Citizens by Consent, Not by Chance: The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

Modern birthright citizenship—especially for children of people in the country illegally—rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of American principles.

The American idea of citizenship, rooted in consent and articulated in the United States Declaration of Independence versus the British concept of “subjectship,” where allegiance is imposed by birthplace.

The Founders rejected automatic allegiance at birth, meaning citizenship should not simply be granted to anyone born on U.S. soil.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been misread. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” requires full political allegiance to the United States—not merely physical presence.

Children of undocumented immigrants do not meet the standard, and extending citizenship to them departs from both the intent of the Amendment’s framers and earlier American legal principles.

Also, the reliance on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, asserting that the decision is wrongly reasoned and does not settle the question for children of undocumented immigrants.

Overall, current interpretations of birthright citizenship represent a break from the Founders’ vision of a consent-based republic.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/are-we-subjects-or-citizens-birthright-citizenship-and-the-constitution/