When the 14th Amendment was written, its primary purpose was to right a horrible wrong, ensuring formerly enslaved Americans and their children would not be denied citizenship. Its authors were clear about who it covered, and who it did not, but the interpretation of it has been bastardized over the years, resulting in a business model for criminal organizations.
Donald Trump upset the apple cart when he issued an executive order to challenge blanket birthright citizenship, which went before the Supreme Court today for oral arguments.
While the court is being asked to undertake a very controversial issue, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson used very strained reasoning in questioning the challenge, and it would appear that even most of the conservative justices on the court are terrified to stand up and defend the clear text of the amendment.
Section I of the 14th Amendment reads:
“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.”
The key phrase that will be debated is the opening line, which ties directly into the most relevant legal case to debate citizenship for children of non-citizens in this country, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
This amendment was written in the aftermath of the Civil War, specifically to give citizenship rights to those who were formerly enslaved. It was meant to address Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that black Americans could not be citizens.
Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI) authored the citizenship clause of the amendment, and he is on record for having defined who qualified for citizenship, a fact few seem to remember these days. He stated:
"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 accredited to the Government of the United States."
Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL), co-author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, defined “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
By definition, an illegal immigrant is a citizen of another country, and, therefore, has allegiance to their native country, not the United States. Any interpretation that offers blanket birthright citizenship is simply wrong. It was clearly defined here, but these words have been either lost or purposely ignored over the years.
As noted above, one of the first cases to challenge birthright citizenship was the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but the heart of this case is often overlooked.
The parents in the Wong Kim Ark case were not American citizens, but they were legal residents. Therefore, by definition, were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They were not illegal immigrants with an allegiance to another country (although one could still argue their allegiance to China). Yet, this is the very foundation of birthright citizenship.
Another case that moved the goalposts was Plyler v. Doe (1982). The court, in this case, ruled that free public education could not be denied to undocumented children.
This case did not directly address birthright citizenship, but the ruling implied that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the United States, further cementing the idea that once a foot is set on U.S. soil, they are entitled to birthright citizenship.
The court has never fully addressed the idea of birthright citizenship, and there are no legal cases to set precedent where the citizenship of a child of illegal immigrants has been challenged. Wong Kim Ark is the closest we have been, but again, they were legal residents of this country at the time the child was born.
Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller dissented in that case, and one of his final paragraphs is one that challenges the idea that everyone is entitled to birthright citizenship. He wrote:
“In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.”
To listen to the defense of birthright citizenship, one would think this is a benefit offered by all 195 recognized countries in the world, when that is not the case. There are about 30 countries offering birthright citizenship, virtually all located in the Western Hemisphere, according to World Population Review.
The United States is clearly an outlier, as you can see from the table below:
| Country | Birthright Citizenship Policy |
|---|---|
| United States | Unrestricted birthright citizenship (under legal challenge) |
| Canada | Unrestricted birthright citizenship |
| United Kingdom | Ended 1983. At least one parent must be a British citizen or settled in the UK |
| Australia | Ended 1986. At least one parent must be a citizen or permanent resident |
| France | Child born to foreign parents can claim citizenship at 18 if they've lived in France 5+ years since age 11 |
| Germany | At least one parent must have been a legal resident for 8+ years |
| Ireland | Ended 2004 via referendum (79% voted to end it) |
| New Zealand | Ended 2006. At least one parent must be a citizen or permanent resident |
| Japan | No birthright citizenship. Based on parentage only |
| South Korea | No birthright citizenship. Based on parentage only |
| China | No birthright citizenship. Based on parentage only |
As we noted above, over the years, this has become a business model for both countries and human traffickers.
Southern California has become the epicenter of Chinese birth tourism, reported LAist. Maternity hotels are set up throughout the area, where fees between $40,000 and $80,000 are charged per stay.
It is estimated that more than 10,000 Chinese nationals travel to that area every year, specifically to have a child who will be entitled to U.S citizenship.
This was blown wide open in 2015 when arrests were made during a federal raid at a maternity hotel in California, reported NBC News.
The Russians set up camp in Sunny Isles Beach, FL, earning the city the nickname of “Little Moscow,” replicating what the Chinese were doing in Los Angeles.
Again, it was an NBC News report that reported the story, making note of how many Russian women were posting all over social media about how they had come to America to give birth to their child.
As one might expect, cartels have monetized this aspect of illegal operations, collecting large fees to transport pregnant illegal immigrant across the border so they can have their children on American soil, reported Just the News.
Investigative journalist and author Peter Schweizer told Just the News:
“This is another example of adversaries exploiting the U.S. birthright citizenship for their benefit, to the detriment of America.”
These children have been dubbed “anchor babies,” providing a source for future family immigration to this country. Point being, one child often serves as a conduit for a handful of other family members to migrate to the country.
The family immediately gains a legal foothold as caretakers of the child, making it far more difficult to deport them.
It is estimated that the cartels charge between $5,000 and $15,000, sometimes more, for their services of transporting the pregnant women over the border.
We should also address the casual traveler who just happens to give birth while vacationing in the United States. Currently, someone here for a quick beach weekend from Canada who gave birth has a child who is a United States citizen. This may not be in the business model, per se, but the absurdity of it is clear to see. Or, perhaps these people are traveling her under cover of a vacation while actually doing so to get their child the coveted blue passport.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship..
Trump and his legal team did their homework on this order, as it looked not only at the 14th Amendment, but they clearly took the words of the framers of the amendment into consideration while crafting this order.
There were two major focal points of the order:
The order was initially blocked, called “blatantly unconstitutional,” and the administration immediately appealed.
Trump made it clear he wanted this case to go before the Supreme Court, and he just got his wish, as the court heard arguments on April 1, 2026.
Trump did have a sympathetic ear, but it was clearly a minority on the bench. For instance, according to the Washington Post, Justice Samuel Alito commented:
“What we are dealing with is something that was unknown at the time — illegal immigration.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer addressed this very issue in his argument, stating:
“We’re in a new world now … where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”
Chief Justice John Roberts then replied:
“Well, it’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution.”
Roberts is correct, but he has ignored the words of the framer of that specific section of the amendment. Sen. Howard was very clear in the meaning of the amendment. Quite frankly, had the courts considered his framing previously, the verdict in the Wong Kim Ark would have denied citizenship to the child.
Of all the justices, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has the most absurd comments, stating:
“I was thinking, I, a U.S. citizen am visiting Japan. And what it means is that if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It’s allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law. I can rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, under Japanese law, go and prosecute that person who had stolen it. So there’s this relationship, even though I’m just a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.”
Jackson's argument of "owing allegiance" is ridiculous to me. Just because you are subject to a country's laws at the time does not mean you owe allegiance in any way, shape, or form.
Trump attended the hearing for about an hour. After leaving the court, he posted to Truth Social:
“The World is getting rich selling citizenships to our Country, while at the same time laughing at how STUPID our U.S. Court System has become (TARIFFS!). Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!”
The court is expected to release its ruling on the matter in June or July 2026.
There are more than 300,000 children born to illegal immigrants in this country every year, according to a 2010 PEW Research study. The moment these children are born, they are entitled to citizenship, they receive a Social Security number, and are eligible for all federal benefits.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates, the costs associated with these children exceed $70 billion annually for education alone. It estimates the overall costs of illegal immigration at more than $150 billion annually. Now, this is a conservative-leaning organization, but even if we cut those numbers in half, this is a significant abuse of taxpayer funds in the eyes of conservatives.
Advocates will tell you this is settled law, and they are, in fact, entitled to these benefits, pointing to the Wong Kim Ark case, but it is not settled law. Again, had the court taken the framers' words into consideration, Wong Kim Ark would have lost the case. That aside, the parents were legal residents of this country. The point being, the issue of children of illegal immigrants has never been addressed.
Regarding Justice Roberts’ comments, we are not talking about changing the Constitution here. The fact of the matter is that the amendment is not being interpreted properly. The clear meaning is there for all to see, but everyone seems to have blinders on due to the inflammatory nature of the issue at hand.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has long been an advocate of closing this loophole, while discussing Trump's order, had stated:
"As a policy matter, birthright citizenship is stupid because it incentivizes illegal immigration. It makes absolutely no sense that someone breaks the law and they get rewarded with a very, very, precious gift, which is American citizenship."
The conservative interpretation of this amendment has often been called racist, but that is just a blatant twisting of the truth. This amendment was put in place to end racial injustice, not contribute to it. It was literally to give citizenship to black Americans who had been deprived of it to that point. It was clearly not meant to reward those breaking our laws to enter the country.
Another argument is that these children are innocent and are being punished. Nobody is accusing these children of any wrongdoing. The parents have exploited a loophole, and that loophole needs to be closed.
Trump has given the courts the perfect opportunity to do so, but the only question that remains is whether they will ignore the words of the framers of the amendment, or if the court will stiffen its spine to do what should have been done in 1898.
