You've probably heard the term tossed around during heated political debates or seen it splashed across news tickers during election cycles. It sounds simple enough. If you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Period. But honestly, the reality of birthright citizenship in the US is tucked away in a single sentence of the 14th Amendment that has survived over 150 years of legal challenges, supreme court showdowns, and massive cultural shifts.
It’s the bedrock of American identity.
Most people think it’s just a "given." They assume it’s how things have always been since 1776. That’s actually not true. For a long time, who counted as a "citizen" was a messy, exclusionary, and often violent legal grey area. Understanding how we got to the current standard requires looking at some of the darkest and most pivotal moments in American history.
The 14th Amendment is the Heart of the Matter
The actual text that defines birthright citizenship in the US is the Citizenship Clause. It says: "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 just twenty-eight words.
Those words were ratified in 1868. This wasn't some casual administrative update. It was a direct response to the Civil War and the horrific 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. In that case, the Supreme Court basically said that Black people—whether enslaved or free—could never be citizens. The 14th Amendment was designed to kill that ideology forever. It guaranteed that formerly enslaved people were full participants in the American project by virtue of their birth on this soil.
But here is where it gets interesting. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has become the focal point of basically every modern legal argument.
Does it mean everyone? Does it exclude children of tourists? What about people who crossed the border without a visa?
💡 You might also like: Daniel Blank New Castle PA: The Tragic Story and the Name Confusion
Legal scholars like Garrett Epps have pointed out that at the time of the drafting, the authors were quite explicit. They wanted a broad rule. They wanted to move away from the "bloodline" citizenship common in Europe (jus sanguinis) and stick to the "soil" citizenship (jus soli) inherited from English common law. It was about creating a definitive, unshakeable status that the government couldn't just revoke because they didn't like your parents.
That One Case from 1898 You Need to Know
If you want to understand why birthright citizenship in the US applies to children of non-citizens, you have to talk about Wong Kim Ark.
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873. His parents were Chinese immigrants who were legally living in the US but were actually barred from ever becoming naturalized citizens due to the racist Chinese Exclusion Acts of that era. Wong traveled to China to visit and, upon his return, was denied entry. The government claimed he wasn't a citizen because his parents weren't citizens.
He sued. It went all the way to the top.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court dropped a hammer. They ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to almost everyone born on US soil, regardless of their parents' status. The only real exceptions were children of foreign diplomats (who have immunity) or children of invading enemy armies.
This case is the reason why, today, if a person is born in a hospital in Des Moines or a clinic in El Paso, they are an American. It doesn't matter if their parents are on a work visa, a tourist visa, or have no papers at all. The soil creates the citizen.
Common Myths and "Birth Tourism"
You'll often hear critics use the term "anchor babies." It’s a loaded, controversial phrase.
📖 Related: Clayton County News: What Most People Get Wrong About the Gateway to the World
The idea is that people come to the US specifically to have a baby so they can stay. In reality, having a citizen child doesn't give a parent immediate legal status. A child can’t petition for their parent to get a green card until that child turns 21. That is a very long game to play if the only goal is immigration status.
Then there's the "birth tourism" industry.
This is a real thing, though often exaggerated in scale. Some wealthy individuals from countries like Russia or China pay tens of thousands of dollars to stay in "maternity hotels" in California or Florida. They want their kids to have a US passport for the travel perks and educational opportunities later in life. While the government has cracked down on the businesses that facilitate this through visa fraud investigations, the citizenship of the children themselves remains protected by the 14th Amendment.
Can a President End It With an Executive Order?
This comes up every few years. A politician will claim they can end birthright citizenship in the US with a stroke of a pen.
Can they? Most constitutional experts say: No. Absolutely not.
Because birthright citizenship is written into the Constitution, it generally requires a Constitutional Amendment to change. That’s a massive undertaking. You need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, plus ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Some conservative legal theorists, like John Eastman, have argued that "subject to the jurisdiction" implies a requirement of political allegiance that undocumented immigrants can't provide. But that's a minority view. Most of the legal establishment—including late conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia—viewed the 14th Amendment's protection as pretty much ironclad for anyone born within the geographic boundaries of the United States.
👉 See also: Charlie Kirk Shooting Investigation: What Really Happened at UVU
The Nuance of US Territories
Here is a weird quirk that most people don't realize.
If you are born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana Islands, you are a US citizen at birth because of laws passed by Congress. But if you are born in American Samoa? You are a "US National," not a citizen.
People born in American Samoa have US passports and can live and work in the 50 states freely, but they can't vote in federal elections or hold certain government jobs unless they go through a naturalization process. This has been challenged in court multiple times, most recently in Fitisemanu v. United States. Interestingly, many local Samoan leaders actually fought against birthright citizenship because they worried it would interfere with traditional land ownership laws (Fa'a Samoa).
It shows that birthright citizenship in the US isn't just a dry legal rule; it’s something that interacts with culture and local autonomy in ways we don't always expect.
What This Means for the Future
The debate isn't going away. As long as immigration remains a top-tier political issue, the 14th Amendment will be a target.
However, the "soil" principle is one of the few things that keeps the US system functioning without a permanent underclass of non-citizens. In many European countries, you can have families living in a country for three generations and still not be considered citizens of that nation. The US system, for all its flaws, forces integration by ensuring the next generation starts on equal legal footing.
If you are looking at how this affects you or someone you know, keep these things in mind:
- Birth certificates are the primary evidence. A standard state-issued birth certificate is usually all that's needed to prove citizenship for a passport or job.
- Parents' status is irrelevant. For the purpose of the child's citizenship, the legality of the parents' entry into the US does not change the 14th Amendment's application.
- Double-check the exceptions. Remember, children of foreign diplomats on official business are one of the few groups born on US soil who do not automatically get citizenship.
- Keep an eye on the courts. While an executive order likely can't end birthright citizenship, a future Supreme Court could theoretically re-interpret those "28 words," though it would mean overturning over a century of precedent.
Actionable Next Steps
If you are navigating the complexities of citizenship or helping someone else do so, don't rely on political rhetoric.
- Secure the Long-Form Birth Certificate: If there is any question about birthright status, ensure you have the "long-form" version from the state’s vital records office. This contains the necessary details that sometimes the "short-form" abstracts lack.
- Apply for a US Passport Early: A passport is the ultimate "proof" of citizenship. Obtaining one for a child early on creates a federal record that is much harder to dispute later than a simple hospital record.
- Consult a Member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): If there are unique circumstances—like being born to a diplomat or in a specific territory—only a specialized attorney can navigate the USCIS Policy Manual.
- Stay Informed on Legislative Shifts: Follow non-partisan sources like the American Immigration Council to see if any new "clarification" acts are being introduced in Congress that might affect how citizenship is documented.
Understanding birthright citizenship in the US is about more than just knowing a law. It's about knowing the fundamental promise of the American legal system: that where you start doesn't define who you are. The soil you're born on gives you a seat at the table, regardless of where your parents came from or how they got here.