You might think birthright citizenship—the idea that if you’re born on U.S. soil, you’re a citizen—is a modern legal loophole. It’s not. It’s actually older than the United States itself. Honestly, most people arguing about this on social media are missing the massive, centuries-old legal foundation that keeps this rule in place. It didn't just pop up during a random court case in the nineties.
It’s deep. It’s messy. It’s very British.
If you’ve ever wondered where does birthright citizenship come from, you have to look past the Constitution for a second and look at "jus soli." That’s Latin for "right of the soil." It’s an ancient concept. Basically, if you were born within the "dominion" of a King, you owed that King your loyalty, and in exchange, he gave you protection. You were a "natural-born subject." When the American colonies broke away, we kept a lot of that old English Common Law, but we swapped the word "subject" for "citizen."
The 14th Amendment changed everything (kinda)
Before 1868, the rules were a total disaster. The Supreme Court actually issued one of its most shameful decisions in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), basically saying that Black people—whether enslaved or free—couldn't be citizens. It was a dark, horrific era for American law. After the Civil War, the country had to fix that. Fast.
The result was the 14th Amendment.
The very first sentence 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."
✨ Don't miss: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
That’s the "Big Bang" moment for birthright citizenship in America. Senator Jacob Howard, who helped draft it, was pretty clear that he wanted to settle the question of who belongs once and for all. But even then, there was a catch. He mentioned it wouldn't apply to people serving foreign diplomats or "Indians not taxed." This "jurisdiction" phrase is what people fight about today. Does it mean you just have to follow the laws, or do you have to owe total political allegiance?
Most legal scholars say it's the former.
The case that sealed the deal: Wong Kim Ark
If you want to know where does birthright citizenship come from in a practical, "this is how it works today" sense, you have to talk about United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. His parents were Chinese immigrants who were legally living in the U.S. but weren't allowed to become citizens themselves because of the Chinese Exclusion Act—a pretty racist law from that era. Wong took a trip to China, and when he tried to come back home to California, the government blocked him. They said, "Hey, your parents are subjects of the Emperor of China, so you are too."
Wong sued.
🔗 Read more: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
The Supreme Court sided with him. They ruled that the 14th Amendment meant exactly what it said. If you are born here, and you aren't a foreign diplomat or part of an invading army, you are a citizen. Period. That 1898 ruling is the bedrock. Without it, the "right of the soil" might have been restricted only to specific groups. Wong Kim Ark basically saved the concept for everyone else.
Why does this keep coming up in politics?
Politicians love to talk about executive orders to "end" birthright citizenship. You've heard it a million times. But here is the thing: the Constitution is generally a "higher power" than the President’s pen. Since the Supreme Court has already interpreted the 14th Amendment to include the children of non-citizens, most experts like Laurence Tribe or the late Antonin Scalia (who were on totally different ends of the political spectrum) have agreed that you’d need a new Constitutional Amendment to change it.
That is incredibly hard to do. You need two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states to agree. In today’s climate? Good luck.
There are some outliers, though. Professor John Eastman has argued that "subject to the jurisdiction" implies a more formal political tie. He thinks the 14th Amendment was never meant to cover children of people who are in the country illegally. But he is in a very small minority. Most judges look at the 1898 precedent and say, "Nope, the soil is what matters."
It’s actually pretty rare globally
We tend to think the whole world works this way. It doesn't.
💡 You might also like: Casey Ramirez: The Small Town Benefactor Who Smuggled 400 Pounds of Cocaine
If you're born in France to non-French parents, you don't automatically get a passport at birth. You usually have to wait until you're older and meet residency requirements. The U.K. actually got rid of "unrestricted" birthright citizenship in 1983. Now, at least one parent has to be a citizen or a legal resident.
The U.S. and Canada are actually the "odd ones out" among developed nations. Most of the countries that still have "jus soli" are in the Western Hemisphere—places that were originally colonies and wanted to encourage immigration to fill up their land. It was a growth strategy.
- Canada: Automatic citizenship for almost everyone born there.
- Mexico: Similar rules to the U.S.
- Brazil: Very strong birthright protections.
- Germany: Requires at least one parent to have lived there for 8 years.
The "Anchor Baby" myth vs. Reality
You’ve probably heard the term "anchor baby." It’s a pretty loaded phrase used to suggest people come here just to have kids and stay. But the legal reality is way more complicated. A child born in the U.S. can’t sponsor their parents for a green card until that child turns 21. That’s a 21-year wait. Being the parent of a U.S. citizen doesn’t give you a "get out of deportation free" card, either. Immigration judges can—and do—deport parents of U.S. citizen children all the time.
It's a brutal system.
Actionable steps for understanding your status
If you are trying to navigate the complexities of birthright citizenship for your own family or just want to be better informed, here is what actually matters:
- Check the birth certificate. In the U.S., a hospital-issued birth certificate is the primary evidence. If you were born at home, you need contemporaneous records (like doctor's notes or baptismal records) to get a delayed birth certificate.
- Understand the "Diplomat Exception." If you were born in the U.S. to parents who were here on "blue list" diplomatic visas, you actually might not be a citizen. This is one of the very few exceptions to the 14th Amendment. You'd likely be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth instead.
- Look into the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. This is for kids born abroad but adopted by U.S. citizens. They don't get "birthright" citizenship (because they weren't born on the soil), but they often get automatic citizenship the moment they enter the U.S. as legal residents.
- Consult a Member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). If you have a weird edge case—like being born in a U.S. territory like American Samoa (where people are "U.S. Nationals" but not automatically citizens)—you need an actual lawyer, not a blog post.
Birthright citizenship is one of the most powerful legal concepts in the world. It’s what makes the U.S. "identity" different from countries defined by "blood and soil" (jus sanguinis). It basically says that being American isn't about who your grandparents were; it's about where you started your journey. Whether that stays the law for the next hundred years depends on the Supreme Court, but for now, the 14th Amendment stands as a nearly immovable wall.