Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents

Congressional research reportAug 20, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Birthright Citizenship Under the

14th Amendment of Persons Born

in the United States to Alien Parents

Margaret Mikyung Lee

Legislative Attorney

August 20, 2015

Congressional Research Service

7-5700

www.crs.gov

RL33079

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Summary

Over the past couple of decades, growing concern about illegal immigration, chain migration, and

national security has led some Members of Congress to reexamine the long-established tenet that

a person who is born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen of the United

States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. This concept of birthright

citizenship is codified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution and Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, codified at 8

U.S.C. §1401(a)). Proponents of birthright citizenship limits believe that the current law

encourages illegal immigration by aliens hoping that their U.S.-born children will eventually

enable lawful status for family members. The war on terror and the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a

U.S.-Saudi dual national captured in Afghanistan fighting with Taliban forces, further heightened

interest in restricting automatic birthright citizenship. Although Hamdi’s parents were Saudi

nationals in the United States on nonimmigrant work visas, Hamdi was a U.S. citizen by birth in

Louisiana and thus entitled to certain due-process rights not available to foreign enemy

combatants. More recently, the media reports have drawn congressional attention to “birth

tourism,” in which wealthy, pregnant foreigners allegedly travel to the United States so that their

children will be born as U.S. citizens. The 2016 presidential race renewed the debate on

restricting automatic birthright citizenship due to Donald Trump’s avowed support of restrictions

followed by other candidates’ statements supporting or opposing restrictions.

Consequent to these developments, in the 114th and recent Congresses, Members have introduced

or supported bills that would revise or reinterpret the Citizenship Clause and/or the related

citizenship statute. Some commentators assert that a constitutional amendment is required to

restrict birthright citizenship, while others argue that a statutory interpretation of the Citizenship

Clause would suffice. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 140 and S. 45 would amend the INA by

interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction,” text in the Citizenship Clause and the INA, to exclude

from birthright citizenship persons born in the United States whose parents are unlawfully present

in the United States or are nonimmigrant aliens. H.R. 2484 would restrict the admissibility of

pregnant aliens who are seeking admission into the United States as B-visa/status tourists or

short-term business visitors and, if admitted, are likely to give birth while in the United States.

Citizenship by birth in the United States was not defined in the original Constitution or in the

early federal statutes. The states and courts in the United States apparently adopted the jus soli

doctrine followed by traditional English common-law, under which persons born within the

dominions of and with allegiance to the English sovereign are subjects of the sovereign regardless

of the alienage status of their parents. The exceptions to this rule are persons born (1) to

diplomats as subjects of the sovereign whom the parents represent abroad and (2) to citizens of a

foreign, hostile occupying force as subjects of the invading sovereign. The doctrine’s scope

remained uncertain before enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and ratification of the

Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

These laws defined birthright citizenship, extending it to African Americans and also to most

persons born in the United States. In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United

States Supreme Court made clear that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S.

citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for

the children of foreign diplomats and foreign, hostile occupation forces. In the 1884 decision Elk

v. Wilkins, however, the Supreme Court held that Native Americans were not U.S. citizens under

the terms of the Citizenship Clause. Native Americans were U.S. citizens by treaties or statutes

granting U.S. citizenship to members of specific tribes. Immigration and nationality statutes

enacted in 1924, 1940, and 1952 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Historical Development ................................................................................................................... 2

Jus Soli Doctrine before the Fourteenth Amendment ............................................................... 2

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ................................................. 6

United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Elk v. Wilkins .................................................................... 8

Legislative Proposals ..................................................................................................................... 10

Constitutional and Statutory Amendments .............................................................................. 10

Constitutional Amendments and Related Statutory Amendments ..................................... 11

Statutory Amendments without Related Constitutional Amendments .............................. 13

Other Statutory Amendments ............................................................................................ 15

Congressional Act without Constitutional Amendment .......................................................... 15

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 19

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Introduction

Over the past twenty-five years, concern about illegal immigration, chain migration, and national

security has led some legislators to reexamine the long-established tenet of U.S. citizenship that a

person, who is born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United

States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. This concept of birthright

citizenship is codified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution and §301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 1 The war on terror and

the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S.-Saudi dual national captured in Afghanistan fighting with

Taliban forces, further heightened attention to and interest in restricting automatic birthright

citizenship. Although Hamdi’s parents were Saudi nationals in the United States on nonimmigrant

work visas, Hamdi was a U.S. citizen by right of his birth in Louisiana and arguably entitled to

rights not available to foreign enemy combatants. More recently, the media reports have drawn

congressional attention to “birth tourism,” in which wealthy, pregnant foreigners allegedly travel

to the United States so that their children will be born as U.S. citizens. The 2016 presidential race

renewed the debate on restricting automatic birthright citizenship due to Donald Trump’s avowed

support of restrictions followed by other candidates’ statements supporting or opposing

restrictions. This report traces the history of birthright citizenship under U.S. law and discusses

some of the legislation in recent Congresses intended to alter it.

In the current and recent Congresses, some Members have introduced or supported legislation

that would revise or reinterpret the Citizenship Clause to address concerns that (1) children born

to unauthorized aliens become an avenue to legal status for their parents and siblings when they

turn 21 years old,2 and (2) affluent pregnant foreigners come to the United States on tourist visas

to give birth to their children and thus provide them with U.S. citizenship.3 Such legislation also

responds to more general public concern about the lack of movement on comprehensive federal

immigration reform legislation.4

In the 114th Congress, H.R. 140 and S. 45 would amend the INA by interpreting “subject to the

jurisdiction,” text in the Citizenship Clause and the INA, to exclude persons born in the United

States from citizenship at birth if their parents were unlawfully present in the United States or

were nonimmigrant aliens. In order for a child to be a citizen at birth under these proposals, at

least one parent would have to be a U.S. national, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who resides

in the United States, or an alien serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. Also, H.R. 2484

would take a different approach to discouraging and preventing “birth tourism” by restricting the

admissibility of pregnant aliens who are seeking admission into the United States as B-visa/status

tourists or short-term business visitors and, if admitted, are likely to give birth while in the United

States.No legislative action beyond committee referral has occurred on these measures.

Codified at 8 U.S.C. §1401(a).

See, for example, 157 Cong. Rec. H3096 (daily ed. May 5, 2011) (statement of Rep. King).

See, for example, Daniel González, “Births by U.S. visitors: A real issue? Data indicate ‘birth tourism’ is not a

widespread practice,” Arizona Republic, August 17, 2011, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/08/17/

20110817births-by-us-visitors-smaller-issue.html; Rob Hotakainen, “‘Birthright Citizenship’ Will Be Target of House

GOP Majority,” McClatchy Newspapers, November 18, 2010, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/18/103946/

birthright-citizenship-will-be.html#.

J. Taylor Rushing and Bob Cusack, GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review, THE HILL,

August 2, 2010; Miriam Jordan, Jean Guerrero, Laura Meckler, U.S. Immigration Fight Widens to Native Born, WALL

ST. J., July 30, 2010, at A5.

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Furthermore, some state legislators have voiced support for state legislation that would define

state citizenship as excluding persons born to undocumented aliens and for a state compact under

which states would issue a different type of birth certificate to such persons. Intending to set the

stage for a U.S. Supreme Court review of the Citizenship Clause, state legislators from Arizona

and 13 other states unveiled model legislation in January 2011.5 Such legislation has been

introduced in some states but has not been enacted.6 Even if such legislation were enacted, some

legal scholars think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would hear such a case.7 The prevalence

of this type of legislation has diminished since 2011; such legislation apparently is pending only

in New Jersey as of the date of this report.8

The American Bar Association (ABA), at its 2011 annual meeting, adopted a resolution urging

Congress and state, territorial, and local legislative bodies to reject any revision of the 14th

Amendment Citizenship Clause or any other attempt to restrict the ability of a person to claim

U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment because of the citizenship or immigration status of the

parents.9

Historical Development

Jus Soli Doctrine before the Fourteenth Amendment

There are two basic doctrines for determining birthright citizenship. Jus soli is the principle that a

person acquires citizenship in a nation by virtue of his birth in that nation or its territorial

possessions.10 Jus sanguinis is the principle that a person acquires the citizenship of his parents,

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, “State Lawmakers Convened in D.C. to Deliver

Historic, Nationwide Correction of 14th Amendment Misapplication,” January 5, 2011,

http://www.statelegislatorsforlegalimmigration.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=10195; Associated Press, “Lawmakers

in 14 States Craft Bill to Deny Citizenship to ‘Anchor Babies,’” October 19, 2010, listed the 13 other states as

Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah, at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/lawmakers-states-craft-denycitizenship-anchor-babies/?test=latestnews. Some legal scholars think it is unlikely the Supreme Court will hear such a

case. Valeria Fernández, “Birthright Citizenship’s Unlikely Road to Supreme Court,” New America Media, December

22, 2010, http://newamericamedia.org/2010/12/birthright-citizenships-unlikely-road-to-supreme-court.php.

For example, S.B. 1308, 50th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2011), failed to pass in the State Senate on March 17, 2011.

Other states have introduced legislation, e.g., H.B. 1413, 117th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2011); H.B. 1032,

2011 Reg. Sess. (Md. 2011); H.B. 2092, 53 rd Leg., 1st Sess. (Okla. 2011); S.B. 897, 53rd Leg., 1st Sess. (Okla. 2011);

H.B. 3207, 80th Leg. (W. Va. 2011). In Texas, a bill was introduced, not involving an interstate compact, to restrict

issuance of a birth certificate to a child who had at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen, U.S. noncitizen national, or

a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States; a temporary report of birth would be issued to other children.

H.B. 292, 82nd Leg. (Tex. 2011).

Valeria Fernández, “Birthright Citizenship’s Unlikely Road to Supreme Court,” New America Media, December 22,

2010, http://newamericamedia.org/2010/12/birthright-citizenships-unlikely-road-to-supreme-court.php, citing both

scholars who believe interpretation of the Citizenship Clause has been settled to cover those born to unauthorized alien

parents and those who believe it has not because prior cases did not expressly consider whether the Clause’s scope

included unauthorized alien parents. Both consider that any state law purporting to define federal, national citizenship

would be unconstitutional.

A3099, 216th Leg. (N.J. 2014).

At its annual meeting in August 2011 ABA House of Delegates adopted resolution 303, available at

www.abajournal.com/files/303.pdf; see also the report accompanying the resolution at

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/1312996198resolution303report.pdf, and, with other information, at

http://www.abajournal.com/files/2011_hod_annual_meeting_303.authcheckdam_.pdf.

Black’s Law Dictionary 775 (10th Ed. 2014); entry for “jus soli” defines it as the “rule that a child's citizenship is

determined by place of birth. This is the U.S. rule, as affirmed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

“citizenship of the blood.”11 The English common law tradition prior to the Declaration of

Independence, which was the basis of the common law in the original 13 colonies and which was

adopted by most of the states as the precedent for state common law,12 followed the jus soli

doctrine.13 Persons born within the dominion of the sovereign and under the protection and

ligeance of the sovereign were subjects of the sovereign and citizens of England; this included

persons born to “aliens in amity” who owed temporary allegiance to the sovereign while in his

territory.14 The exceptions were persons born to members of a hostile occupying force or to

diplomats representing another sovereign.15 The reason was that the children of a hostile

occupying force did not owe allegiance to nor were born under the protection of the proper

sovereign of the occupied territory. The children of diplomats, although enjoying the temporary

protection of the sovereign while in his/her dominions, actually owed allegiance to and had a

claim to the protection of the sovereign whom their parents represented at the court of the

sovereign in whose dominions they were born. All civilized nations recognize and assent to the

immunity of foreign diplomats from their jurisdiction, without which a foreign ambassador might

not be able to effectively represent the sending sovereign, but it would be “inconvenient and

dangerous to society ... if [private individual aliens] did not owe temporary and local allegiance,

and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.”16

The original framers of the U.S. Constitution did not define citizenship of the United States,

although the Constitution required that a person have been a citizen of the United States for seven

years to be a Representative and for nine years to be a Senator,17 and that a person be a naturalborn citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in order to be eligible to be

President (and therefore, Vice President).18 The Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent acts

until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment did not define

citizenship by birth within the United States.19 These naturalization acts specified that only free

white persons could be naturalized. As a result of the absence of any definition in the Constitution

or federal statutes of U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States, citizenship by birth in the

United States generally was construed in the context of the English common law.20 This provided

the frame of reference and definition of “citizenship” that the framers of the Constitution would

have understood and also provided the pre-independence precedent for state common laws. The

acquisition of citizenship by birth and by naturalization in the United States depended on state

Id.; entry at “jus sanguinis” defines it as the “rule that a child's citizenship is determined by the parents' citizenship.

Most countries follow this rule.”

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandford Ch. 583, 646 (N.Y. 1844); 4 CHARLES GORDON, STANLEY MAILMAN & STEPHEN YALELOEHR, IMMIGRATION LAW AND PROCEDURE §92.03[1][b] (2015); Isidor Blum, Is Gov. George Romney Eligible to be

President? [part two], New York Law Journal, p. 1, col. 5 (October 17, 1967).

4 GORDON, MAILMAN & YALE-LOEHR, supra footnote 12, at §92.03[1][a & b]; Jill A. Pryor, The Natural-Born

Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale

L.J. 881, 886 & n. 24 (1988).

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655-668 (1898); Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandford Ch. at 670; Calvin’s

Case, 7 Coke’s Reports 1, 8-21 (1607)(as reprinted in vol. 4 of the 1826 edition edited by John H. Thomas & John F.

Fraser).

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 675, 682-688; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke’s Reports at 10-11.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 683-688, citing the case of The Exchange, 7 Cranch. 116 (1812).

U.S. Const. art. I, §2, cl. 2 (Representatives), U.S. Const. art. I, §3, cl. 3 (Senators).

U.S. Const. art. II, §1, cl. 5.

Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103; Act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414; Act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153; Act of

February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604.

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandford Ch. at 646, 658; Isidor Blum, supra footnote 12, at p. 1, col. 5.

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

laws, both statutory and common law, until the enactment of the naturalization law in 1790.21 The

Naturalization Act of 1790, enacted pursuant to the Congress’s powers under the Constitution,22

clearly established the definition of citizenship by naturalization, but Congress’s silence on the

issue of citizenship by birth in the United States caused some confusion and disagreement as to

what the appropriate definition was. For example, some persons rejected the idea that English

common law provided the proper rule for citizenship by birth in the United States.23 And until the

Civil War, some eminent jurists and legal scholars believed that there was no real citizenship of

the United States separate from citizenship in a state; that is, a person was a citizen of a state

which was part of the Union, therefore a person was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his

citizenship in a state.24

Although the English common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution considered a

person born in the English dominions to alien parents to be an English citizen unless those alien

parents fit into the exceptions described above, and although American law apparently generally

accepted this position, there nevertheless appeared to be some uncertainty as to whether persons

born in the United States to alien parents were, in fact, citizens of the United States. Some

scholars ascribe this uncertainty to the desire of Americans to embrace both a “consensualist”

doctrine of citizenship,25 by which a person and a government consent to be mutually obligated,

One should note that the determination of U.S. citizenship by naturalization also depended on state laws prior to the

enactment of the first federal naturalization act. The election of Albert Gallatin to the U.S. Senate in 1793 was

successfully challenged on the grounds that he had not been a U.S. citizen for nine years as required by the

Constitution. 4 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 3rd Cong. 47-55, 57-62 (Gales & Seaton 1849—there may be some difference in

the pagination between different printings of the same congressional debates) (covering period of February 20-28,

1794). He claimed that he had become a citizen of either Virginia or Massachusetts at least nine years before his

election. But a majority of the Senate, upon an examination of the Virginia and Massachusetts citizenship laws, decided

that Gallatin had not satisfied the residency of either state prior to moving to Pennsylvania, where he ultimately settled

and was elected to Congress. He had not been resident in Pennsylvania for nine years prior to election. This example

also illustrates the pre-Constitution position that U.S. citizenship could not exist without state citizenship, which some

legal scholars continued to espouse until the Civil War. Although Gallatin had resided in the United States for 13 years,

he had not satisfied all the requirements for citizenship in the states where he had resided nine years before election.

Gallatin tried to argue, inter alia, that U.S. citizenship was not dependent on state citizenship laws which had existed

before independence because U.S. citizenship depended on allegiance to the new nation and even persons who had

been natural-born citizens of the states were not considered citizens of the United States if they had not shown

allegiance to the new government and nation.

U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cls. 4 & 18.

See, e.g., Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandford Ch. at 657; 4 GORDON, MAILMAN & YALE-LOEHR, supra footnote 12, at

§92.03[1][b]. n. 9; PETER H. SCHUCK & ROGERS M. SMITH, CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT CONSENT: ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE

AMERICAN POLITY, 50-54 (1985).

Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wallace 36, 72 (1873); Leonard W. Levy, Kenneth L. Karst & Dennis J. Mahoney,

Citizenship (Historical Development), Encyclopedia of the American Constitution 258 (1986).

Cases arose in the United States through the early nineteenth century concerning the issue of citizenship of naturalborn state citizens whose allegiance to the United States was in question. Generally, such citizens had left the United

States for England or English dominions before or during the Revolutionary War and no act by them or their home state

had affirmed their allegiance to the independent state or the United States. Factors relevant to this consensual

citizenship included whether the person was born before or after July 4, 1776; whether the person left for England

before or after July 4, 1776; whether the person was a minor at the time of departure for England; whether the person

elected to affirm U.S. allegiance upon attaining majority; and whether the person was born or residing in territory

during its occupation by the British on or after July 4, 1776. For example, if a person was born a British subject, i.e.,

before July 4, 1776, and as an adult did not adhere to the independent states after July 4, 1776, he remained a British

subject. Generally, if he was born after July 4, 1776, he was a U.S. citizen, unless he was born in British-occupied

territory, left for England as a minor, and did not elect to affirm his U.S. citizenship within a reasonable time after

attaining his majority. See Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99 (1830). But see McIlvaine v. Cox, 8

U.S. (4 Cranch) 208 (1808), where the Court held that a person who joined the British Army and left for England still

had inheritance rights because initially he had remained in New Jersey after July 4, 1776, and after New Jersey had

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

and an “ascriptive” doctrine by which a person is ascribed citizenship by virtue of circumstances

beyond his control, such as birth within a particular territory or birth to parents with a particular

citizenship.26

Apparently, Lynch v. Clarke, an 1844 New York case,27 was the first case to decide the issue of

whether the U.S.-born child of an alien was a U.S. citizen.28 It held that the U.S.-born child of an

Irish resident of the United States who returned to Ireland after the child’s birth and died without

ever declaring even an intent to be naturalized was a U.S. citizen. It held that the right of

citizenship was a national right not pertaining to the individual states;29 that state laws could no

longer define U.S. citizenship;30 and that national laws instead determined citizenship.31 In

determining the appropriate national law, the court rejected the consensualist doctrine in favor of

the traditional English common-law doctrine of jus soli.32 It rejected the argument that the

application of the common-law doctrine was based on feudal principles inappropriate to the

United States, which had been founded on the principles of consent between the government and

the people to be governed, and found instead that the silence of the Constitution and the federal

statutes indicated that Congress approved the adoption of the traditional common-law position.33

The court also believed that even if federal laws did not indicate acquiescence in common-law

doctrine, the common-law rule provided a well-defined, unambiguous, reliable rule without

confusing recourse to the status of the parents.34 It held that the national law defined any person

born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States as a citizen, regardless of the status

of the parents.35 Notwithstanding the general acceptance of jus soli, in the minds of many

persons, the issue of automatic citizenship upon birth in the United States to alien parents was

still not to be decided definitively for many years, particularly where the parents were of a

minority race or ethnicity.

Until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, African Americans were not

considered citizens of the United States. In the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford,36 the United States

(...continued)

passed legislation declaring itself an independent and sovereign state and its residents to be citizens of the independent

state, and thus he had become a citizen of independent New Jersey. See also Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 242

(1830), holding that a woman born in South Carolina before July 4, 1776, and remaining there afterward, was a citizen

of independent South Carolina and her subsequent marriage to a British soldier during the occupation of her hometown

did not change this status. However, her subsequent removal to England with her husband in 1782 rendered her a

British subject within the meaning of the treaty of 1794 which recognized inheritance rights for British subjects with

property in the United States. For a discussion of case law, legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a

theory of citizenship based on fairness, reciprocity, and consent, see William Ty Mayton, Birthright Citizenship And

The Civic Minimum, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 221 (2008) (arguing that fairness dictated that the children of lawfully

present aliens should be birthright citizens under the Citizenship Clause, but did not dictate that children of unlawfully

present aliens must be birthright citizens).

SCHUCK & SMITH, supra footnote 23, at 42-62.

1 Sandford Ch. 583

SCHUCK & SMITH, supra footnote 23, at 57.

1 Sanford Ch. at 641.

1 Sanford Ch. at 643-5.

Id.

1 Sandford Ch. at 656-663.

Id.

1 Sandford Ch. at 658.

1 Sandford Ch. at 663.

60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Supreme Court held that African Americans could not be citizens of the United States, even if

they were free, because they were descended from persons brought to the United States as slaves;

the terms of the Constitution demonstrated that slaves were not considered a class of persons

included in the political community as citizens;37 and the various state laws indicated that African

Americans had not been considered to be state citizens and that it was widely permitted to treat

them as property at the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution.38 The descendants of

slaves could not have a citizenship right which their ancestors had not had upon the formation of

the Union and which no law had subsequently granted them at the time of the Dred Scott

decision.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866

The debates on the citizenship provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth

Amendment indicate that, although the primary aim was to secure citizenship for African

Americans, these laws were intended to extend U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United

States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of race, ethnicity or alienage of the parents.39 The

Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that “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.”40 The Fourteenth Amendment declared that “[a]ll 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.”41 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differs from the Fourteenth

Amendment by using the terms “not subject to any foreign power” and “excluding Indians not

taxed.”

During the debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the

committee that reported the bill, moved to amend it so that the first sentence read, “All persons

born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens

of the United States without distinction of color.”42 Senator Cowan of Pennsylvania, who opposed

both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, asked “whether it will not have

the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” Senator

Trumbull replied, “Undoubtedly.” The two disagreed as to whether, under the law in existence

60 U.S. (19 How.) at 411.

60 U.S. (19 How.) at 407-416.

For additional analyses of the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, see Birthright

Citizenship: Is It The Right Policy For America?, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border

Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Serial No. 114-21, 114th Cong. (2015)

(hereinafter Birthright Citizenship Hearing); testimony of witnesses representing opposing positions at the Joint

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the

Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Serial No. 50, 104th Cong. (1995) (hereinafter Joint Hearing);

see also, Garrett Epps, The Citizenship Clause: A “Legislative History,” (June 20, 2010), available at Social Science

Research Network website, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1627665; James C. Ho, Defining “American”: Birthright

Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment, and Elizabeth B. Wydra, Debunking Modern

Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship, in Immigration Policy Center, Made in America: Myths & Facts About

Birthright Citizenship (September 2009); Charles Wood, Losing Control of America’s Future: the Census, Birthright

Citizenship, and Illegal Aliens, 22 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 465, 504-519 (1999); Christopher L. Eisgruber, Birthright

Citizenship and the Constitution, 2 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 54 (1997).

C. 31, §1, 14 Stat. 27.

Ratified July 9, 1868.

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (1866). The quotations from the colloquy described in this paragraph are all

located at this citation.

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Chinese Americans were citizens of the

United States. Cowan raised the specter of unfettered Chinese immigration to California, resulting

effectively in something tantamount to a takeover of California by the Chinese empire, if the

proposed language were adopted. Trumbull asked Cowan whether the children born in

Pennsylvania to German parents were not U.S. citizens, to which Cowan replied that Germans

were not Chinese, Australians or Hottentots or the like. Trumbull replied that the law made no

distinction between the children of Germans and Asiatics “and the child of an Asiatic is just as

much a citizen as the child of a European.”

Later in the debates, Senator Johnson of Maryland urged Senator Trumbull to delete the phrase

“without distinction of color” because it was unnecessary since even without the phrase he

understood that Trumbull’s proposed amendment “comprehends all persons, without any

reference to race or color, who may be so born.”43 Trumbull felt that it was better to retain the

phrase to eliminate any doubt or dispute as to the meaning of his amendment.44

There was also a debate over whether Indians should be included or excluded from the citizenship

provision. Trumbull believed that if the Indians were separated from their tribes and incorporated

into the mainstream community then they already were U.S. citizens under the law.45 Senator

Lane of Kansas disagreed and felt that a more explicit bill was needed to extend citizenship to

Indians, which he favored.46 Other Senators wished to exclude Indians not taxed, which

apparently was intended to exclude unassimilated Indians, who were deemed to be mostly living

in an uncivilized condition in their tribes.47 When the exclusion was adopted, Senator Henderson

of Missouri objected that the citizenship of white persons did not depend on whether or not they

were taxed and that it was unfair to make such a distinction for Indians, particularly since the

issue of taxation was irrelevant to the issue of assimilation.48

During the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Howard of Michigan moved to amend

it by adding the first sentence in its present form, minus the phrase “or naturalized.”49 Senator

Cowan again objected to language that he felt would include races such as the Chinese and

prevent California from dealing with the massive Chinese immigrant population as it saw fit.50 He

again invoked the fear that California would be overrun by Chinese, Pennsylvania by Gypsies. He

believed that the people of different races and cultures could not mingle. Senator Conness of

California replied that he had supported the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and had no problem with

constitutionally guaranteeing the U.S.-born children of Mongolian parents civil rights and equal

protection, his support apparently influenced by his belief that the population of non-European

immigrants and their descendants would not increase significantly.51

There was also debate as to whether Indians should be excluded from the scope of the Citizenship

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether they were excluded by the phrase “subject to

the jurisdiction thereof.”52 Apparently most of the Senators supported the idea of excluding

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 573-574 (1866).

Id.

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498-499 (1866).

Id.

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 571-573 (1866).

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 571 (1866).

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 (1866).

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890-2891 (1866).

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2891-2892 (1866).

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890-2897 (1866).

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Indians but disagreed as to whether the phrase “excluding Indians not taxed” should be inserted

as it had been in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Several Senators argued that “subject to the

jurisdiction” meant the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, and the Indians had

always been considered subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes, which were quasi-foreign

nations;53 some also felt that the taxation requirement was problematic. Some Senators argued

that “excluding Indians not taxed” was good enough for the Civil Rights Act so it was appropriate

for the Fourteenth Amendment; they also argued that Indians were subject to U.S. jurisdiction for

a variety of purposes so the “subject to the jurisdiction” language was insufficiently clear.54

Ultimately, the Senate rejected the insertion of “excluding Indians not taxed,” although at least

one Senator said he voted against this insertion because he favored extending citizenship to

Indians and not because he believed that the “subject to the jurisdiction language” excluded

Indians already.55

United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Elk v. Wilkins

Despite the clarification in the debates that race, ethnicity, and alienage of parents would not

affect the right to citizenship by birth in the United States, the issue concerning the meaning of

the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment was not settled until the 1898 case of

United States v. Wong Kim Ark.56 As the debates about those laws indicate, an underlying problem

appears to have been the attitude that certain alien races and Native Americans/American Indians,

like the African Americans in Dred Scott, could not be members of the American political

community because they had not been members of the community that yielded the Declaration of

Independence and the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court discussed the congressional

debates described above, noting that although they were not admissible as evidence to control the

meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, they were important as an indication of the

contemporaneous legal opinion of jurists and legislators and showed that Congress had explicitly

considered the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Chinese (and other U.S.-born

children of aliens).57

The Court traced the history of the statutory and common law regarding jus soli in England and

America58 and distinguished another case in which an alleged Chinese American had been found

not to be a U.S. citizen, noting that the issue had been the insufficiency of proof that the claimant

had been born in the United States.59 But where birth in the United States was clear, a child of

Chinese parents was, in the Court’s opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth

Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law.60

The Court rejected the argument that the child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese

emperor and outside the jurisdiction of the United States because his allegiance and citizenship

derived from his parents’ remaining subjects to the Chinese emperor under treaties between the

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890, 2893, 2895, 2897 (1866) (remarks of Senator Howard of Michigan, Senator

Trumbull of Illinois, Senator Williams of Oregon).

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2892, 2893, 2895 (1866) (remarks of Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, Senator

Johnson of Maryland, Senator Hendricks of Indiana).

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2897 (1866) (remarks of Senator Saulsbury of Delaware).

169 U.S. 649 (1898).

169 U.S. at 697-699.

169 U.S. at 655-675.

169 U.S. at 696-697.

169 U.S. at 705.

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

United States and China and the naturalization laws.61 It noted and rejected the Slaughter-House

Court’s inaccurate statement that the exceptions to jus soli included the children of consuls and

other aliens generally in addition to the children of ambassadorial-level diplomats and the

children of hostile, occupying forces.62 The decision alludes to a contemporaneous New Jersey

case that held that a U.S.-born child of Scottish parents domiciled but not naturalized in the

United States was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the

Fourteenth Amendment and not subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country within the meaning

of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.63 The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed the

traditional jus soli rule, including the exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats, to hostile

occupying forces or on foreign public ships, and added a new exception of children of Indians

owing direct allegiance to their tribes.64 It further held that the “Fourteenth Amendment ... has

conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to

constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship”65 and that it is “throughout affirmative

and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and settle controversies which had arisen, and not to

impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.”66

Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark

decision secured automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the United States and

subject to its jurisdiction, Native American/American Indians s were not considered to be

Fourteenth Amendment citizens because the U.S. Supreme Court determined that they were not

born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Following earlier cases that had held that

Indian tribes and their members were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and

language in the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that included only “Indians not

taxed,” the Court in Elk v. Wilkins67 held that Indians were not citizens of the United States unless

they had been naturalized by treaty or by a federal collective naturalization statute, or taxed or

recognized as a citizen by the United States or a state. At the time of the decision, Native

Americans/American Indians were not eligible to be naturalized on an individual basis according

to the usual naturalization procedures and were only naturalized by treaty or statute.68 The Court

found that Native Americans/American Indians who had not been taxed or naturalized still owed

immediate allegiance to the tribe and were members of an independent political community and

thus were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and were not citizens of the United

States.69 The argument echoes those in the debates about the Fourteenth Amendment. John Elk

had separated from his tribe and lived “under the jurisdiction of Nebraska” and had assimilated

into mainstream society. Despite these facts, the Court held that he was not a U.S. citizen nor

could he become one in the absence of treaty or federal statutory action regarding his tribe.

Native Americans/American Indians are still not Fourteenth Amendment citizens;70 they are

169 U.S. at 694-705.

169 U.S. at 675, 682-688.

169 U.S. at 692.

169 U.S. at 693.

169 U.S. at 703; see also Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 266-267 (1967), which noted at footnote 30 that some have

referred to this statement as a holding and others have referred to it as obiter dictum, but which deemed it entitled to

great weight regardless of whether it was dictum or a holding.

169 U.S. at 688.

112 U.S. 94 (1884).

Anna Williams Shavers, A Century of Developing Citizenship Law and the Nebraska Influence: A Centennial Essay,

70 Nebraska L. Rev. 462, 487-489 (1991).

112 U.S. at 102, 109.

Under Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the United States Supreme Court’s current position appears to be that

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

citizens by virtue of one of the various statutes and treaties naturalizing specific tribes, the

Citizenship Act of 1924 (which was ambiguous regarding those born after the act),71 the

Nationality Act of 1940 (which finally and unambiguously declared all Native

Americans/American Indians born in the United States to be U.S. citizens),72 or the Immigration

and Nationality Act.73

Legislative Proposals

Constitutional and Statutory Amendments

In recent Congresses there have been various proposals aimed at excluding the children of

unauthorized aliens and even nonimmigrant aliens from automatic birthright citizenship, partly to

remove an incentive for aliens to enter the United States illegally, or enter legally on a

nonimmigrant visa and then illegally stay beyond the visa period.74 These proposals take the form

of amendments to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or to the statutory

(...continued)

there are three types of citizenship: the two defined in the Fourteenth Amendment, birth and naturalization in the

United States when subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and non-Fourteenth Amendment statutory citizenship, e.g., the

citizenship of Native Americans, persons born abroad to U.S. citizens, and persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the

Virgin Islands. See J. Michael Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to

Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, 12 Oklahoma City Univ. L. Rev. 253, 265 (1987).

Act of June 2, 1924, c. 233, 43 Stat. 253.

C. 876, §201(b), 54 Stat. 1137, 1158.

C. 477, §301(a)(2), 66 Stat. 163, 235 (1952); codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. §1401(b).

Aliens are seen as willing to enter the United States illegally in order to have a child here, because they realize that

when the U.S.-citizen child reaches his/her majority, he/she may bring immediate relatives over to the United States,

even if the immigration enforcement authorities decide to deport the parents, or they choose to leave, in the interim. So

the automatic birthright gives unauthorized aliens a foot in the door to the United States and its benefits. 157 Cong.

Rec. H3096 (daily ed. May 5, 2011) (statement of Rep. King); 151 Cong Rec. E816 (daily ed. April 28, 2005)

(statement of Rep. Paul); 149 Cong. Rec. E547 (daily ed. March 21, 2003) (statement of Rep. Paul); 143 Cong. Rec.

H7354-6 (daily ed. September 16, 1997) (statements of Rep. Smith of Texas and Rep. Bilbray); 142 Cong. Rec. H2487

(daily ed. March 20, 1996) (statement of Rep. Deal); 141 Cong. Rec. E127-8 (daily ed. January 19, 1995) (statement of

Rep. Beilenson); 140 Cong. Rec. E456 (daily ed. March 16, 1994) (statement of Rep. Taylor); 139 Cong. Rec. S11997

(daily ed. September 20, 1993) (statement of Sen. Reid), E 2168-2169 (daily ed. September 15, 1993) (statement of

Rep. Gallegly), S10378 (daily ed. August 4, 1993) (statement of Sen. Reid), H4437 (daily ed. July 1, 1993) (statement

of Rep. Gallegly), H1005 (daily ed. March 3, 1993) (statement of Rep. Gallegly), E409 (daily ed. February 23, 1993)

(statement of Rep. Beilenson); 138 Cong. Rec. E2572-3 (daily ed. September 10, 1992) (statement of Rep. Gallegly),

E1847 (daily ed. June 16, 1992) (statement of Rep. Gallegly), E441 (daily ed. February 26, 1992) (statement of Rep.

Gallegly); 137 Cong. Rec. H8180 (daily ed. October 22, 1991) (statement of Rep. Gallegly), H7788 (daily ed. October

10, 1991) (statement of Rep. Dornan).

Senator Inhofe cited the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a nonprofit immigration reform organization, and the

National Center for Health Statistics for the statistic that in 2002 there were about 383,000 babies born to unauthorized

aliens, which represented about 9.5% of all U.S. births in 2002. 152 Cong. Rec. S2582 (daily ed. March 30, 2006); see

also Steven A. Camarota, CIS, Backgrounder: Births to Immigrants in America, 1970 to 2002, at 1, 5, 26, and 28 (July

2005).

Compare these statistics with a more recent statistical analysis done by the Pew Hispanic Center, a Pew Research

Center Project, estimating that about 340,000 babies were born to unauthorized aliens in 2008, representing about 8%

of all U.S. births in 2008, and that about 4 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized alien parents resided in the

United States in 2009. Jeffrey S. Passel and Paul Taylor, Pew Hispanic Center Report, Unauthorized Immigrants and

Their U.S.-Born Children (August 11, 2010), available at http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=125.

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

provisions on birthright citizenship and comprise various approaches.75 Although such proposals

have been introduced in the 114th Congress, none of them have progressed beyond introduction.76

The legislation discussed in this section is intended to discourage unlawful entry and presence of

aliens in the United States and the perceived anomaly of automatically granting citizenship to

persons who, despite birth in the United States, are not raised and do not act in accordance with

allegiance to the United States.77 It may accomplish this but may also throw into question the

ultimate status of many born here, that is, persons whose parents are in the United States initially

on temporary visas but ultimately obtain lawful permanent status. Also, the additional recordkeeping necessary to document who becomes a citizen automatically upon birth in the United

States may present bureaucratic challenges, particularly since birth records are a matter for state

laws.78

Constitutional Amendments and Related Statutory Amendments

Over the last couple of decades there have been several variations on proposals for constitutional

amendments. The versions differ in defining what status a parent must have to enable automatic

birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States.79 Proposals would variously limit jus

soli citizenship under the Constitution to persons born to



parents both of whom are either citizens or lawful permanent residents (does not

expressly repeal the current Citizenship Clause);80

a mother who is a legal resident (expressly repeals the current Citizenship

Clause);81

a mother who is a citizen or legal resident (expressly repeals the current

Citizenship Clause);82

The legislative proposals discussed in this report were suggested in Schuck & Smith, supra footnote 23, at 116-140,

as a more appropriate law of citizenship. Their proposal is to exclude children of unauthorized and nonimmigrant

aliens, because the nation has not consented to the permanent residence of the parents. The children of legal residents,

i.e., permanent resident aliens, would be provisional citizens at birth and until their majority. They note that the United

Kingdom, which shares common origins with our common law of citizenship, has adopted laws which do not extend

birthright citizenship to children of unauthorized or nonimmigrant aliens. For a contrary analysis, see the discussion of

different principles/bases for birthright citizenship, including a response to Schuck & Smith and a consideration of the

detrimental repercussions of restricting birthright citizenship, in Eisgruber, supra footnote 39.

In the 114th Congress, two bills, H.R. 140 and S. 45, have been introduced that would amend INA §301 (8 U.S.C.

§1401).

For additional discussion of the detrimental effect of the current birthright citizenship laws, see Wood, supra

footnote 39, at 493-503. See also Joint Hearing, supra footnote 39.

For additional criticism of proposals to restrict birthright citizenship and the possible detrimental effect of such

legislation, see Margaret Stock, The Cost to Americans and America of Ending Birthright Citizenship, National

Foundation for American Policy, NFAP Policy Brief, March 2012, http://www.nfap.com/pdf/

NFAPPolicyBrief.BirthrightCitizenship.March2012.pdf; Eric Ward, A New Nativism: Anti-Immigration Politics and

the Fourteenth Amendment, and Margaret D. Stock, Policy Arguments in Favor of Retaining America’s Birthright

Citizenship Law, both in Made in America: Myths & Facts about Birthright Citizenship, supra footnote 39. See also

Joint Hearing, supra footnote 39.

One should note that the constitutional Citizenship Clause provides the baseline for birthright citizenship—Congress

can provide for broader bases by statute. See supra footnote 65 and accompanying text.

E.g., H.J.Res. 4, 105th Cong. (1997); H.J.Res. 190, 104th Cong. (1996).

E.g., H.J.Res. 357, 102nd Cong. (1992).

E.g., H.J.Res. 64, 104th Cong. (1995); H.J.Res. 129, 103rd Cong. (1993).

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents



parents one of whom is a citizen (does not expressly repeal the current

Citizenship Clause);83

parents one of whom is a citizen or person who owes permanent allegiance to the

United States (does not expressly repeal the current Citizenship Clause);84

parents one of whom is a legal resident (expressly repeals the current Citizenship

Clause);85

parents one of whom is a citizen or lawful permanent resident (does not expressly

repeal the current Citizenship Clause);86

parents one of whom is a citizen, is lawfully in the United States, or has lawful

status under the immigration laws of the United States (does not expressly repeal

the current Citizenship Clause);87

parents one of whom is a citizen, a lawful permanent resident who resides in the

United States, or an alien performing active duty service in the U.S. Armed

Forces (does not expressly repeal the current Citizenship Clause).88

Even as a baseline for defining citizenship, some of the distinctions drawn are unclear. The term

“legal resident” used in some of the proposals would appear to implicitly include citizens,

nationals, and lawful permanent residents, but it may also be interpreted to include certain

categories of nonimmigrants who typically reside in the United States for several years and other

aliens permanently residing under the color of law. Other proposals refer to citizens, but not to

nationals who are not citizens (e.g., American Samoans). One type of proposal refers to persons

who owe permanent allegiance to the United States, which is how the INA defines nationals.

Therefore, for the sake of clarity, proposed language that includes an explicit enumeration of the

applicable categories of parents—citizens, nationals, lawful permanent residents, nonimmigrants

(if any) may be preferable to language that only explicitly refers to parents who are legal residents

or to citizens without mentioning nationals. Some proposals focus on the mother as the conduit

for birthright citizenship, excluding a father who is a U.S. citizen or legal resident from being the

conduit for such citizenship. All of these proposals would only apply prospectively to those born

after the date of the ratification of an amendment by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

within seven years of its submission for ratification and several expressly provide that Congress

shall have the power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation.

Some of the above proposals to amend the Constitution had or have parallel proposals to amend

the INA to conform to the new baseline of the Citizenship Clause once it is amended, including,

among others, legislation to limit citizenship by birth in the United States to persons born to



mothers who are legal residents89 or

mothers who are citizens or legal residents.90

E.g., H.J.Res. 60, 105th Cong. (1997); H.J.Res. 88, 104th Cong. (1995); H.J.Res. 396, 103rd Cong. (1994).

E.g., H.J.Res. 46, 110th Cong. (2007); H.J.Res. 46, 109th Cong. (2005); H.J.Res. 42, 108th Cong. (2003).

E.g., H.J.Res. 56, 104th Cong. (1995); H.J.Res. 117, 103rd Cong., 1st. Sess. (1993).

E.g., H.J.Res. 41, 109th Cong. (2005); H.J.Res. 44, 108th Cong. (2003).

E.g., H.J.Res. 59, 107th Cong. (2001); H.J.Res. 10, 106th Cong. (1999); H.J.Res. 26, 105th Cong. (1997); H.J.Res. 93,

104th Cong. (1995); H.J.Res. 340, 103rd Cong. (1994).

E.g., S.J. Res. 4, 113th Cong. (2013); S.J.Res. 2, 112th Cong. (2011); S.J.Res. 6, 111th Cong. (2009); S.J.Res. 31, 110th

Cong. (2008).

E.g., H.R. 3605, 102nd Cong. (1991).

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

By their own terms, these types of statutory amendments would not take effect until a related

constitutional amendment had been ratified and would only apply to those born after the date of

ratification. These statutory proposals raise the same issues as the parallel constitutional

amendments.

Statutory Amendments without Related Constitutional Amendments

One type of proposal would limit birthright citizenship in a way that its proponents believe would

not necessitate a constitutional amendment (see discussion in the following section). It essentially

would statutorily define persons born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the

Citizenship Clause, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court holdings in United States v. Wong

Kim Ark. Proposals in this category variously define



persons, whose birth mothers are not citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent

residents of the United States and who are citizens/nationals of another country

of which a natural parent is a citizen/national, as not being born subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth

Amendment, but rather as being born subject to the jurisdiction of the other

country;91

persons, whose birth mothers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of

the United States and who are citizens/nationals of another country of which a

natural parent is a citizen/national, as not being born subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather as

being born subject to the jurisdiction of the other country;92

persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as including persons

born in wedlock to a mother or father who is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a

lawful permanent resident who maintains primary residence in the United States,

or persons born out of wedlock to a mother who is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national,

or a lawful permanent resident who maintains primary residence in the United

States;93

persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as including persons

born in wedlock to a mother or father who is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a

lawful permanent resident who maintains primary residence in the United States,

or persons born out of wedlock to a mother who is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national,

or a lawful permanent resident who maintains primary residence in the United

States, or to a father who is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a lawful permanent

(...continued)

E.g., H.R. 126, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 705, 104th Cong. (1995); H.R. 1191, 103rd Cong. (1993).

E.g., H.R. 190, 107th Cong. (2001); H.R. 319, 106th Cong. (1999); H.R. 346, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 375, §301,

104th Cong. (1995). These bills specify that the persons in question are either born citizens/nationals of another country

of which either of his/her natural parents is a citizen/national or entitled upon application to become a citizen/national

of that other country.

E.g., H.R. 2162, §701, 104th Cong. (1995); H.R. 4934, §701, 103rd Cong. (1994); H.R. 3862, §401, 103rd Cong.

(1994); S. 1351, §1001, 103rd Cong. (1993). These bills specify that the persons in question are either born

citizens/nationals of another country of which either of his/her natural parents is a citizen/national or entitled upon

application to become a citizen/national of that other country.

E.g., H.R. 3938, §701, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 4313, §322, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 698, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R.

1567, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 73, 106th Cong. (1999); H.R. 7, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 1363, 104th Cong. (1995). All

but the last of these defines “wedlock” as not including common-law marriage.

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents



resident who maintains primary residence in the United States, but only if

paternity has been established by clear and convincing evidence and the father

has satisfied certain requirements;94

persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as including persons

born in the United States to a mother or father who is a national of the United

States (this would include citizens and non-citizen nationals) or a lawful

permanent resident who maintains his or her residence in the United States;95

persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as including persons

born in the United States to a mother or father who is a citizen or national of the

United States, a lawful permanent resident whose residence is in the United

States, or an alien performing active duty service in the U.S. Armed Forces.96

The first two of these proposals would avoid the problem of rendering a person stateless by

permitting persons born to unauthorized alien or nonimmigrant mothers to be citizens at birth if

they have no viable claim to citizenship in another country.97 These two proposals could result in

a scenario in which a person may be born in the United States to a mother who is a nonimmigrant

or unauthorized alien and a father who is a U.S. citizen, national or lawful permanent resident (in

or out of wedlock) and not be born a U.S. citizen because that person has a claim to citizenship in

the mother’s country. The third proposal does not permit a person born out of wedlock to a father

who is a U.S. citizen, national or lawful permanent resident to be considered born subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States and does not provide for the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by

such a person through a U.S. citizen father. Without conforming amendments to §309 of the INA,

this proposal would mean that persons born abroad out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father and an

alien mother would have a process by which they could be deemed U.S. citizens at birth and,

paradoxically, persons born in the United States of similar parentage would not. These proposals

are all therefore arguably unconstitutional on due process/equal protection grounds as well as

Citizenship Clause grounds.98 The fourth proposal avoids such issues by providing for the

E.g., H.R. 133, 110th Cong. (2007). The requirements that must be satisfied by the out-of-wedlock father are the same

as the requirements that must be satisfied for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad and out-of-wedlock to a

U.S. citizen father under INA §309(a) (8 U.S.C. §1409(a)).

E.g., S. 1269, §503, 110th Cong. (2007); S. 2117, Title V, 109th Cong. (2005).

E.g., H.R. 140, 114th Cong. (2015); S. 45, 114th Cong. (2015); H.R. 140, 113th Cong. (2013); S. 301, 113th Cong.

(2013); H.R. 140, 112th Cong. (2011); H.R. 1196, §301, 112th Cong. (2011); S. 723, 112th Cong. (2011); H.R. 994,

§301, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 1868, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 5002, §7, 111th Cong. (2010); H.R. 1940, 110th Cong.

(2007); H.R. 6789, §301, 110th Cong. (2008).

International law generally views statelessness as undesirable and seeks to prevent or discourage leaving persons

unprotected by and unallied with any nation. The United States apparently is not a party to any conventions or

agreements with binding obligations to prevent statelessness. It is unclear whether such an obligation exists under

customary international law, although some authorities argue that it does, given the near-universal condemnation of

statelessness in the laws of many nations and in various international agreements. See 8 Gordon, Mailman & YaleLoehr, supra footnote 12, at §§91.01[3][e] and 100.03[2][e]; J.M Spectar, To Ban or Not to Ban an American Taliban?

Revocation of Citizenship & Statelessness in a Statecentric System, 39 Cal. W. L. Rev. 263, 296-301 (2003); Christine

Biancheria, Restoring the Right to Have Rights: Statelessness and Alienage Jurisdiction in Light of Abu-zeineh V.

Federal Laboratories, Inc., 11 Am. U.J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 195, 198-202 (1996); Milton C. Lorenz, Jr., Note: Aliens—

Renunciation of Nationality Leaves Individual Stateless and Excludable as Any Alien, 46 Tul. L. Rev. 984, 989-990

(1972).

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the requirements for transmission of citizenship by a U.S. citizen father to a

child born out of wedlock outside the United States as consistent with constitutional equal protection despite the fact

that their requirements are more stringent than those for transmission by a U.S. citizen mother to a child born in the

same circumstances. Flores-Villar v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2312; 180 L. Ed. 2d 222 (2011) (affirmed

lower appellate court’s decision without opinion), and Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 533 U.S. 53

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

birthright citizenship of a person born out-of-wedlock to a father who is a U.S. citizen, national,

or lawful permanent resident as long as requirements like those of INA §309 are satisfied. The

fifth and sixth proposals listed above would not raise these constitutional issues because they

make no distinctions based on the gender of the parent.

Other Statutory Amendments

One type of proposal in the 110th and 109th Congresses, without statutorily defining “born subject

to the jurisdiction” of the United States, would have provided that, with respect to a person born

after the date of the enactment of the proposal, the person shall not be a national or citizen at birth

under §301 of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1401) unless at least one of the parents is, at the time of birth, a

citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.99

Last, a proposal in the 108th Congress was sui generis; it did not purport to be a congressional

interpretation of the Citizenship Clause but would have imposed a statutory limitation on H-visa

holders and therefore would have been unconstitutional under the Citizenship Clause. Under this

proposal, children born to a parent who is a nonimmigrant employee under §101(a)(15)(H) of the

INA would not be a U.S. citizen by birth in the United States unless the other parent were a U.S.

citizen or lawful permanent resident.100

Congressional Act without Constitutional Amendment

Proponents of certain proposals to amend the INA argue that congressional interpretation of the

Citizenship Clause to limit automatic birthright citizenship may be permissible without an

accompanying constitutional amendment because, under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,

Congress has the power to “enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”101

In a still evolving area of law, the United States Supreme Court has held that Congress has some

power to define the substance of the rights that are protected under the amendment and may even,

under some circumstances, legislate contrary to judicial decisions by going beyond judicial

decisions defining such rights in order to enforce the amendment.

In Katzenbach v. Morgan,102 the Court found that Congress could define the substantive scope of

equal protection for the purpose of determining whether state laws violate equal protection.103 The

(...continued)

(2001). In Flores-Villar the Court upheld requirements that the U.S. citizen father must be present in the United States

for specific periods of time before the foreign-born child’s birth. In Nguyen the Court upheld other transmission

requirements such as formal legitimation under state law and biological tests establishing paternity that are

substantially related to the congressional purpose of requiring a demonstrable bond between the U.S. citizen father and

child. In contrast, legislation that eliminates any possibility of basing citizenship on the father’s citizenship, nationality,

or resident status may be unconstitutional.

H.R. 4192, §201, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 3700, §201, 109th Cong. (2005).

100

H.R. 3534, §213(b), 108th Cong. (2003).

101

See, for example, Edward J. Erler, Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the 14th Amendment and Birthright

Citizenship, National Review (Aug. 19, 2015) athttp://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandatedby-constitution.

102

384 U.S. 641, 654-656 (1966).

103

See also, City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 109 S.Ct. 706, 717-20, 726-727 (1989); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448

U.S. 448, 476-8, 482-4 (1980); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112

(1970); THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION, S. Doc. No. 112-9,

2209-2210 (Centennial Ed. 2014) (Kenneth R. Thomas, Ed. in Chief, & Larry M. Eig, Managing Ed.) [hereinafter

CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED], 2014 pdf file at https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated, html version at

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Court rejected the dissent’s concern that Congress could legislate to dilute the equal protection

and due process decisions of the Court, saying that Congress may adopt measures only to enforce

Fourteenth Amendment rights, not to restrict, abrogate or dilute them.104 However, Congress has

passed legislation that purported to overrule the Court’s expansion of the right against selfincrimination and the right-to-counsel and expressly relied on Katzenbach v. Morgan, although

the Court, contemporaneously with the legislation, changed course to adopt a view in alignment

with that of Congress.105 Congressional abortion opponents have tried to initiate legislation

restricting the right that the Court has derived from the Constitution.106 Other more recent cases

show that the Court will not always defer to Congress’s determination as to what legislation is

appropriate to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.107

Thus, there may be an issue as to whether Congress could define “subject to the jurisdiction

thereof” in a manner that would curtail a long-assumed right of persons born to aliens in the

United States to be U.S. citizens regardless of the immigration status of their parents. One could

argue that Congress has no power to define “subject to the jurisdiction” and the terms of

citizenship in a manner contrary to the Court’s understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment as

expressed in Wong Kim Ark and Elk, particularly since that understanding includes a holding that

the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer on Congress a right to restrict the effect of birth on

citizenship as declared by the Constitution. In other words, there may be a distinction between the

existence of a right under the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g., citizenship), which depends on the

text and judicial interpretation, and the implications or scope of the right, which is subject to

some degree of congressional regulation. However, since Congress has broad power to pass

necessary and proper legislation to regulate immigration and naturalization under the

Constitution, Art. I, §8, cls. 4 & 18,108 arguably Congress has the power to define “subject to the

jurisdiction thereof” for the purpose of regulating immigration.

The federal courts arguably support an interpretation of the Constitution that would foil those

who attempt to gain an immigration advantage by breaking U.S. laws, although Wong Kim Ark

made no distinction between lawfully and unlawfully present alien parents, nor between legal

resident and nonimmigrant aliens. However, the Wong Kim Ark Court did not have to make such

distinctions, because Wong’s parents were legal resident aliens. Federal appellate courts have

upheld the refusal by the immigration enforcement authorities to stay the deportation of

unauthorized aliens merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children, because to

do so would be unfairly to grant an advantage to aliens who successfully flouted U.S.

immigration laws long enough to have a child born in the United States over those aliens who

followed the law, and would turn the immigration statute on its head.109 Although the mere fact of

(...continued)

http://www.crs.gov/conan/details/?mode=topic&doc=Amendment14.xml&t=1|3&s=4#bl2122.

104

384 U.S. at 651, n. 10. See also Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 731-733 (1982).

105

CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED, supra, footnote 103 at 2210, n. 2131, html at

http://www.crs.gov/conan/details/?mode=topic&doc=Amendment14.xml&t=1|3&s=4#bl2131.

106

Id. at 2210-2211, n. 2132, html at

http://www.crs.gov/conan/details/?mode=topic&doc=Amendment14.xml&t=1|3&s=4#bl2132.

107

Id. at 2211, html at http://www.crs.gov/conan/details/?mode=topic&doc=Amendment14.xml&t=1|3&s=4#bl2133.

108

Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1976); Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1975); Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158

U.S. 538, 543 (1895).

109

See, e.g., Hernandez-Rivera v. I.N.S., 630 F.2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir. 1980); Gonzalez-Cuevas v. I.N.S., 515 F.2d

1222, 1224 (5th Cir. 1975). See generally Annotation, Infant Citizen as Entitled to Stay of Alien Parents’ Deportation

Order, 42 A.L.R. Fed. 924 (1979 & Supp. 2009-10), and Annotation, What Constitutes “Extreme Hardship” or

“Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship,” Under §244(a) of Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.S.

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

the existence of U.S.-citizen, minor children would not be sufficient to prevent the deportation of

unauthorized alien parents, extreme hardship to the children caused by the deportation of the

parents is a factor to be considered in the discretionary suspension of deportation.110 The United

States Supreme Court has upheld the discretion of the Attorney General and the immigration

enforcement authorities to define “extreme hardship” under proceedings for the suspension of

deportation111 and to deny suspension of deportation and refuse to reopen proceedings for the

suspension of deportation even if a prima facie case for suspension is demonstrated.112 The Court

held that a court could not substitute a liberal definition of “extreme hardship” for a narrow one

preferred by the Attorney General and the immigration enforcement authorities, noting that

otherwise “any foreign visitor who has fertility, money, and the ability to stay out of trouble with

the police for seven years can change his status from that of tourist or student to that of permanent

resident without the inconvenience of immigration quotas. This strategy is not fair to those

waiting for a quota.”113 A U.S.-citizen child must be 21 years old to bring alien parents into the

United States as immigrants.114 Federal courts have found that this requirement is meant “to

prevent wholesale circumvention of the immigration laws by persons who enter the country

illegally and promptly have children to avoid deportation,”115 and does not violate equal

protection by distinguishing between U.S.-citizen children who are minors and those who have

attained majority.116

The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific issues of whether the native-born child of

unauthorized aliens as opposed to the child of lawfully present aliens may be a U.S. citizen or

whether the native-born child of nonimmigrant aliens as opposed to legal permanent resident

aliens may be a U.S. citizen.117 However, Wong Kim Ark specifically held that, under the

Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of his birth,

were subjects of the Chinese emperor, but had a “permanent domicil [sic] and residence in the

(...continued)

§1254(a)), Allowing Attorney General to Suspend Deportation of Alien and Allow Admission for Permanent Residence,

72 A.L.R. Fed. 133 §§7-12 (1985 & Supp. 2009-10).

110

Urbano de Malaluan v. I.N.S., 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978). This particular case actually held that suspension

of deportation proceedings should be reopened, and it distinguished consideration of the children’s existence from a

consideration of extreme hardship under proceedings for the suspension of deportation, because the latter proceedings

required a seven-year continuous presence in the United States. However, later cases, while acknowledging extreme

hardship as a statutory factor, limited review of the immigration court’s discretion to grant suspension of deportation

and did not seem to consider seven-years continuous presence to be a significant reduction of any loophole based on

U.S.-citizen children. See infra footnote 111 and footnote 112 and accompanying text. See also Annotation, supra

footnote 109, 72 A.L.R. Fed. at 133, §§7-12. The annotation lists and summarizes a number of cases which do and do

not find extreme hardship, including cases involving U.S.-citizen minor children. The specific facts in some cases

resulted in a finding of extreme hardship.

111

I.N.S. v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 145 (1981).

112

I.N.S. v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446, 451 (1985).

113

450 U.S. at 145.

114

Section 201(b)(2)(A)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. §1151(b)(2)(A)(i).

115

Hernandez-Rivera v. I.N.S., 630 F.2d at 1356, citing Urbano de Malaluan v. I.N.S., 577 F.2d at 594.

116

Hernandez-Rivera v. I.N.S., 630 F.2d at 1356.

117

SCHUCK & SMITH, supra footnote 23, at 117. For other discussions of case law and legislative history regarding the

Fourteenth Amendment, see Birthright Citizenship Hearing, supra footnote 39; Dual Citizenship, Birthright

citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and

Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Serial No. 109-63, 109th Cong. (2005); Hearing

Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on

H.R. 7, Citizenship Reform Act of 1997, and H.R. 1428, Voter Eligibility Verification Act, Serial No. 23, 105th Cong.

(1997).

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

United States”118 and were not diplomats of the emperor, was a U.S. citizen at birth. The holding

does not make a distinction between illegal and legal presence in the United States, but one could

argue that the holding is limited to construing the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of

parents who are legal permanent residents. However, the Court’s own discussion of the common

law doctrine of jus soli and its affirmation by the Fourteenth Amendment indicates that the

holding, at the least, would not be limited to permanent legal residents as opposed to

nonimmigrant, transient, legal aliens.119 Currently accepted law would also weigh against the

argument that the Fourteenth Amendment limits citizenship to the children of lawful permanent

residents.120

Furthermore, the cases involving the deportation of unauthorized aliens simply take for granted

that their U.S.-born children are U.S. citizens in considering whether the existence of extreme

hardship to U.S.-citizen, minor children should stay the deportation of the parents.121 This is true

regardless of whether the children were born during the period of any lawful stay by the parents,

during the period of any unlawful stay, or after an immigration court’s finding of deportability of

the parents. However, some scholars argue that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment should not apply to the children of unauthorized aliens because the problem of

unauthorized aliens did not exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was considered in

Congress and ratified by the states.122

118

169 U.S. at 705.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693-694. The Court also states:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All

persons born in the United States,” by the addition, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would

appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words, (besides children of members of the

Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common

law,) [sic] the two classes of cases—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and

children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State—both of which, as has already been

shown, by the law of England, and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the

English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship

by birth within the country. [Citations omitted.]

169 U.S. at 682.

120

Shavers, supra footnote 68, at 489.

121

See, e.g., I.N.S. v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. at 446; Braun v. I.N.S., 992 F.2d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 1993); HernandezRivera v. I.N.S., 630 F.2d at 1356; Wang v. I.N.S., 622 F.2d 1341, 1348 (9th Cir. 1980);Urbano de Malaluan v. I.N.S.,

577 F.2d at 594; Gonzalez-Cuevas v. I.N.S., 515 F.2d at 1224.

122

SCHUCK & SMITH, supra footnote 23, at 95-98. See also Lino A. Graglia, Birthright Citizenship for Children of

Illegal Aliens: an Irrational Public Policy, 14 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 1 (2009) (arguing that the federal courts should

recognize the irrationality of interpreting the Constitution as mandating birthright citizenship for children of

unauthorized aliens and permit Congress to legislate birthright citizenship based on public policy discouraging the

detrimental effects of expansive birthright citizenship). This article cites Judge Richard Posner’s concurring opinion in

Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 620-21 (7th Cir. 2003), in which he argues:

... Congress should rethink ... awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (with a

few very minor exceptions, ... [citation omitted]), including the children of illegal immigrants

whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children.

This rule, though thought by some compelled by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which

provides that “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,” and in any event

codified in 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), which provides that “the following shall be nationals and citizens of

the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof,” makes no sense....

We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to

confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to

(continued...)

119

Congressional Research Service

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Although the Elk decision construed the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the situation

of Native Americans is unique, so any interpretation that the U.S.-born children of unauthorized

aliens are not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States arguably could not rely on the

Elk decision.

Because of the Supreme Court interpretations of U.S. citizenship laws and constitutional

provisions, one could argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary to clarify the meaning

of “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” On the other hand, amicus curiae (friend of

the court) briefs submitted by several interested organizations to the U.S. Supreme Court for

consideration during the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld123 argued, among other things, that the

Supreme Court interpretations never contemplated or intended to include the granting of

automatic citizenship by birth in the United States to persons whose parents were aliens who

entered or stayed in the United States unlawfully or who were transiently present.

Notwithstanding such arguments, the Court itself made its decision in the Hamdi case based on

the assumption that Hamdi was a U.S. citizen. Most other jus soli countries have limited

citizenship by birth in their territories.124

Author Contact Information

Margaret Mikyung Lee

Legislative Attorney

mmlee@crs.loc.gov, 7-2579

(...continued)

remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship,.... A constitutional amendment may be

required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but

I doubt it. [Citation omitted.] The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed

slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress

does not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be

flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the

nonsense.

However, the opinion of the court majority in the Oforji case asserts, “The law is clear that citizen family members of

illegal aliens have no cognizable interest in preventing an alien’s exclusion [citations omitted]. Under the present law a

woman who is otherwise a deportable alien does not have any incentive to bear a child (who automatically becomes a

citizen) whose rights to stay are separate from the mother’s obligation to depart.” 354 F.3d at 618.

123

59 L. Ed. 2d 578, 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004). Amicus Curiae briefs addressing the interpretation of the Citizenship

Clause were submitted by (1) the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund; (2) the Claremont Institute Center

for Constitutional Jurisprudence; and (3) the Center for American Unity, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement,

National Center on Citizenship and Immigration, and Representatives Steve King, Dana Rohrabacher, Lamar S. Smith,

Thomas G. Tancredo, Roscoe Bartlett, Mac Collins, Joe Barton, and John J. Duncan, Jr. Ultimately, Hamdi was

released by the United States and allowed to return to Saudi Arabia on the condition that he renounce his U.S.

citizenship. Eric Lichtblau, U.S., Bowing to Court, to Free ‘Enemy Combatant,’ N.Y. TIMES (September 23, 2004).

124

See Maarten P. Vink and Gerard-René de Groot, Birthright Citizenship. Trends and Regulations in Europe, at 4 and

20 (November 2010) (noting also a parallel trend of ius sanguinis countries broadening citizenship by adopting ius soli

elements), available at http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/birthright_comparativepaper.pdf; Constance A. Johnson, Law

Library Of Congress Report 2010-004604, Birthright Citizenship In G-20 Countries (August 2010), available at

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/reports/pdf/2010-004604_G-20_chart.pdf; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Citizenship in the United States, at 5 and Appendix II at 69 (2004).

Congressional Research Service

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.