The Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, but Trump Is Right To Question
Summary
President Trump's questioning of the birthright citizenship clause is based on a historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This perspective suggests that citizenship was never intended for all individuals born in the U.S. without consideration of parental status, per commentary from Heritage Foundation.
President Trump's questioning of the birthright citizenship clause is based on a historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This perspective suggests that citizenship was never intended for all individuals born in the U.S. without consideration of parental status, per commentary from Heritage Foundation.
The issue:
The core challenge revolves around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states that only those born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. are citizens. Historical context indicates that the amendment was designed to eliminate race-based citizenship barriers rather than to guarantee citizenship for all born in the U.S.
Go deeper:
Legislative history underscores that children born to non-citizens owe allegiance to their parents' home countries, thereby precluding automatic U.S. citizenship. Iconic court cases like Elk v. Wilkins (1884) reinforce the view that the Supreme Court has historically limited the scope of birthright citizenship. The president's order seeks to realign federal policy to adhere to this original intent of the 14th Amendment.
This is a brief overview of a commentary from Heritage Foundation. For complete insights, we recommend reading the full commentary.