Does the President of the United States have the authority to interpret birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, or does this power rest solely with Congress?
This discussion delves into the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause and whether the authority to define its scope lies with the President or Congress.
The debate over birthright citizenship and its interpretation under the 14th Amendment has resurfaced with significant questions about the extent of presidential authority. The 14th Amendment states, “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.”
The key questions are:
What does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” truly mean?
Can the President independently interpret this clause through an executive order, or is it Congress’s responsibility to clarify and enforce its meaning?
The text seems to imply that mere physical birth within the U.S. isn’t enough to confer citizenship; it requires being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Some argue this phrase points to a lawful, ongoing relationship with the country, raising issues about children born to non-citizens or individuals residing unlawfully in the U.S.
While Congress is explicitly empowered by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce its provisions, the President also holds enforcement powers. Does this include the authority to interpret and apply the 14th Amendment in the context of birthright citizenship?
What are your thoughts? Should Congress take the lead in clarifying this issue, or can the President act unilaterally? And how should “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be understood in today’s context?
So if people are here “unlawfully” it removes them from the statute because illegals disqualify themselves because IF they were subject to the jurisdiction thereof (subject to the application of our laws) they would have to be removed (deported) and their children (even if born while the parents are here illegally) would not be granted citizenship.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that a person is completely under the legal authority of a particular governing body, implying full allegiance to that entity and not being subject to the laws of another nation; it’s most commonly used in the context of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, where it specifies that only those born in the US and fully subject to its laws are considered citizens.
The citizenship clause was intended to provide citizenship for the children born on US soil to LEGAL immigrants.
If a ‘person’s mother was unlawfully present in the US and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth’ or ‘when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth’ then the person is not ‘automatically’ given the ‘priceless and profound gift’ of ‘the United States citizenship’.
If someone is on US soil, then unless they have diplomatic immunity they’re under the jurisdiction of the US - otherwise they could commit crimes with impunity. Similarly if a citizen of a state that has legalized marijuana takes a quantity into a state in which marijuana is illegal, they can be fully prosecuted by that state.
The 14th amendment had been interpreted this way for over 150 years. Neither the president nor Congress has the right to change it without changing the constitution.
Hi,
I am pretty sure birthright citizenship means you are born a citizen of the United States if your mother or father is a citizen.
Two non-citizens may not have a citizen baby just because the child was born while the mother was in America.
So if an American mother gives birth while in Tokyo, the child is American.
If a Japanese mother gives birth while in LA, that child is not an American.
Lineage not location.
The thought is that will make it easier to send the whole illegal family back to their country.
Lets see if it works.
If a person (of any citizenship) is in America legally (lawfully) --including simply here on vacation, and a woman delivers a baby on American soil, that baby is granted US Citizenship-- this is the core premise of birth-right-citizenship.
Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country or city for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship Such a child is sometimes called an “anchor baby” if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future, hedge against corruption and political instability in the children’s home country. Popular destinations include the United States.
Currently only 32 countries in the world offer birthright citizenship.
That is the current law of the land yes, but no–that is not what is going on now. Under Biden–ILLEGAL immigrant mothers who gave birth on American soil would have those babies granted automatic citizenship. That’s what Trump is going to end.
Update: The Supreme Court is reviewing Trump’s executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. The lower courts blocked it nationwide, and now SCOTUS is being asked to decide whether such broad injunctions are valid.
While the case isn’t directly about whether birthright citizenship can be ended, it could shape the president’s authority—and the power of courts to block such actions nationwide.
Will President Trump’s next phase to “Make America Geat Again” by revoking Naturalized Citizenship of those convicted or charged with a crime create havoc? Is this a roll back into due process’ right infringement by including those charged?
24 million imigrants have gone through the steps to becoming a U.S. Citizen, which include preparing an Application for Naturalization, paying fees, completing an interview and taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States.
The June 11, 2025 Memorandum from Brett A. Shumate,
Assistant Attorney General, directing US attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” against individuals convicted of crimes, such as listed in the memo are espionage-related, gang-related, national security/terrorism, or the unlawful export from the United States of sensitive goods, technology, etc… The end of the memo implicates that the categories and classes listed are purely examples and reason for denaturalization can be of any basis/choice.
#5 PRIORITIZE DENATURALIZATION
…
9. Cases referred by a United States Attorney’s Office or in connection with pending criminal charges, if those charges do not fit within one of the other priorities; and
10. Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.
These categories are intended to guide the Civil Division in prioritizing which cases to pursue; however, these categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case, nor are they listed in a particular order of importance. Further, the Civil Division retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate.
You are incorrect. The 14th amendment was to give citizenship to slaves and thier offspring. They were under the laws of the U.S. people here illegally are still under the jurisdiction of their native country, they have no legal right to work or apply for any benefits in this country. Therefore they are not under the jurisdiction of the state or the U.S. when the 14th amendment was passed, this was one of the arguments against it.
