“Birthright citizenship” is a foolish and dangerous practice

April 7, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently addressing the issue of birthright citizenship, which has been around for quite a while.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is at the root of this problem. It was enacted following the Civil War in 1868 to provide citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children, and ensuring they were recognized as citizens by both the federal government and their home states. It was a key Reconstruction amendment, not an award of citizenship to just anyone.

There is a legal process for immigrants to become a citizen. That process has been in existence in various forms for over 235 years, beginning with the first official naturalization law in 1790. This process has evolved over the years, and it has never held that all that is needed to become a citizen is to be born here.

It is difficult to imagine that the intention of the 14th Amendment was ever to allow everyone born in the U.S. to automatically be a citizen, regardless of the circumstances surrounding being born in the country. Yet, for a long time, it has been regarded as an approved process. This makes a strong case for the idea of relying on “original intent” when interpreting the Constitution and laws.

Giving citizenship to anyone/everyone who is born here without any other considerations makes no sense. A pregnant woman of the Chinese Communist Party comes to Mexico and crosses the border illegally at 2:00 a.m., then gives birth at 4:00 p.m. in the United States, and later returns to China. Why should her child be a citizen? Why should any child born to an illegal alien, or to anyone not a citizen, be given citizenship?

And the language of the 14th Amendment actually contains a clause which somewhat provides restrictions: “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.”  

Illegal aliens and any child born to someone in the U.S. are not subject to the “jurisdiction thereof” unless they have vowed allegiance to it. That does not mean just being there. Some say that being controlled by its laws and subject to punishment for breaking them qualifies as being subject to it. That isn’t enough.

There is something called “birth tourism” that exists in this country. That is the practice of traveling to a country, most often a country with birthright citizenship, to have the child born there, and acquire citizenship in that country. In addition to the U.S., Canada also is a popular choice. The cited reasons for seeking such a destination are for education and health benefits, and safe residency for the child. There are supposedly legal risks for doing this, however, if visa fraud or some negative intent is hidden from immigration authorities.

There are birth tourism centers for Chinese women who come to America to secure U.S.-born citizenship for their babies. One example of this is in Irvine, California, where a luxury apartment complex catered to these women, charging $40,000 to $80,000 for stays that included housing, medical services and post-birth services. This one was raided by the FBI in 2015. And there were other similar places in California.

One suggested theory for why Chinese women are doing this is that after birth and acquired citizenship, the women and their babies return to China where the children are indoctrinated with particular pro-China ideals, and later returned to the U.S. to help subvert the country. 

The New York Sun reports that “analyzing the results from decades of ‘birth tourism’ … Peter Schweizer, in his book The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon, estimates that ‘at least 750,000 and possibly as many as 1.5 million Chinese, who are also American citizens by virtue of being born here, are now growing toward adulthood in China.’”

The possibility that the child citizens may work to have their parent(s) given permission to live here, too, also exists.

The Supreme Court, following testimony on the issue in a hearing last week, is thought by many observers to support the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, due to the long time over which it has been regarded as granting citizenship.

For the Supreme Court to rely on precedent to support an existing situation is a frequent factor. However, we can hold out hope that in this case, the Court will recognize the foolishness, and the potential danger to the country, of allowing this concept to remain in existence.