Can Birthright Citizenship Be Changed? Process and Challenges

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

Birthright citizenship, established by the 14th Amendment, guarantees U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of parental status.
Changing this right faces significant legal, political, and societal challenges, requiring constitutional amendments or reinterpretation by the Supreme Court.
Attempts to limit it, like Trump’s proposals, face criticism, logistical issues, and reinforce debates on inclusivity and immigration policies.

The principle of birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ensures that anyone born in the United States 🇺🇸 is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This right, cemented in American identity, has played a significant role in shaping the nation’s democratic values and inclusivity. However, discussions about altering this right have periodically emerged, particularly during former President Donald Trump’s administration, where the idea of modifying or limiting this guarantee was brought into focus.

Birthright Citizenship: A Brief Overview

Can Birthright Citizenship Be Changed? Process and Challenges

The foundation of birthright citizenship lies in the “Citizenship Clause” of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. Its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants after the Civil War. The amendment explicitly states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This provision ensures that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status, is granted citizenship. Legal interpretation of this clause was solidified in the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Court affirmed that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are U.S. citizens, as long as they are subject to U.S. law (excluding certain exemptions, such as children of foreign diplomats).

Although this principle is deeply embedded in American law and history, proposals to limit or revoke birthright citizenship have sparked debate, raising critical questions about its feasibility, the extensive process required to alter it, and the potential consequences of such changes.

Changing a Constitutional Right: Steps and Challenges

Altering a constitutional right such as birthright citizenship is an intricate process. There are two primary avenues for making such a change: amending the Constitution or reinterpreting its provisions through Supreme Court rulings. Both paths are exceptionally complex and face significant legal and political obstacles.

Amending the Constitution

Changing the Constitution is designed to be a rare and difficult undertaking, ensuring stability in the nation’s legal framework. The process requires the following steps:

Proposal Stage
- An amendment can be proposed either by a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate or through a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.
- The constitutional convention route has never been used in U.S. history, making it highly uncharted territory.
Ratification Stage
- Once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) or by conventions held in the states.
- The high thresholds for both proposal and ratification reflect the deliberate intent to prevent frequent or hasty changes to the nation’s foundational principles.

Given these requirements, constitutional amendments are exceedingly rare. Since the Constitution’s adoption in 1789, only 27 amendments have been ratified, underscoring the significant difficulty involved in this process.

Judicial Reinterpretation

An alternative path involves reinterpreting the 14th Amendment through judicial rulings. Those advocating for limiting birthright citizenship argue that the clause’s phrasing—specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—could be interpreted more narrowly to exclude children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.

To pursue this approach:
– A legal case would need to challenge the current interpretation of birthright citizenship and reach the Supreme Court.
– The Court, in turn, could potentially overturn precedent by reinterpreting the scope of the 14th Amendment.

However, this method presents its own set of challenges:
– The 14th Amendment’s language and its longstanding interpretation strongly affirm the principle of jus soli, or citizenship by birth.
– Overturning more than a century of precedent established by cases like Wong Kim Ark would require significant legal justification, making such a reinterpretation unlikely.

Political and Legal Barriers to Change

Efforts to modify birthright citizenship face an array of obstacles, which reflect the deeply ingrained nature of this constitutional right.

Legal Obstacles
- The clear language of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court rulings supporting birthright citizenship serve as formidable barriers to any reinterpretation or amendments.
- Executive actions or legislation aimed at bypassing constitutional protections would face immediate legal challenges and are highly likely to be deemed unconstitutional.
Political Hurdles
- Securing the bipartisan support necessary to amend the Constitution is highly improbable in today’s politically polarized environment.
- Public opinion also tends to favor retaining birthright citizenship, as polls show that most Americans view it as an essential part of national values and fairness.
Practical Considerations
- Revoking birthright citizenship would create numerous logistical challenges. For instance, millions of children born in the U.S. could lose automatic citizenship, leaving them stateless and without access to fundamental rights and services.
- Such a move could also result in an increase in the undocumented population, as children born in the U.S. without citizenship would lack legal status, further complicating immigration and social services frameworks.

Recent Proposals and Trump’s Executive Order

During his presidency, Donald Trump expressed intentions to limit birthright citizenship, claiming it incentivized undocumented immigration and “birth tourism.” On January 21, 2025, he signed an executive order aimed at redefining the criteria for citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The order proposed that only children whose parents were U.S. citizens or lawful residents at the time of birth would automatically qualify for citizenship.

Key features of this executive order included:
– Directing federal agencies to withhold Social Security numbers and passports from children excluded under these new criteria.
– Limiting citizenship eligibility based on parental status to discourage undocumented immigration.

Legal scholars, however, widely agree that an executive order cannot override constitutional guarantees, and any such action would be met with substantial legal challenges.

Broader Implications and Global Context

If successful, attempts to modify birthright citizenship would have wide-reaching consequences for families, communities, and international perceptions of the U.S.:

Impact on Families and Communities
Millions of children could lose automatic citizenship, leaving entire families in legal uncertainty and deepening inequities faced by immigrant communities.
Global Comparisons
While most developed nations have moved away from unrestricted jus soli, the U.S. remains one of few countries—alongside Canada 🇨🇦—to uphold this principle. Countries like Germany 🇩🇪 and Australia 🇦🇺 now restrict citizenship at birth to those with at least one parent as a citizen or legal resident. America’s adherence to unrestricted jus soli highlights its distinct approach to inclusivity.
Economic and Administrative Burdens
Revoking automatic citizenship would necessitate an entirely new framework to determine an individual’s legal status, creating long bureaucratic processes and increasing strain on already-resource-limited government agencies.

Conclusion: The Feasibility of Changing Birthright Citizenship

While it is legally and procedurally possible to change or limit birthright citizenship through constitutional amendment or reinterpretation, the likelihood is minimal given the substantial obstacles involved. Both approaches encounter profound legal, political, and societal barriers, reflecting the deeply embedded nature of this right in American identity and law.

Attempts to alter the 14th Amendment or reinterpret it will continue to spark intense debate, particularly in an era of evolving immigration patterns and demographic changes. As VisaVerge.com notes, any effort to redefine citizenship will not only test the boundaries of constitutional law but also influence America’s role as a beacon of inclusivity and equality.

For exhaustive information about constitutional provisions and related policies, readers can visit the National Archives page on the U.S. Constitution.

Can birthright citizenship be changed?

The 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship faces renewed scrutiny. Changing this constitutional right would require either a near-impossible amendment or a contentious redefinition by the Supreme Court.

Why it matters:
Birthright citizenship underpins America’s identity as a nation of inclusivity. Altering it would profoundly impact immigrant communities, legal systems, and national values.

The big picture:
– What it is: Birthright citizenship stems from the 14th Amendment, ensuring anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of parents’ immigration status.
– Key precedent: The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed this guarantee, even for children of immigrant parents.

Steps to change it:
1. Amending the Constitution:
– Requires a two-thirds majority in both Congress chambers or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.
– Ratification needs approval from three-fourths (38) of state legislatures.
– In U.S. history, only 27 amendments have been ratified — a testament to the difficulty of this process.

Judicial reinterpretation:
- A case challenging birthright citizenship could lead to the Supreme Court narrowing “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment.
- This would require justices to overturn over a century of legal precedent, including Wong Kim Ark.

Yes, but: Both paths face immense barriers:
– Legal obstacles: The amendment’s text and historical precedent strongly uphold birthright citizenship.
– Political divides: Bipartisan support for a constitutional change is unlikely, especially in today’s polarized climate.
– Public opinion: Most Americans support birthright citizenship as crucial to national identity.

By the numbers:
– Only 27 constitutional amendments have been ratified since 1789.
– Changing amendments requires the agreement of 38 out of 50 state legislatures.

What they’re saying:
Legal experts, including constitutional scholars, widely contend that a presidential executive order cannot override the 14th Amendment. Efforts to end birthright citizenship via such orders would be met with immediate legal challenges.

Global context:
The U.S. is one of the few developed nations still practicing unrestricted jus soli (citizenship by birthplace). Most nations have transitioned to jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline), but countries like Canada continue to uphold jus soli.

The bottom line:
Altering birthright citizenship would require immense legal, political, and societal changes unlikely to materialize soon. The debate signals deeper divides over immigration policy, with potential implications for America’s identity and inclusivity as a nation. Expect this tension to persist as global migration patterns shift.

Learn Today

Birthright Citizenship: A constitutional principle granting citizenship to individuals born in a country, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
14th Amendment: A U.S. constitutional amendment establishing citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, ratified in 1868.
Jus Soli: A legal principle meaning “right of the soil,” granting citizenship based on birthplace rather than parentage.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark: A 1898 Supreme Court case affirming that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are citizens.
Executive Order: A directive issued by the U.S. President to federal agencies, having the force of law but limited by constitutional constraints.

This Article in a Nutshell

Birthright Citizenship: A Cornerstone of Equality

Guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship defines U.S. identity, granting anyone born on American soil full citizenship. Rooted in post-Civil War equality, it fuels national inclusivity. While debates occasionally arise to challenge it, altering this principle faces immense legal and political hurdles, safeguarding its role in shaping America’s democratic spirit.
— By VisaVerge.com