The ongoing debate about the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment hinges on a fundamental understanding of its language and historical context. Some legal scholars argue that the clause automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. However, this interpretation raises questions that deserve exploration.
Professor John Yoo, in a recent op-ed, posits that limiting the citizenship clause contradicts both the text of the Constitution and long-standing historical interpretations. He states that dismissal of the prevailing interpretation amounts to “disregarding the plain text.” This stance reflects a growing divide among scholars regarding the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase that has significant implications.
Supporters of birthright citizenship frequently reference English common law, particularly the work of jurist William Blackstone. Yet, they often overlook the contributions of American legal figures such as Joseph Story. In his 1834 treatise, Story identified a reasonable limitation on the common law principle, highlighting that U.S.-born children of parents temporarily present in the country do not inherently qualify for citizenship. This perspective offers a narrower interpretation than what is commonly accepted today.
Another crucial element often ignored is the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established limits on birthright citizenship. This act defined citizenship as being exclusive to those born in the U.S. who are “not subject to any foreign power.” This historical backdrop is vital to understanding the original intent behind the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Senator Lyman Trumbull, a principal author of the Citizenship Clause, played a critical role in shaping this language. Trumbull argued that the clause was meant to exclude children of parents who had only a temporary allegiance to the U.S. This points directly to the notion that citizenship should not be automatically conferred to the children of foreign nationals who retain their primary loyalty to their home countries.
Despite the variations in language between the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, their interpretations were meant to align. This connection is underscored by the legislative history, which aimed to clarify and refine citizenship criteria. Notably, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 further elaborated on this theme by formally addressing the citizenship status of Native Americans, indicating that mere birthplace does not guarantee citizenship if allegiance lies elsewhere.
Throughout the years, there have been numerous decisions within the executive branch that reinforced the idea that citizenship is not absolute. The Department of State in the 1885 case of Richard Greisser ruled against citizenship claims for U.S.-born children due to the non-permanent status of the parents. Likewise, in the 1890 case involving Mary Devereaux, the Department of Justice echoed this sentiment, highlighting the limitations associated with citizenship dictated by parental status.
Such historical rulings illustrate the ambivalence surrounding the birthright citizenship debate and challenge the assertion of an unbroken tradition of practice that Yoo suggests. Judicial history demonstrates that the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is not as clear-cut as some modern theorists propose.
The clash of interpretations surrounding the citizenship clause is indicative of a broader legal and constitutional discourse that is far from settled. It reveals the complexities of citizenship as shaped by historical precedent, legislative intent, and the ever-evolving landscape of immigration in the United States. The future implications of this debate are significant, as they will ultimately influence who is deemed a citizen in this country.
In examining the interpretations of the citizenship clause, it becomes evident that aligning the historical context with modern legal debates is both necessary and challenging. The discussion is not simply about legal terminology but about the principles upon which American citizenship is founded. A thorough engagement with that history is essential for any meaningful conclusions regarding who qualifies for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
"*" indicates required fields
