Are We Subjects or Citizens? Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

Imprimis ^ | MARCH/APRIL 2026 | Edward J. Erler

[Retain Mike]

It is broadly agreed by constitutional scholars that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Many in Congress initially argued that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 granted citizenship and the rights and liberties attached to that status. Others argued that there should be explicit legislation, which resulted in the Civil Rights Act the following year. Still others thought the Civil Rights Act was insufficient because future majorities could repeal it. This concern became the impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment, which constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act.

The citizenship clause was a late addition to the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Joint Committee placed importance on the jurisdiction clause, which meant, at a minimum, that not all persons born in the U.S. were automatically citizens. Subject to the jurisdiction does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. In sum, what we today call birthright citizenship is a legacy of feudalism that was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Education; History; Society
KEYWORDS: aliens; anchorbabies; birthright; citizenship; constitution

[IYAS9YAS]

State wherein they reside.

And the illegal who sneaks across the border nine months pregnant and drops a kid in the nearest emergency room? Where does she "reside"?

[faithhopecharity]

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

this means that the kids of parents who are not American citizens are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT automatically citizens of USA just because mama delivered them here

if parent was subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation (such as an illegal immigrant, someone from another country who is here on a visitor or student visa, etcetera), any children they have here are citizens of the parent’s home country of citizenship, NOT citizens of USA

this is really all very clear to any legal scholar or even intelligent student of history, what the words meant at the time (and today, for that matter...their wording has not changed)

the wording of the amendment is NOT superfluous, and we are NOT at liberty to just pick the phrases we like and skip the ones we find inconvenient

if A14 is to be changed, there IS a constitutional amendment process for that purpose

thank you

thank you

thank you

[DiogenesLamp]

This article was helpful to me for understanding the issue, but I still needed to read the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It still seems complicated enough to me that a willful misunderstanding is easily obtained.

Progressing America would like a word with you.

[JeanLM]

“They got citizenship by an act of Congress about 1912 or so.”

Snyder Act not until 1924.

[itsahoot]

BTW - It doesn't say all slaves... It doesn't say all indigenous peoples... It say all.

I think I will accept what it ment from the writer of the bill Jerod, and he doesn’t agree with you. Not to mention all people excluded Indians. Your interpretation would allow foreign enemies to set up birthing centers and invade our country which you seem to encourage.

[one guy in new jersey]

Ask Thomas Jefferson, circa late June, 1776.

He wrote “subjects”, then scratched it out completely, obliterating the ink used to write it, and wrote, right on top of that scratched out, now invisible, word, “citizens”, including a couple of oddly shaped letters to complete the shrouding of the previously-written word.

Multilayer imaging now reveals the change. Both on parchment, and in Jefferson’s mind.

[marktwain]

Thank you for the correct information about the year.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Subject to the jurisdiction does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

This is a simple assertion, without any reasoning or support provided. Maybe it is correct, and maybe it isn't, but the issue is sufficiently dispute by reasonable people to require more than "this is the way it is".

Personally, I think it's wrong. Legal, permanent residents who are not themselves U.S. citizens still have political allegiance to their country of citizenship, and so even their children would be excluded.

It is absurd to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.

It isn't "absurd". It may be wrong (for reasons other than the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" logic given above), but it is not such a simple, clear legal issue that disagreement is "absurd".

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

if parent was subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation (such as an illegal immigrant, someone from another country who is here on a visitor or student visa, etcetera),

Even legal, permanent residents who are still a citizen of another country will owe allegiance to that other country, and still be subject to their jurisdiction. That's why American citizens oversees, even under permanent visas, will still owe taxes to the United States government.

So, if this is your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, you would be excluding from citizenship, the children of both legal, permanent immigrant, not just illegals and temporary visa holders.

That is why the SG focused on the meaning of "reside" instead.

[jerod]

When you are in a state... You are subject to the jurisdiction of that state... Hmm... That’s a real tough one... Not sure what you’re getting at. Are you wrongly interpreting that as a ‘foreign’ state... Because it does say ‘foreign’ state... It says state... Meaning a state within the United States. Any other interpretation would be incorrect.

[unixfox]

Until we get rid of the 16th we will be slaves to the system.

See tagline.

[jerod]

It means subject to the jurisdiction of that state within the United States where you reside. Is that not clear to you?

[CodeToad]

It also says, “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “

You cannot just pick the words you want or understand. ALL the words matter.

[CodeToad]

“It means subject to the jurisdiction of that state within the United States where you reside. Is that not clear to you?”

No, it does not. Stop adding words to the constitution to try to make it fit what you want it to mean.

[Whatever Works]

You forgot that the sentence includes the word “AND” (subject to the jurisdiction of).

Read it a few more times and you will get it.

[jerod]

It’s simple language... There is no need to add words... Like I said... Read it over and over and over again... You’ll finally realize that being born in America means you’re an American. Be glad it does... Otherwise, some politician like your New York mayor will decide who’s a citizen and who isn’t.

If you want to change your established constitution, feel free to do so... All you need is to present your amendment to congress, have two thirds of them agree with you, then have two thirds of the states agree with you and viola... It’s amended. BTW Good luck with that.

The Conservative Supreme Court of the United States always adheres to the established constitution... And they will again when the rule that being born in America is a birthright to citizenship... Just like it states so in the 14th amendment.

[jerod]

Remember... Read it over and over and over again... You’ll figure it out eventually.

[Scrambler Bob]

All persons born or naturalized ,in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
= = =

Is the person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? I interpret that as Federal, not State.

Have they given up their foreign passport?

Are they planning to move back where they came from or not?

I these might indicate they are not being subject to the United States.

[delchiante]

This poster has a Canadian flag as its flag.

Nothing like a foreign UK Crown proxy doing their best to make American citizenship a third class of people behind the political class and their invaders/anchors

[Retain Mike]

It seems to me he starts with feudalism and common law to arrive at an understanding of jurisdiction, but I would never use a word like “absurd” unless all alternative reasoning was obviously in error.