“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.

Has politics infected the actions of our judicial system?

May 27, 2025

Hardly anyone disagrees with the statement that America has some serious problems. One of the most serious of those problems is what is happening in our judicial system. Mis-interpretation of our Constitution and our laws is not new, but is a problem.

A prominent interpretation issue has to do with birthright citizenship. In January, shortly after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders. One of them sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. 

The liberal left, which supports illegal immigration, immediately reacted. They think that according to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if an illegal alien woman with child sneaks across the border on a Thursday and gives birth to that child on Friday, that child is automatically a citizen of the United States of America. 

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: “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.”

Upon first reading, and without thoughtful analysis, this would tend to suggest that anyone born in the U.S. is immediately a citizen, no questions asked. But with thoughtful analysis, and/or an understanding of why the 14th Amendment was ultimately passed by Congress, that interpretation falls on its face.

The liberal’s interpretation ignores both the actual language, and the actual purpose of the Amendment. Properly interpreting the Constitution’s language, and the language of laws passed by Congress, is not just relevant, but essential. And, applying the factors that were responsible for that piece of the Constitution, one of its Amendments, or a particular law — the original intent — is critical. 

Just because many years or decades have passed, and thinking may have changed since the enactment of the item in question does not mean that those factors should be or can be ignored.

A useful analysis of this comes from the Heritage Foundation, via Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Meese Center, and Hans von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform Initiative Manager and Senior Legal Fellow.

“For the first century following the 14th Amendment’s ratification, few legal scholars would have batted an eye at a directive like Trump’s. If anything, they’d have been more confused as to why the federal government started issuing passports to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, tourists, and ‘temporary sojourners’ in the first place.  

“Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of ‘universal’ birthright citizenship. 

“This was intended to constitutionalize the protections of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power’ would be considered citizens.   

“That’s because the sponsors of the 14th Amendment made it clear that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. means owing your political allegiance to the U.S., and not to another country. Children born to aliens are citizens of their parents’ native land, and thus owe their allegiance to, and are subject to the jurisdiction of, that native land.”

Another example of problematic judicial action is provided by an article in The Western Journal. This challenges that the idea that a federal district judge in one of the hundreds of districts can routinely issue a ruling that affects the entire country, including the actions of its president and the co-equal administrative branch.

“Trump U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued when being questioned by [Supreme Court] Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday that the phenomenon of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions is relatively new in the nation’s history, becoming prominent in the last four or five administrations.

“Further, they have been meted out in unprecedented numbers against Trump, with 40 in the last four months, he said.

“Sauer directed Kavanaugh to the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a reference point. ‘There were very, very passionate challenges to nationwide policies during the Roosevelt administration, and they were not addressed by issuing universal injunctions,’ the solicitor general highlighted.

“Sauer also addressed the Supreme Court’s past rulings on whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.

“So, when the [Supreme Court] has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court,’’ Sauer argued.

“Then [Justice Clarence] Thomas made the most important observation of the day by asking, ‘So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?’”

“That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s,” Sauer responded. “It really exploded in 2007.”

So, we are now experiencing a pandemic of improper judicial rulings, it seems. Are these the result of persons appointed to positions of federal judgeships who really do not understand the law and the necessity of judicial neutrality and boundaries? Or, are they more concerned with political goals than with being judicially neutral referees in these cases?