top of page

Recent Posts

Archive

Tags

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

  • Oct 24, 2025
  • 5 min read

The 14th Amendment does not grant automatic “birthright citizenship” to babies of foreign parents born on U.S. soil. It was written to secure the rights of native-born Black Americans whose freedoms, as newly freed slaves, were being denied after the Civil War—not to confer citizenship on the children of non-citizens.


The five Supreme Court justices ruling on Trump v. Barbara got it completely wrong, erroneously basing their entire decision on a narrow and incomplete definition of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The clause speaks not only to laws–which naturally apply to everyone everywhere, as a foreigner cannot commit murder or robbery with impunity—but more importantly to the allegiance and obligations REQUIRED of every citizen which are in no way required of aliens and foreigners. Obligations such as answering a draft, jury duty or allegiance/fealty to our nation. This is why a foreign citizen, or illegal alien cannot be charged with "treason"—because they owe their primary allegiance to a foreign power, not to the United States.


In a nutshell: Citizenship is allegiance not geography


The Original Intent


Senator Jacob M. Howard, who wrote the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, made the intent unmistakably clear before ratification. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that parents must owe full allegiance to the United States and to no other country.

As the Supreme Court later affirmed in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), this clause requires the parents themselves to be under full U.S. jurisdiction—meaning U.S. citizens or lawful subjects—for their children to qualify as citizens.


Howard explained the meaning of his clause to Congress in 1866:


“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. 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, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”

— Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866), p. 2890


Official record (U.S. Library of Congress): https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/



Verifiable, documented proof that neither the Constitution nor the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children of foreign nationals or illegal aliens born within U.S. borders.


Clarifications by Senator Lyman Trumbull

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the 14th Amendment, further clarified what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant. His explanation was unambiguous: The goal was to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and no one else.


He added on May 30, 1866:

“It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction”


The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in the same era, defined citizens as:


“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”


This language clearly excludes anyone owing allegiance to another nation—foreign nationals, illegal entrants, and temporary visitors alike.


Wong Kim Ark: A one-time exception to the rule


Critics often cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to claim that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to anyone born here.


However, Kim Wong Ark’s case was entirely different from any other such case. You might say that it was the exception to the rule as it applied exclusively to the children of permanent, legally settled residents who were banned by law from ever becoming citizens. Illegal aliens and temporary foreigners do not fit that definition.


Though they were not citizens, Wong’s parents had been UNFAIRLY DENIED naturalization under the discriminatory 'Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882'. Because they were legally domiciled and fully subject to U.S. law, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark *himself* met the “jurisdiction” requirement. The government tried to argue that since the parents could never become citizens, their U.S.-born son couldn't be a citizen either. The Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that the 14th Amendment doesn't care if the parents are banned from naturalization. Because the parents were permanently here, paid taxes, and were subject to and obeyed our laws, the same as any citizen, they were under U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, their child was an American at birth.



That narrow decision does not extend to foreigners here illegally or temporarily. It applied specifically to legal residents who were denied citizenship for reasons later recognized as unjust.



What the 14th Amendment Was Meant to Do


The entire purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and end the persecution they faced from Southern Democrats and former slave owners. It was never intended to be applied to foreigners, and that original intent is reflected in the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”


The Myth of “Anchor Babies”


So-called “anchor babies” are not U.S. citizens under the true constitutional meaning of the 14th Amendment. Neither the Constitution nor the Amendment grants or supports “birthright citizenship” to the children of foreigners, illegals, or non-citizen visitors.


Citizenship is a privilege granted by the consent of the nation itself, not a right acquired through trespass. No one has the “right” to march uninvited into another country and claim citizenship for themselves or their offspring.


Nations are sovereign entities, and such behavior constitutes an invasion, not lawful immigration.

Think of it this way: if a stranger broke into your home and had a baby, would you be obligated to accept that baby as a full member of your family with all rights and privileges thereof? Of course not—not without your consent. The same principle applies to nations and citizenship.


Constitutional and Scholarly Support


Professor Edward Erler, a leading constitutional scholar, has repeatedly affirmed that the 14th Amendment was never meant to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.



The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the statements of Senators Howard and Trumbull confirm that the Amendment was designed only to cover those “not subject to any foreign power” and “owing allegiance to the United States.”


Conclusion


The framers’ words, the congressional debates, and early Supreme Court rulings all support one clear truth: the 14th Amendment was written to protect the rights of freed slaves—Americans already under full U.S. jurisdiction—not to confer citizenship on the children of foreign nationals or those in the United States illegally.

It fulfilled its noble and necessary purpose—protecting freed slaves from state oppression—but like the repealed 18th Amendment, its modern misinterpretation has outlived its rightful use and should be corrected.


References:

“The 14th Amendment Does Not Grant Birthright Citizenship to Foreigners”: https://rumble.com/v6dll3m-the-14th-amendment-does-not-grant-birthright-citizenship-to-foreigners.html

The 14th Amendment didn’t create citizenship for them; it affirmed the citizenship that was already theirs by allegiance and lawful subjection, not by birthplace alone. It recognized what was rightfully inherent, not what was geographically accidental.


Citizenship is allegiance, not geography.

And now you know.


© 2026 Timothy Tobin. All rights reserved.


-------

Copyright & Syndication Notice

© 2025 Timothy Tobin. All rights reserved.

This article is the original work of the author and may not be reproduced, distributed, or republished without prior written consent.

Quotations of brief excerpts (under 250 words) are permitted for commentary or academic use with attribution.

For syndication, reprint, or licensing inquiries, please contact the author directly.

First published on The Red Pill.. Unauthorized republication or AI training use prohibited.

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page