Tag: citizenship

Posted on

U.S. Birthrights Citizenship

Wayne Thorn

This topic has become a heated debate in our country, particularly concerning the birthright citizenship of children born to undocumented immigrants. Many people argue that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, often overlooking the crucial phrase in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.“

The key controversy lies in the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.“ This was a central point of discussion during the drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1866.

In this article, we will explore what the framers of the amendment intended during the debates on this topic and how it has shaped modern interpretations of citizenship.

Historical Debate documents

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Birthright Citizenship

The debate surrounding Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is one of the most significant in U.S. constitutional history. This section, known as the cornerstone of the Reconstruction Amendments, has sparked debates over citizenship, equal protection, due process, and the limits of federal and state power. Below is an overview of key areas of contention and interpretation:

1. Birthright Citizenship

  • Proponents:
    Supporters of birthright citizenship argue that it is essential to uphold the idea that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ status, is a citizen. This interpretation emphasizes inclusion and ensures that no one is left stateless. This principle was primarily aimed at granting citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants following the Civil War.
  • Opponents:
    Critics often argue that birthright citizenship should exclude children of undocumented immigrants or non-citizens. They claim that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to individuals who owe allegiance to another nation. This debate continues today, particularly regarding immigration policy.

Debate over birthright citizenship

The debate over birthright citizenship in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was a key point of discussion during the drafting and ratification of the amendment in 1866. This issue revolved around the meaning of the phrase “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and whether it granted citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, particularly Native Americans, children of foreign nationals, and freed slaves. Below is a detailed account of the Congressional debates surrounding this issue.

Key Participants in the Debate

  • Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI): A strong advocate for birthright citizenship who introduced the citizenship clause and supported its broad application.
  • Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL): Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who clarified the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
  • Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA): A critic who raised concerns about granting citizenship to children of foreigners, especially non-white immigrants.

1. Clarifying “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof”

One of the most contentious points was the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

  • Proponents’ View (Howard and Trumbull):
     Howard clarified that the clause was intended to ensure that all individuals born in the U.S. who owe allegiance to the country are citizens. This explicitly included:
    • Freed slaves.
    • Children of foreigners who were lawfully residing in the U.S.
      Trumbull elaborated that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant subject to U.S. laws, thus excluding certain groups, such as:
    • Diplomats and their children (as they were under the jurisdiction of their home countries).
    • Members of sovereign Native American tribes, as they were under tribal governance and not fully subject to U.S. laws.
  • Opponents’ Concerns (Cowan):
     Cowan objected, fearing that birthright citizenship would lead to an influx of immigrants—particularly Chinese laborers and Gypsies (a term used at the time)—whose children would automatically become citizens. He argued that this could dilute American identity and overwhelm local communities.

2. Freed Slaves and Racial Equality

  • Focus on African Americans:
     A primary motivation behind the citizenship clause was to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which held that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could never be U.S. citizens. The framers of the amendment wanted to guarantee that all freed slaves and their descendants would have citizenship, thereby securing their civil rights.
  • Racial Prejudice in Opposition:
     Critics like Cowan raised objections rooted in racial and cultural bias, arguing that extending citizenship to all children born in the U.S., regardless of parentage, could lead to societal disruption. This concern was particularly directed at non-European immigrant groups.

3. Concerns About Foreign Nationals

  • Opposition from Cowan and Others:
     Cowan argued that it was unjust to grant citizenship to the children of foreign nationals, especially those who might not fully integrate into American society. He raised concerns about Chinese laborers on the West Coast and other immigrant communities, portraying them as transient populations without allegiance to the U.S.
  • Proponents’ Counterarguments:
     Supporters like Trumbull rebutted these concerns, stating that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws was inherently part of the nation’s social and legal fabric. They emphasized that allegiance was demonstrated through residency and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, not by the nationality of one’s parents.

4. Native Americans

  • Exclusion from Citizenship:
     The drafters explicitly excluded most Native Americans because they were considered members of sovereign nations and not fully subject to U.S. laws. Howard and Trumbull argued that Native Americans who remained under tribal jurisdiction were outside the scope of the amendment.
    This exclusion was later addressed by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.

5. The Outcome and Adoption

  • Strong Support for Inclusivity:
     Despite opposition, the framers overwhelmingly supported a broad interpretation of birthright citizenship to ensure that the U.S. would no longer exclude people based on race or heritage. The clause was adopted without major amendments, solidifying the principle that anyone born on U.S. soil (with exceptions like diplomats’ children) was a citizen.
  • Immediate Impact:
    • Guaranteed citizenship for millions of formerly enslaved individuals.
    • Laid the foundation for expanding civil rights through federal intervention.

Key Quotes from the Debate

  • Senator Jacob Howard:
     “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
  • Senator Edgar Cowan:
     “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what allegiance does he owe? … Shall these persons, who owe no allegiance to the country, be permitted to make citizens?”
  • Senator Lyman Trumbull:
     “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Legacy of the Debate

The framers ultimately upheld birthright citizenship as a key principle of equality and inclusion. While the debate reflected some of the racial and cultural prejudices of the time, it also demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that citizenship would not be denied based on ancestry, race, or social status. The principle remains central to American identity and law, though it continues to face challenges in modern immigration debates.

My Thoughts

It is clear from the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment that citizenship was not granted solely based on being born in the United States. The framers carefully considered the context, to whom they were speaking, and the far-reaching implications of their decisions. At the time, the amendment guaranteed citizenship to millions of formerly enslaved individuals and, later, to Native Americans through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Today, the issue of birthright citizenship has taken on new dimensions, as people from around the world enter the country illegally with the hope that giving birth to a child on U.S. soil will grant automatic citizenship—not only for the child but potentially as a pathway for themselves.

If this matter reaches the Supreme Court, the justices will revisit the original debates and intentions behind birthright citizenship to determine how it applies in today’s complex and evolving circumstances.