Don’t Mess with the Fourteenth Amendment

There’s been a lot of noise lately about ending birthright citizenship—again. It’s become a rallying cry for politicians eager to look “tough on immigration,” even if that means rewriting the Constitution by executive order or poorly crafted legislation. But here’s the thing: birthright citizenship isn’t a loophole. It’s the law of the land—grounded in our Constitution, backed by over a century of Supreme Court rulings, and fundamental to what it means to be an American.

Let’s start at the beginning. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black Americans—enslaved or free—could not be U.S. citizens. That was one of the lowest moments in our legal history, and it sparked an outcry that eventually led to the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. Its first sentence couldn’t be clearer:

 “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.”

(U.S. Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1)

That’s where birthright citizenship begins. But what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? Opponents today claim it only applies to people whose parents are in the country legally. That’s not what the courts have said.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants—who were not eligible for citizenship themselves—was nonetheless a citizen. The Court said the 14th Amendment follows the English common law principle of jus soli, or “right of the soil,” meaning your birthplace determines your citizenship, not your parents' paperwork.

Wong Kim Ark wasn’t some outlier. Later rulings like Perkins v. Elg (1939) upheld that children born in the U.S. remain citizens even if their parents later renounce American ties. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court even stated clearly that undocumented immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. law, and so are their children.

That phrase—“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—excludes only a narrow group: children of foreign diplomats, enemy soldiers in hostile occupation, and some Native Americans before 1924. Everyone else? Covered.

Here’s what many politicians won’t tell you: you can’t end birthright citizenship with a law, executive order, or campaign speech. It’s part of the Constitution—and the Constitution doesn’t change easily. To repeal or alter the 14th Amendment, you need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths (38 out of 50) of the states. This isn’t just difficult—it’s nearly impossible in our current political climate. And that’s a good thing. The Founders made it hard to change the Constitution on purpose—so no one could trample over fundamental rights just because it’s politically convenient.

Today’s efforts to undo birthright citizenship are not only legally flimsy—they’re dangerous. Ending it would create a permanent underclass of stateless children, many of whom have never lived anywhere but the United States. It would upend our legal system, our economy, and our basic sense of who belongs.

We’ve seen what happens in countries that strip birthright citizenship: stateless people with no legal protections, living in the shadows, exploited and invisible. Is that what we want for America?

Birthright citizenship is not the problem. It’s the promise—that no matter who your parents are or where they came from, if you were born here, you belong here. That promise has made us stronger, more diverse, and more unified over the generations. Let’s not break it for cheap politics.

Works Cited

American Immigration Council. Birthright Citizenship in the United States. 28 April 2021. www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/birthright-citizenship-united-states. Accessed 7 July 2025.

Center for American Progress. Understanding the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship. 2023. www.americanprogress.org/article/understanding-the-14th-amendment-and-birthright-citizenship/. Accessed 7 July 2025.

Congressional Research Service. Birthright Citizenship under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents. 18 January 2011. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42097. Accessed 7 July 2025.

"Constitution of the United States." Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/. Accessed 7 July 2025.

Kaiser Family Foundation. "About 17 Million More People Could Be Uninsured Due to the Big Beautiful Bill and Other Policy Changes." KFF, 2025. www.kff.org. Accessed 7 July 2025.

SCOTUSblog. "A History of Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court." SCOTUSblog, Feb. 2025, www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/a-history-of-birthright-citizenship-at-the-supreme-court/. Accessed 7 July 2025.

United States. Supreme Court. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

United States. Supreme Court. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

United States. Supreme Court. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

United States. Supreme Court. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

United States. Supreme Court. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

The US Constitution. Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.