Reforming birthright citizenship to save America

In recent arguments before the Supreme Court, the Trump administration raised a foundational question: What does it mean to be an American citizen? At the center of the current case is the long-standing practice of granting automatic U.S. citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil, whether they be the child of illegal immigrants or wealthy members of the Chinese Communist Party, utilizing one of China’s many “birth tourism” agencies. The Trump administration argues that the current application of the Constitution and 14th Amendment is not only historically mistaken, but also harmful to the nation’s long-term stability. The administration is correct and the Supreme Court should decide in its favor.

At first glance, birthright citizenship seems straightforward. The 14th Amendment declares that all persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. For decades, this has been interpreted to mean that virtually every child born here automatically becomes a citizen (explicit exceptions are made for the children of foreign diplomats and American Indians). But the Trump administration contends that this reading overlooks the significance of a crucial phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The administration’s argument is that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States does not merely mean being physically present or subject to its laws. Instead, it implies a deeper political allegiance—a genuine, legal connection to the country. For example, a tourist from Germany is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in that they can be given a parking ticket or charged with shoplifting, but they cannot vote and aren’t required to pay income taxes to the United States. That person owes ultimate allegiance to Germany.

This distinction matters. Historically, the 14th Amendment was adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their children would be recognized as citizens. It was not designed to address, much less guarantee citizenship to, the children of individuals who are in the country temporarily or in violation of immigration laws.

Critics often point to the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark as settling the issue. But even that decision, properly understood, emphasized allegiance and protection—not mere geography. The Trump administration argues that modern interpretations have stretched that precedent far beyond its original scope, effectively creating a universal rule that the Constitution never intended.

There is also a practical dimension to this debate. Current policy, the administration argues, has created powerful incentives for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism”—where individuals travel to the United States specifically to secure citizenship for their children. This not only undermines immigration laws but also places strain on public resources and erodes the principle that citizenship should reflect a meaningful connection to the country.

Reconsidering birthright citizenship is therefore not about exclusion for its own sake. It is about restoring the integrity of citizenship as a legal and political bond. Citizenship carries profound rights and responsibilities, and it should not be treated as an automatic byproduct of geography alone.

Opponents warn that changing the current system would disrupt settled expectations. But the Constitution is not a static document frozen in time by past misinterpretations. If courts have misunderstood a key provision, it is their duty to correct course. As the administration has argued, the judiciary must interpret the Constitution based on its original meaning—not on decades of accumulated assumptions. The Congressional Record demonstrates clearly that lawmakers of the prior era never intended the language to be applied as it is today.

Moreover, the United States is not alone in reconsidering how citizenship is granted. Many developed nations condition citizenship on parentage, residency, or legal status, rather than granting it automatically at birth. Aligning U.S. policy with this broader international practice would not make America less welcoming—it would make its citizenship laws more coherent and sustainable.

At its core, this case is about sovereignty. A nation has the right to determine who belongs to it. If citizenship can be obtained simply by crossing a border and giving birth, then that right is effectively diluted. By contrast, requiring a genuine legal connection—through citizenship or lawful permanent residence—ensures that membership in the national community reflects both commitment and accountability.

The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment and restore a more faithful interpretation of its text. Doing so would not arbitrarily strip anyone of rights; it would reaffirm that citizenship is a serious and deliberate status, grounded in law and allegiance. The United States must define citizenship in a way that reflects its constitutional principles and national interests. The Trump administration’s position offers a path toward restoring that balance—by ensuring that American citizenship remains both meaningful and secure.

Click here to read Hunter Baker’s counterpoint column on birthright citizenship.