By Cliff Potts, WPS NEWS

Dateline: 10 December 2025

As the United States edges into another constitutional storm, birthright citizenship has reentered the national argument as if it were an optional feature of American life rather than a foundation stone. The issue is headed toward the Supreme Court again, pushed there by political pressure rather than constitutional crisis. But before the country tears up part of its identity, it’s worth remembering why birthright citizenship exists, what it solves, and what it prevents.

The Civil War Origins: A Promise Written in the Ashes

Birthright citizenship is not a modern experiment. It is a direct result of the Civil War and the end of slavery.

The 14th Amendment was written because millions of formerly enslaved people—born on American soil—had no legal citizenship. State legislatures were refusing to recognize them as citizens even after emancipation. Congress created the Citizenship Clause to close that door forever:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”

This did two things instantly:

  1. It guaranteed that formerly enslaved people born in the U.S. were citizens.
  2. It prevented states from excluding people based on race, parentage, or social status.

This safeguard was not theoretical. It was necessary.

The Core Question Today: Is the Principle Still Viable?

Some argue the clause no longer fits modern migration patterns. Others claim birthright citizenship encourages undocumented immigration—despite decades of data showing no measurable link between the policy and border crossings.

But the actual constitutional question is simpler:

Does the United States still believe that citizenship should be determined by soil rather than lineage?

If the answer becomes “no,” then Congress or the states—not individuals—gain power to redefine who is American. That power can be abused. It has been abused throughout history by governments that use citizenship to punish, exclude, or restrict.

Birthright citizenship prevents that.

What Other Countries Do: Ending Jus Soli Isn’t Neutral

Opponents point out that several countries—such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand—have weakened or ended automatic birthright citizenship. But they leave out two important facts:

  • Those countries already had national ID systems, population registries, and strong social safety nets.
  • They shifted to parentage-based citizenship only after building bureaucratic structures that could handle the consequences.

The U.S. has none of those things. Changing the rule without the infrastructure would create millions of “documentation orphans”—people born in the United States who cannot easily prove their citizenship because their parents cannot prove theirs.

Worse, such a system would disproportionately burden the poor, rural, and minority communities least equipped to navigate bureaucratic obstacles.

The Legal Reality: The Supreme Court Already Settled This

The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that children born on U.S. soil—regardless of their parents’ nationality—are U.S. citizens, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.

That ruling has stood for more than 125 years.

Overturning it now would not be a “clarification.” It would be a redefinition of American citizenship itself.

The Human Cost of Abandoning Birthright Citizenship

If birthright citizenship were limited only to children born to U.S. citizens or permanent residents, millions of American-born children would be placed in limbo—living in the U.S., speaking English, culturally American, but legally precarious.

Without birthright citizenship:

  • Hospitals would become immigration checkpoints.
  • States would need to verify the parents’ legal status for every birth certificate.
  • Governments would inherit indefinite custody of children whose parents could not prove documentation.
  • Intergenerational statelessness could emerge for the first time in U.S. history.

This is not a theoretical concern. It has happened in countries that attempted similar restrictions.

A Constitutional Protection Worth Keeping

Birthright citizenship is not merely a legal convenience. It is a guardrail that prevents discrimination, bureaucracy, and politics from deciding who belongs.

The United States adopted it to ensure that race, family status, or government hostility could never again be used to deny people belonging in the country where they were born.

In an era where political winds shift quickly and rights are increasingly fragile, the safest safeguards are the oldest ones.

For more social commentary, see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

References (APA)

Amar, A. R. (1998). The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. Yale University Press.

Cohen, E. F. (2019). Birthright citizenship: A global perspective. Princeton University Press.

Motomura, H. (2014). Immigration outside the law. Oxford University Press.

Smith, R. M. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history. Yale University Press.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Zolberg, A. R. (2006). A nation by design: Immigration policy in the fashioning of America. Harvard University Press.

WordPress Tags (comma-delimited)

If you need the Bluesky promo post for this article’s drop on WPS.News, I can generate that next.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.