Immigration Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship

Reads at about grade 6Both sides shown8 sources cited

Birthright citizenship is the rule that almost anyone born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen, no matter their parents' status.

What it is

Birthright citizenship comes from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says people "born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. Put simply, the general rule is that people born here are citizens, with a few narrow exceptions -- one being the children of foreign diplomats. This rule has held for a long time: in 1898, the Supreme Court applied it in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, ruling that he was a citizen. The fight is over five words: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Almost everyone agrees the rule covers most people born here, but some legal scholars disagree about one group -- they say it should not cover children of parents who are here illegally or only for a short time. In 2025, the president issued an executive order (a command from the president) that tried to deny citizenship to those children. Courts blocked it, and in June 2026 the Supreme Court struck the order down, ruling that children of parents "unlawfully or temporarily present" are citizens at birth. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented. Research shows the issue affects many families: about 9% of U.S. births in 2023, or around 320,000 babies, were to mothers who were unauthorized or had temporary status.

How it works

The 14th Amendment was added in 1868, just after the Civil War, partly to overturn the Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court had denied citizenship to Black Americans. The amendment's Citizenship Clause -- the part of the amendment that grants citizenship -- made clear that almost everyone born here belongs here. The debate centers on one phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which can be read two ways. The first reading is about place and law: if you're born here and must obey U.S. laws, you're "subject to the jurisdiction," so a baby born here is a citizen no matter who the parents are, with the only exceptions being children of diplomats or an invading army. The second reading is about allegiance -- loyalty to a country. This reading says "jurisdiction" means full, political loyalty to the United States, not just being here, so under it some children might not qualify, including children whose parents still owe loyalty to another country. For over a century, courts and the government followed the first reading. Then, in 2025, an executive order pushed the second reading, starting a court fight that reached the Supreme Court in 2026. People debate this because it touches deep issues -- identity, fairness, immigration, and the meaning of the Constitution -- and it matters a lot in California, which is home to many immigrant families and is also the birthplace of Wong Kim Ark himself.

The debate — equal weight, both sides

The case for keeping birthright citizenship

Made most often by immigrant-rights and civil-rights groups and many legal scholars — though some conservatives and libertarians also say the text is plain.

The words are simple: if you are born here, you are a citizen. As the ACLU says, "The Constitution's promise of birthright citizenship is plain." The clause names no exception for a parent's immigration status -- scholars note that "the final text of the Citizenship Clause featured no language barring the children of immigrants from citizenship." The authors meant the rule broadly. The Brennan Center writes that it "was always intended to include the children of immigrants, regardless of their parents' legal status." The Supreme Court settled this in 1898 with Wong Kim Ark, and backed the rule again in 2026. Supporters say one clear rule protects everyone and stops the government from creating a permanent underclass of children born on U.S. soil. As the ACLU puts it, the rule reflects "equality, fairness, and the idea that America has no permanent underclasses."

The case for limiting birthright citizenship

Made most often by originalist legal scholars (like John Eastman and the Claremont Institute), the Heritage Foundation, and the Trump administration.

The clause has two parts, not one -- a person must be born here AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Supporters of limits say those extra words must matter: they argue "jurisdiction" means complete, political allegiance (loyalty to a country), more than just being present and obeying laws. They point to history. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, passed just before the amendment, gave citizenship to people "not subject to any foreign power." One originalist writer -- a scholar who reads the Constitution by its original meaning -- says the drafters meant "'complete' jurisdiction ... which excluded from citizenship those born on U.S. soil who were 'subject to a foreign power.'" In their view, a visitor obeys our traffic laws but does not truly owe loyalty to the country. They also say the famous 1898 case doesn't settle the question, arguing Wong Kim Ark's parents lived here legally and for good, so "the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants ... are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship." Justices Alito and Thomas dissented in 2026, arguing citizenship should not extend so broadly.

Sources

Behind the summary

Cited by "The case for keeping birthright citizenship"

Cited by "The case for limiting birthright citizenship"

The two sides appear only when both are sourced, and every explainer is reviewed by a person before it goes live. We summarize what each side argues; we never tell you how to vote.