissenting) (footnotes omitted).
Expatriation-Foreign Domicile-Citizenship, 14 Op. Atty-Gen. 296, 300 (1873).
Five years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, were all nine members of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General "revisionists"?
The modern conception of "birthright citizenship" - today's "conventional wisdom" - does not begin to take shape until United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). I believe that case was wrongly decided, but even accepting it, today's advocates of birthright citizenship go way beyond anything that case said. If anything, Wong Kim Ark/i> merely stands for the proposition that the children of permanent residents are citizens, not the children of alien sojourners just passing through, much less the children of aliens with no legal authority to be here at all.
Of course, that explains the long line of cases in the years following the enactment of the 14th Amendment in which people born in the United States were denied the rights of citizenship because of the legal status of their parents at the times of their births.
Scotus has avoid the issue for over a century. Now it has to rule.
Not surprisingly, you miss the point entirely. Your brain has a high specific gravity.
"(a phrase that first occurs in 1982, per Google Book search)"
It became much more common then, but was certainly used in the 1800's.
Except it was. Chief Justice Robert Taney shredding the common law to serve his slavery agenda notwithstanding. (Similar to how Dobbs put right what Roe distorted.) The 14th Amendment restored that common law understanding we inherited, "subject to the jurisdiction therefore" being the operative term of art to distinguish diplomats,foreign combatants, and American Indian tribes.
Because there is no coherent way for it to make the freed slaves and their children citizens but not others also born here. Your alternate theory would exclude citizenship for any child born to a freed slave who had been illegally imported.
The only possible way would be for Congress to attempt to change the meaning of jurisdiction via statute. Which is not what happened here.
So, the kids can stay.
The parents are still illegal. Boot them out. They can take the kids with them, or not.
That is the practical consequence. I don't know of anyone who denies it.
That is the legal consequence. No one, AFAIK, has tried to implement it.
Don't worry. I'm sure ICE and the xenophobes will be on it soon.
Right now they are too busy shooting people and making up lies about it.
It's funny hearing people argue for precisely following the law here (birthright citizenship) while denying that ICE is also just following the law by attempting to apprehend and deport illegal aliens.
The law doesn't care about anyone's feelings.
It's funny hearing people responding to ICE pepper spraying American citizens or shooting them in the head by attempting to claim they were just following the law by apprehending and deporting illegal aliens.
Whether "attempting to apprehend and deport illegal aliens" is following the law depends on the methods used.
When those methods are illegal - murder, kidnapping, repeated violations of court orders, unlawful detention, etc. then "attempting to apprehend and deport illegal aliens" is breaking the law.
Getting cash from an ATM is legal or not, depending on the method used.
Yep.
This is a very easy case. In 1868 it is undisputed that the children of all immigrants were citizens. Illegal immigration was not a legal concept yet in the US. Congress does not have the ability to create a subclass of people and then deny them Constitutional rights they already had.
I agree the question is not one Congress has any power to decide, but on different grounds.
In antebellum times, states denied entry to certain people.
Some states, e.g., denied entry to black people or black people who did not supply a security payment. Or those with certain diseases or who were determined to be public charges.
I would not say there was no such thing as "illegal" immigration. The 13th and 14th Amendments did change what governments could do.
"Admittedly, there is no specific intention on the part of the Reconstruction Congress to extend citizenship to the children of unauthorized aliens." -- The rest is just political opinion.
Is it then also your position that the 14th Amendment excludes the children of automobiles or internet users? It’s pretty clear that there was no specific intention on the part of the Reconstruction Congress to extend citizenship to the children of automobile or internet users. So it doesn’t extend to them, right? Or is the question of whether it does or not a matter of political opinion that the clause doesn’t cover and Congress gets to decide?
The 14A does not give special rights to automobile owners. Whittington's main argument is how English common law would obligate kings. How that might apply to illegal aliens is all speculation.
There's nothing special about kings here. Unless you don't really understand what the common law is, or that we continued to use it as our default legal system.
There was no such thing as an unauthorized alien in 1868. There is also no specific intention on the part of the Reconstruction Congress to extend citizenship to children from IVF.
Can somebody explain to me why Confederates and their descendants were and are considered citizens and permitted to vote under this theory? If there’s anybody who doesn’t have even a weak allegiance to the Umited States, let alone strong allegiance, it’s Confederates. Yet even children born during the Confederacy, wholly outside “strong” US jurisdiction, were accepted as citizens under the 14th Anendment. How can a “strong allegiance” theory, or indeed any theory that conditions citizenship on parents’ allegiance, be reconciled with the fact that the 14th Amendment wasn’t regarded as stripping their citizenship?
After the Civil War, there was no Confederacy. Where else would they be citizens?
The legal non-existence of the Confederacy, at any time (as Lincoln always insisted), not just after the war, does not change the fact that insurrectionists took up arms against the United States committing treason.
Where would the children of illegal aliens be citizens of? (And no, you don't get to say, "their parents' countries," because that is a question of the law of those countries, not U.S. law.)
Too expensive to execute them all.
Well, starting during the war, but I believe continuing after, disloyal persons could regain their full civil rights by swearing a new oath of allegiance. Oaths back then were a pretty big deal. It's why some people remain crazy mad at Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause apologists notwithstanding--cue them possibly coming out of the woodwork now to object to this.
Well, if you want a wild ass IANAL theory:
When Texas was admitted to the union in 1845, citizens of Texas became US citizens. Likewise for the original colonies.
Similarly we could say children born under the Confederacy were *not* US citizens at birth, but they were citizens of (say) Virginia. Then Virginia was readmitted to the union, and all its citizens became US citizens at that time.
Also, they would count as natural born, just like George Washington counted as natural born the first time Virginia got admitted to the union, after he was born.
Less than a month after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868, which said that people could renounce their citizenship.
This would indicate that as a matter of original intent, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." isn't an exhaustive list of who are citizens of the United States, and Congress has at least some say in the matter.
Of course, Congress has affirmed that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens, and there's no persuasive argument that that can be changed with an executive order.
If, as so many above seem to think, the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction of" is a superfluity, then did the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law, mean that the 15th and 19th Amendments were also superfluities? Does that mean the Indian Citizen Act of 1924 was also a superfluity? Did Indians only suddenly become "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" in 1924? (Wounded Knee was 1890.)
This is not as simple a question as many here hold it to be, and certainly not a case where -- as suggested above -- questioning the prevailing sentiment makes one the equivalent of being a flat-Earther.
The fact that the population of people not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is narrower than some people would like it to be does not render the clause superfluous, it just means that the Citizenship Clause is broader than those people would like it to be.
Nobody thinks it's a superfluity. This is a bizarre nonlogic common to the xenophobes; I can't count the number of times I've had the exchange in which the xenophobes triumphantly point to the language as proving that not everyone born here is a citizen, and then somehow concluding that if one doesn't agree with their broad interpretation of it one must be saying that it doesn't mean anything at all.
To be clear: the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S' excludes the children of diplomats, invading armies, and — at the time — Indians from recognized sovereign tribes. It did not, and does not, exclude the children born here of illegal aliens because the children born here of illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Scotus has yet to rule on that.
No, it actually has.
English law has nothing to do with a amendment written specifically to address former slaves. Understand that Reason was originally funded by an open borders advocate.
Tell me you don't understand the common law, without telling me you don't understand the common law.
The amendment says nothing whatsoever about former slaves. Weird if that's the only thing the amendment was there for.
Next symposium idea: “How High are the Ice Walls that Surround Our Flat Earth?”