View source for Citizenship Clause

{{short description|First sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution}}
{{pp-pc}}
{{TOC right}}
The '''Citizenship Clause''' is the first sentence of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]], which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states: 
{{blockquote|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.}}

This clause reversed a portion of the ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' decision, which had declared that [[African American]]s were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

The concepts of state and national citizenship were already mentioned in the original U.S. Constitution adopted in 1789, but the details were unclear. Prior to the Civil War, only some persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, according to the various applicable state and federal laws and court decisions.

The [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]] granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The [[39th United States Congress|39th Congress]] proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.<ref name=davis>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=702 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 597.</ref><ref name=howard3>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2896.</ref> The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.<ref name=howard3 /><ref name="Wong">''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'', {{Ussc|169|649|1898}}.</ref>

==Pre-Amendment citizenship law==
Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the antebellum United States generally embraced the common-law doctrine of citizenship by birth within the country. Justice [[Joseph Story]] described the rule in ''Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor'': {{Blockquote|text=The rule commonly laid down in the books is, that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject; and, e converso, that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. . . . Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign, as such, de facto.<ref>''Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor'' 28 U.S. 99, 155 (1830).</ref>}}

Story excluded children of ambassadors and the children of occupying enemy soldiers from those eligible for citizenship under the common law.<ref>''See Inglis'', 28 U.S. at 155.</ref> But the rule also applied only to the people born of "free persons," thus excluding the children of slaves.<ref>State v. Manuel 20 N.C. 144 (1838).</ref> The rule also excluded the children of Native Americans living in tribes, on the reasoning that they were born under the dominion of their tribes, and not within the purview of the law of the United States.<ref>Goodell v.  Jackson ex dem. Smith, 20 Johns. 693, (N.Y. 1823).</ref>

To those outside the above categories, the rule was generous in scope. One antebellum treatise, by [[William Rawle]], stated: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."<ref>William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2d Edition, 1829, Ch. IX.</ref> In the 1844 New York case of ''Lynch v. Clarke'', the court held that the common law doctrine applied in the United States, and ruled that a child born in the country of a temporary visitor was a natural-born citizen under this rule.<ref>''Lynch v. Clarke'' 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (1844)</ref>

Chancellor [[James Kent (jurist)|James Kent]], in his ''Commentaries on American Law'', framed the rule in terms similar to what would become the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “Natives,” he said, “are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States,” while “[a]n alien,” conversely, “is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.”<ref>2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 33, 43 (1827)</ref>

The most significant challenge to the common law rule of birthright citizenship before the Civil War came from attacks on the rights of African-Americans, most famously in the United States Supreme Court's 1857 decision of ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]],'' in which the court held that free African-Americans, though born in the United States, could not be citizens.<ref>''Dred Scott v. Sandford'', 60 U.S. 393, 426–427 (1857). ''See also Amy v. Smith'' 1 Litt. 326 (1822), ''State v. Claiborne'' 19 Tenn. 331 (1838), and ''State v. Manuel'' 20 N.C. 144 (1838), each of which discussed the common law rule and its application to free African-Americans.</ref> The dissenting justices relied on the common law rule of citizenship to challenge the majority decision. Justice [[John McLean]], in his dissent, said of Dred Scott himself, "Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen."<ref>''Scott'', 60 U.S. at 531, J. McLean dissenting</ref> And Justice [[Benjamin Robbins Curtis|Benjamin Curtis]], in his dissent, stated, "[I]t is a principle of public law, recognized by the Constitution itself, that birth on the soil of a country both creates the duties and confers the rights of citizenship.”<ref>Scott, 60 U.S. at 579, J. Curtis dissenting</ref>

During the [[American Civil War]], Attorney General [[Edward Bates]] addressed an opinion letter to Treasury Secretary [[Salmon P. Chase]], affirming the principle of birthright citizenship under the common law and touting its usefulness in the cause of racial equality:{{Blockquote|text=As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the "accident of birth"-the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the "natural-born" right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.<ref>[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AEW6575.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext Opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates], November 29, 1862.</ref>}}

After the Civil War, the [[United States Congress|U.S. Congress]] moved to grant citizenship to [[freedmen|freed slaves]], and to overrule the ''Dred Scott'' decision. Their first action was the [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]], which declared: "...{{nbsp}}all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." Representative [[James F. Wilson]] of Iowa, upon introducing the citizenship clause of the Act, stated that it was "merely declaratory of what the law now is," and recounted at length the common law history of birthright citizenship.<ref>Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1115–1117 (1866)</ref> Representative [[John Bingham]] of Ohio affirmed that the clause was "simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution," with specific reference to the "natural-born citizen" qualification for presidential office.<ref>Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)</ref>

The Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause was drafted in response to Senator [[Benjamin Wade]]'s concern that, although the question of citizenship was "settled by the civil rights bill, and, indeed, . . . was settled before," there was a danger that "the Government should fall into the hands of those who are opposed to the views that some of us maintain."<ref>Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2768 (1866).</ref> Thus it was Congress's obligation to "fortify and make [the citizenship guarantee] very strong and clear."<ref>Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2768 (1866)</ref>

==Text==
Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: 
{{blockquote|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.}}

==Naturalization==
The reference to [[naturalization]] in the Citizenship Clause is to the process by which immigrants are granted [[Citizenship of the United States|United States citizenship]]. Congress has power in relation to naturalization under the ''[[United States nationality law|Naturalization Clause]]'' in [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Enumerated powers|Article I, Section 8, Clause 4]] of the Constitution.<ref>Reyes, Carla. "Naturalization Law, Immigration Flow, and Policy" in ''Transforming America: Perspectives on U.S. Immigration'', Volume 1, [https://books.google.com/books?id=2HvAHGE4n-EC&pg=PA149 p. 149] (Michael LeMay ed., ABC-CLIO, 2013).</ref><ref>[[Garrett Epps|Epps, Garrett]]. ''The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History"''. 60 American University Law Review 331, 352 (2010). "This language [in the Civil Rights Act of 1866] is significant but does not directly demonstrate anything about the 'clear intent' of the Citizenship Clause. First, it is a statute, enacted under the authority of some combination of the Naturalization Clause and the Thirteenth Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment is a change to the Constitution, creating entirely new rights and providing government with new powers."</ref><ref>''[[Afroyim v. Rusk]]'', 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967).  "Therefore, a bill was introduced [in 1818] to provide that a person could voluntarily relinquish his citizenship by declaring such relinquishment in writing before a district court and then departing from the country.  The opponents of the bill argued that Congress had no constitutional authority, either express or implied, under either the Naturalization Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, to provide that a certain act would constitute expatriation."</ref><ref>''[[Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha]]'', 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983).  "It is also argued that these cases present a nonjusticiable political question, because Chadha is merely challenging Congress' authority under the Naturalization Clause, U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18."</ref><ref>In contrast to the aforementioned sources, ''[[Black's Law Dictionary]]'' defines "Naturalization Clause" as being equivalent to the Citizenship Clause.  See {{cite encyclopedia | title=Naturalization Clause | encyclopedia=Black's Law Dictionary | editor-last = Epps | editor-first = Garrett | editor-link=Garrett Epps | edition=9th | year=2009 | publisher=[[West Publishing]] | location=[[St. Paul, Minnesota]] | isbn=978-0-314-19949-2 | page=1126 | quote='''Naturalization Clause.''' The constitutional provision stating that every person born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States and of the state of residence.  U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.  See jus soli.}}</ref>

==Senate debate==
{{See also|Jacob M. Howard#Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment}}
The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the [[United States Senate|Senate]] as an amendment to Section 1 of the [[joint resolution]] as passed by the [[United States House of Representatives|House]].

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.<ref name=nyt96>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/07/us/citizenship-proposal-faces-obstacle-in-the-constitution.html |journal=New York Times |title=Citizenship Proposal Faces Obstacle in the Constitution |last=Robert |first=Pear |date=1996-08-07}}</ref> While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1866|Civil Rights Act]],<ref name="Wong" /><ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe],'' 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senator [[Reverdy Johnson]] said in the debate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power{{mdash}}for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us{{mdash}}shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."</ref> which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator [[Jacob M. Howard]] of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman]] [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator [[James R. Doolittle]] from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.<ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2890, 2892-3, 2896.</ref>

Howard, when introducing the addition to the Amendment, stated that it was "the law of the land already" and that it excluded only "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".<ref name=howard>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2890.</ref> Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.<ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2897.</ref><ref name=trumbull>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=702 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 572. During the debate on the Civil Rights Act, Trumbull stated, "The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment [to the Act] so as to make citizens of all people born in the United States who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens'; but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer."</ref> Concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), however, three senators, including Trumbull, as well as [[President of the United States|President]] [[Andrew Johnson]], debated how both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause could confer citizenship on them at birth,<ref name=trumbullcowan>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498. The debate on the Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange:

{{blockquote|<poem>Mr. Cowan: I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Mr. Trumbull: Undoubtedly.
...
Mr. Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Mr. Cowan: I think not.
Mr. Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.</poem>}}</ref><ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100613131136/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1944 See veto message] by President Andrew Johnson</ref> and Trumbull stated that "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."<ref name=Trumbull_Indian_citizenship>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman]] [[Lyman Trumbull]], participating in the debate, stated the following: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? ... We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. ... If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?. ... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? ... It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens."</ref>  Senator [[Reverdy Johnson]] of Maryland commented that ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' in the proposed amendment undoubtedly meant the same thing as "not subject to some foreign power",<ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe],'' 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893.</ref> and Trumbull asserted that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but Senator [[Edgar Cowan]] of Pennsylvania disagreed, arguing that this was only true for the children of European immigrants.<ref name=trumbullcowan /> Senator [[John Conness]] of California expressed support for the Amendment for giving a constitutional basis for birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States to any parentage (including Chinese noncitizen residents who do not intend to reside permanently in the United States), even though he (and others) thought it had already been guaranteed by the Act,<ref name=conness>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2891. During the debate on the Amendment, Conness declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens." He further added that "they [the Chinese] all return to their own country at some time or other".</ref> whereas Cowan opposed the Amendment (and Act), arguing that it would have the undesirable outcome of extending citizenship to the children of Chinese and [[Romani people|Romani]] immigrants.<ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2. Cowan expressed concern over the prospect of a state not being able to determine its own citizens. In particular, he identified two groups that he felt were unsuitable for citizenship but would have such bestowed upon their children by the Amendment: Chinese and Gypsies, the latter of which he described thus, "who owe to her [Pennsylvania] no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognized no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own&nbsp;...; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go." He subsequently cautioned against adopting the proposed Amendment, "Are these people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? ... If the mere fact of being born in a country confers that right then they will have it. ... Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies."</ref>

Most of the debate on this section of the Amendment centered on whether the wording in the Civil Rights Act or Howard's proposal more effectively excluded Indians on reservations and in U.S. territories from citizenship. Doolittle asserted, and Senators Johnson of Maryland and [[Thomas A. Hendricks]] of Indiana concurred, that all Indians were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,<ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2893-4.</ref> but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Indian tribes, which governed themselves and made treaties with the United States.<ref name=Trumbull_Indian_citizenship/><ref name=howard2>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895. Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.</ref> On the subject of citizenship for Indians, Trumbull said that ''"It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens."''<ref name=Trumbull_Indian_citizenship /> Moreover, they objected to the phrase "Indians not taxed" on the basis that it could be construed as making citizenship dependent on wealth and also that it would allow states to manipulate who is a citizen in their state through tax policy.<ref>''[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Congressional Globe]'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2894-5.</ref>

In 2006, [[Goodwin Liu]], then an assistant professor at the [[Boalt Hall]] law school of the [[University of California, Berkeley]], and later an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[California Supreme Court]], wrote that although the legislative history of the Citizenship Clause is "somewhat thin", the clause's central role is evident in the historical context of the post-Civil War period.<ref>{{cite journal | title=Education, Equality, and National Citizenship | author=Liu, Goodwin | journal=Yale Law Journal | year=2006 | volume=116 | issue=2 | page=349 | url=http://www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/393.pdf | access-date=January 6, 2012 | doi=10.2307/20455723 | jstor=20455723 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132612/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/393.pdf | archive-date=July 6, 2011 }}</ref>  Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center (a [[Progressivism|progressive]] [[think tank]]<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-b-wydra | title=Elizabeth B. Wydra | newspaper=[[Huffington Post]] | access-date=January 6, 2012}}</ref>), argues that both supporters and opponents of the Citizenship Clause in 1866 shared the understanding that it would automatically grant citizenship to all persons born in the United States (except children of foreign ministers and invading armies)<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf | title=Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee | author=Wydra, Elizabeth | year=2009 | publisher=American Constitution Society for Law and Policy | page=6 | access-date=January 6, 2012 | quote=For example, Senator Cowan expressed concern that the proposal would expand the number {{sic}} Chinese in California and Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit 'trespass' within the United States.  Supporters of Howard's proposal did not respond by taking issue with Cowan's understanding, but instead by agreeing with it and defending it as a matter of sound policy. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130730092241/http://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf | archive-date=2013-07-30 | url-status=dead }}</ref>—an interpretation shared by [[Texas]] Solicitor General James C. Ho.<ref>Ho (2006), p. 370.  "[Senator Howard's] understanding was universally adopted by other Senators.  Howard's colleagues vigorously debated the ''wisdom'' of his amendment—indeed, some opposed it precisely ''because'' they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races.  But no Senator disputed the ''meaning'' of the amendment with respect to alien children."</ref> Richard Aynes, dean of the [[University of Akron School of Law]], takes a different view, proposing that the Citizenship Clause had "consequences which were unintended by the framers".<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Akron Law Review |volume=39 |url=http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=ua_law_publications |title=Unintended consequences of the Fourteenth Amendment and what they tell us about its interpretation |author=Aynes, Richard L. |year=2006 |page=289 |access-date=January 6, 2012}}</ref>

==Birthright citizenship==
{{Main article|Birthright citizenship in the United States}}
The Citizenship Clause has been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee&mdash;legally termed ''[[jus soli]]'', or "right of the territory"&mdash;does not exist in most of Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English [[common law]]<ref>Today [[British nationality law|British nationality]] is defined in statute, which supersedes the common law.</ref> and is common in the Americas. Birthright citizenship for children born abroad to US citizen parents (''[[jus sanguinis]]'' or "right of blood") is [[Birthright citizenship in the United States|defined separately in federal law]].

The “jurisdiction” requirement was considered in two Supreme Court cases. In ''[[Elk v. Wilkins]]'', {{ussc|112|94|1884}}, the Court held that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. It held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The [[syllabus]] of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution".<ref>''[[Elk v. Wilkins]]'', {{ussc|112|94|1884}}</ref> In 1870, the Senate Judiciary Committee also had expressed the proposition, saying: "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States".<ref name=NCC>{{cite web|author1=NCC Staff|title=On this day in 1924: All Indians made United States citizens|url=http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/06/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens/|website=National Constitution Center|access-date=5 September 2015|date=June 2, 2015|archive-date=14 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150914220330/http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/06/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens/|url-status=dead}}</ref> About 8% of the Native population at the time qualified for U.S. citizenship because they were "taxed",<ref name=NCC /> while others obtained citizenship by serving in the military, marrying whites or accepting land allotments,<ref name=NPS>{{cite web |title=1924 Indian Citizenship Act |url=http://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/upload/Native-American-Citizenship-2.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151123031344/http://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/upload/Native-American-Citizenship-2.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 23, 2015|website=National Park Service|access-date=5 September 2015}}</ref> such as those granted under the [[Dawes Act]].<ref name=NCC />  Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment if they voluntarily left their tribe.<ref>{{cite book|last=Urofsky |first=Melvin I. |author2=Finkelman, Paul |title=A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States |edition=2nd |publisher=Oxford University Press |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |volume=1 |isbn=0-19-512635-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LQVDZ9jg8m0C}}</ref> Native tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Natives were subsequently made citizens by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]].

On the other hand, in ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'',<ref name="Wong" /> the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, any child born in the United States is a US citizen from birth, with the sole exception of children born to a parent or parents with diplomatic immunity, since such parent is not a "subject to the US law".  More broadly, the court characterized the statement, ''All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States'' as "the broad and clear words of the Constitution," ruling that Wong's U.S. citizenship had been acquired by birth and had not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.<ref>{{ussc|169|649|1898}}</ref>

A 2010 [[Congressional Research Service]] report observed that, though it could be argued that Congress has no power to define "subject to the jurisdiction" and the terms of citizenship in a manner contrary to the Supreme Court's understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment as expressed in ''Wong Kim Ark'' and ''Elk'', since Congress does have broad power to pass necessary and proper legislation to regulate naturalization under the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cls. 4 & 18 of the constitution Congress arguably has the power to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for the purpose of regulating immigration.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101203090537/https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf|archive-date=2010-12-03|title=Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents|date=August 12, 2010|publisher=Congressional Research Service|page=15 (page 18 of the PDF)}}</ref>

Historian [[Eric Foner]] has explored the question of birthright citizenship and argues that "birthright citizenship stands as an example of the much-abused idea of American exceptionalism...birthright citizenship does make the United States (along with Canada) unique in the developed world. No European nation recognizes the principle."<ref>Eric Foner,
[http://www.thenation.com/article/birthright-citizenship-is-the-good-kind-of-american-exceptionalism/ "Birthright Citizenship Is the Good Kind of American Exceptionalism," ''The Nation'' Aug. 27, 2015]</ref>

Upon taking office for a second term on January 20, 2025, US president [[Donald Trump]] issued [[Executive Order 14160]] titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" intending to end birthright citizenship in cases where neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the US.<ref name="jan20post">{{cite news |last1=Nakamura |first1=David |title=Trump signs order to end birthright citizenship. Legal experts say it won’t work |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/01/20/trump-birthright-citizenship-immigrants/ |access-date=21 January 2025 |work=[[The Washington Post]] |date=20 January 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garcia |first1=Armando |title=ACLU lawsuit challenges Trump's order to end birthright citizenship |url=https://abc7ny.com/live-updates/trump-presidential-inauguration-2025-live-updates-president-elect-donald-set-take-office/15807227/entry/15821122 |access-date=20 January 2025 |publisher=ABC News |date=20 January 2025}}</ref> The same day, Civil Rights and Immigrant Advocates joined by [[State attorney general|state attorneys general]] sued him over this executive order, claiming that it is unconstitutional.<ref name="jan20hill">{{Cite web |last=Beitsch |first=Rebecca |date=2025-01-20 |title=ACLU sues over Trump order aimed at ending birthright citizenship |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5097337-aclu-sues-trump-order/ |access-date=January 20, 2025 |website=The Hill}}</ref><ref>{{Cite press release |title=Immigrants’ Rights Advocates Sue Trump Administration Over Birthright Citizenship Executive Order |date=2025-01-20 |publisher=ACLU |url=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-birthright-citizenship-executive-order}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-20 |title=Civil rights, immigrant advocates sue over Trump birthright citizenship order |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/civil-rights-immigrant-advocates-sue-over-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-21/ |access-date=2025-01-20 |website=Reuters}}</ref> On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge [[John Coughenour]] issued a temporary restraining order preventing the implementation of the Executive Order and referred to it as "blatantly unconstitutional."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Catchpole |first=Daniel |last2=Nate |first2=Raymond |date=2025-01-23 |title=US judge temporarily blocks Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite court|litigants=State of Washington, et al., v Donald Trump, et al.|court=District Court, W.D. Washington|date=2025-01-23|url=https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdjzgbjvo/01232025tro.pdf}}</ref>

==Loss of citizenship==
The Fourteenth Amendment does not provide any procedure for revocation of United States citizenship. The Supreme Court in ''[[Afroyim v. Rusk]]'' held that loss of 14th-Amendment-based U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:<ref>''[[Afroyim v. Rusk]]'' {{Ussc|387|253|1967}}</ref>

* [[United States nationality law#Loss of nationality|Fraud in the naturalization process]]. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant ''never was'' a U.S. citizen.
* [[Relinquishment of United States nationality|Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship]]. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the [[State Department]] or through other actions (''e.g.'', [[treason]]) that demonstrate an intention to give up U.S. citizenship.<ref>U.S. State Department, ''[https://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality]''. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090416013437/http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html |date=April 16, 2009 }}</ref>  Such an act of [[expatriate|expatriation]] ''must'' be accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship.<ref>''[[Vance v. Terrazas]]'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=444&invol=252 444 U.S. 252] (1980): "As we have said, Afroyim requires that the record support a finding that the expatriating act was accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship."</ref>
For [[jus sanguinis]] U.S. citizenship, i.e., citizenship for the children born abroad of U.S. citizen parents, which is established only by congressional statute and not the U.S. Constitution (including its amendments), these restrictions do not apply (e.g., cf. ''[[Rogers v. Bellei]]'', 401 U.S. 815 (1971)).

==Right to travel==

In ''[[Saenz v. Roe]]'', the Supreme Court held that this clause protects an aspect of the [[right to travel]].<ref>''[[Saenz v. Roe]]'', {{Ussc|526|489|1999}}.</ref> Specifically, the ''Saenz'' Court said that the Citizenship Clause protects a citizen's right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally:

{{blockquote|[T]he Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly equates citizenship with residence: "That Clause does not provide for, and does not allow for, degrees of citizenship based on length of residence." ''Zobel'', 457 U. S., at 69. It is equally clear that the Clause does not tolerate a hierarchy of 45 subclasses of similarly situated citizens based on the location of their prior residence. … [T]he protection afforded to the citizen by the Citizenship Clause of that Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the National Government as well as the States.}}

The ''Saenz'' Court also mentioned the majority opinion in the ''[[Slaughterhouse Cases]]'', which had stated that "a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."<ref>''[[Slaughterhouse Cases]]'', {{Ussc|83|36|1873}}.</ref>

==Natural-born citizens==
{{Main article|Natural born citizen}}

The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' (OED) at "natural-born" defines it as a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later).  It lists this definition as going back to the 16th century. OED cites a law of 1695 (Act [[7 & 8 Will. 3]] (1696) 478) that states, "A Natural born Subject of this Realm ... Who shall be willing to Enter and Register himself for the Service of His Majesty." It also quotes Thomas Jefferson 1776 (in T. Jefferson Public Papers 344):

{{quote|"All persons who ... propose to reside ... and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws, shall be considered as residents and entitled to all the rights of persons natural born."}}

''Blacks Law Dictionary'' defines ''natural born citizen'' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=citizen |dictionary=Black's Law Dictionary |publisher=Thomson Reuters |year=2009 |edition=10th}}</ref> ''Webster's International Dictionary'' defines ''natural-born'' as "especially: having the legal status of citizen or subject".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=natural-born |dictionary=Webster's International Dictionary |edition=3rd |year=2000 |publisher=Merriam Webster Corporation}}</ref>
 
Section 1 of [[Article Two of the United States Constitution]] requires that a candidate for [[President of the United States]] be a "natural-born citizen." According to a former edition of the [[US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual]]:

{{quote|"the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."<ref>{{cite web |title=7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency |url=https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1130.html |access-date=2015-12-14 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160220081206/https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1130.html |archive-date=2016-02-20}}</ref>}}

The majority opinion by Justice [[Horace Gray]] in ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' observed that:

{{quote|The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen" and "natural born citizen"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'<ref name=Wong/>}}

This observation by Gray about the term "natural-born citizen" was ''[[obiter dicta]]'', since the case did not involve any controversy about presidential eligibility.<ref>{{cite book |editor1=Hu, Sen |editor2=Dong, Jlellin |year=2010 |title=The Rocky Road to Liberty: A documented history of Chinese immigration and exclusion |publisher=Javvin |page=189 |isbn=9781602670280 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xku7xvAMDowC&pg=PA189}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==References==
{{Refbegin}}
*{{Cite book
|last=Congressional Globe
|title=Debates and Proceedings, 1833-1873
|url=http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html
|chapter=1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4
|pages=[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=2 2881–3840]
|year=1866
}} covering the dates of May 29 to July 16.
{{Refend}}

==External links==
* {{cite news| url=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-ho10mar10,1,3646198.story?coll=la-news-comment| title=Can Congress Repeal Birthright Citizenship?| first=James C| last=Ho| work=The Los Angeles Times| date=2007-03-10}}
*Eastman, John.  {{unfit|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20090205191919/http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship"]}}, Heritage Foundation, Legal Memorandum #18 (2006-03-30).

{{Immigration to the United States}}
{{US Constitution}}
{{US14thAmendment|citizenship}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Citizenship Clause Of The United States Constitution}}
[[Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Citizenship of the United States]]
[[Category:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]