The Truth About Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

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 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): http://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf

Screenshot of the relevant page: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

This is documented, verifiable, and part of the public Congressional record—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, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.”

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.

The Wong Kim Ark Exception

Critics often cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to claim that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to anyone born here. But Wong Kim Ark was an exception, not the rule.

The case involved a man born in San Francisco to parents who were lawful, permanent residents of the United States. Though 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.

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.

Case reference:https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898

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.

• Interview link: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-interviews-a-professor-who-is-one-of-the-foremost-experts-on-birthright-citizenship/

• Archive: https://archive.fo/y9Pik

• 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:

• 14th Amendment Original Intent: https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

• “No, the 14th Amendment Does Not Support Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners”: https://tatobin4.wixsite.com/theredpill/single-post/2018/03/20/no-the-14th-amendment-does-not-support-birthright-citizenship-for-foreigners

• “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.

-------

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.