# What is the legal reasoning that 'allows' ending birthright citizenship? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [January 24, 2025, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335 "2025-01-24T16:16:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/201 "2026-07-01T01:27:59Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > The GOP political approach from now on is going to be act like this is mostly about birth tourism Pretty sure Barron Trump isn’t going to lose his citizenship. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/202 "2026-07-01T01:33:17Z")
US or EU? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/203 "2026-07-01T01:43:41Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > And the Framers likely would not have anticipated (and presumably would not have intended) the odd result of granting asubstantial birthright citizenship benefit to (i) those foreign citizens who violate U. S. immigration law and illegally enter or overstay and then have children in the United States Because there were no foreign citizens who violated U. S. immigration law and illegally entered back in 1789. The first attempts at Immigration laws were in 1882, but there were the Alien and Sedition acts in 1798. the below site is a Timeline of US Immigration laws- > **[CIR-1790Timeline.pdf](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/CIR-1790Timeline.pdf)** ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/204 "2026-07-01T01:53:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The first attempts at Immigration laws were in 1882 What about the [Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves) Lots of enslaved people, and freedmen, were here in violation of this U.S. law. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/205 "2026-07-01T01:54:36Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > > > I find the relevant clause of the 14th amendment to be vaguely worded. It is open to multiple interpretations. What’s vague about it? Born in the US is clear, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US is clear. If a person commits a crime, can American police arrest them? Yes? Then they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the US. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/206 "2026-07-01T02:01:01Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Lots of enslaved people, and freedmen, were here in violation of this U.S. law. Say nothing else about the citizenship clause, it most definitely affirmed that children of slaves were citizens. That was the _one_ thing everybody agrees the “Framers” of the Fourteenth Amendment anticipated. (And, disanalogous to illegal immigration cited by Justice Kavanaugh, the people who violated the import ban were shipmasters and other human traffickers, not the slaves themselves.) ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/207 "2026-07-01T02:03:33Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > What about the [Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves) > > Lots of enslaved people, and freedmen, were here in violation of this U.S. law. My cite does not consider that a Immigration law. > [@Chronos](#): > > . If a person commits a crime, can American police arrest them? Yes? Then they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Which is why people with Diplomatic Immunity who have children while here- those kids are generally not Birthright citizens. (there may be a few exceptions, IANAL) ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/208 "2026-07-01T02:03:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What’s vague about it? Born in the US is clear, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US is clear. If a person commits a crime, can American police arrest them? Yes? Then they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the US. What if they are citizens of another country through their parents, and that country requires military service? Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of both the U.S. and that other country. It doesn’t seem clear to me that being partially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is, or is not sufficient. Also, if it is all so clear, why did today’s SCOTUS decision have to get into all those details about feudalism and the common law? It’s because jurisdiction can mean different things, and there are arguments on both sides. It happens that the arguments on one side are humane, and those on the other are inhumane. It happens that precedent is on the humane side. But from what I read it was not immediately obvious, or obvious at all, that the dissenters had no case. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/209 "2026-07-01T02:12:17Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > What if they are citizens of another country through their parents, and that country requires military service? > > Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of both the U.S. and that other country. It doesn’t seem clear to me that being partially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is, or is not sufficient. AIUI after this all came up over Obama, the United States is in no way obligated to adopt the citizenship rules of other countries. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/210 "2026-07-01T02:15:53Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > What if they are citizens of another country through their parents, and that country requires military service? > > Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of both the U.S. and that other country. OK, and? The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say anything about jurisdiction of other countries. And a good thing, too: When I visited Ireland, I was subject to Irish jurisdiction, and if I had committed a crime there, I’d have been arrested by Irish police. Did that mean that I wasn’t a US citizen while I was there? > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Also, if it is all so clear, why did today’s SCOTUS decision have to get into all those details about feudalism and the common law? Because they wanted to support their ridiculous conclusion, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/211 "2026-07-01T02:18:14Z")
The majority opinion (striking down Trump’s executive order) is the one that went into feudalism and common law. Well, so did the dissents, but the majority relied on that history more. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/212 "2026-07-01T02:19:50Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The majority opinion (striking down Trump’s executive order) is the one that went into feudalism and common law. Cite? They went into this thing called “The Bill of Rights”. Would you like a link to that? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/213 "2026-07-01T02:22:51Z")
Read the [majority opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf) > **pp. 2-4 (click to show/hide)** > > > The story of citizenship in the United States begins with the English common law. Before the Revolution, the Amer ican colonists—like all in the British Empire—were consid ered subjects of the sovereign. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbour in City of New York, 3 Pet. 99, 120– 121 (1830). That arose not from royal fiat, but from what the common law conceived as the relationship between the sovereign and the people. The King, Blackstone explained, owes those “born within the dominions” a duty of “protection.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (1765) (Blackstone); see also id., at 358. And “in return for that protection,” those “born within the dominions” owe the King a “duty” of “allegiance” (some times rendered “ligeance”). Id., at 354, 356. Children born with that allegiance were “natural-born subject[s].” Doe v. Jones, 4 T. R. 300, 308, 100 Eng. Rep. 1031, 1035 (K. B. 1791) (Kenyon, C. J.). As Lord Coke put it in the celebrated Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K. B. 1608), a “dual and reciprocal tie” thus connects “the Sovereign and [his] subject[s].” Id., at 4b–5a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 382 (trans lated from Latin). Because the sovereign’s power (and thus his duty) was limited in various respects, so too was the scope of this rule. He could not demand allegiance from—for he could not pro tect—those born in lands that he did not control. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399. (Among that group were the peo ple born in the King’s lost dominions—“France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c.”—over which he claimed an “absolute right” but had no actual power to rule. Ibid.) The same held true even in discrete areas within his kingdom that were tempo rarily outside his control. See id., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399 (if “enemies” were to “possess” a “castle or fort,” their children would not be born “under the King’s ligeance”). And the same held true for ambassadors (and their fami lies), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritorial ity—to remain on foreign soil and thus “under the ligeance” of their home country. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399; see also Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 138– 139 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court). In all other respects, however, the sovereign’s power— and his claim to the people’s allegiance—was complete. A foreign mother could enter the British Isles, give birth, and leave with her child the very next day, and that child would remain a British subject. Why? Because the child owed an implied allegiance to the sovereign who protected him at his birth—no matter how “momentary and uncertain” his pres ence in the King’s realms.2 Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep., at 6a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 384; see also Doe, 4 T. R., at 308, 100 Eng. Rep., at 1035. The same rule applied to children born in the realm of parents subject to expulsion. For example, chil dren of “gypsies” (today, called Romani or Roma people) born in the realm were natural-born subjects, notwith standing that British law at the time “directed” the Roma people “to avoid the realm” under “pain of imprisonment” or even death. 4 Blackstone 166 (1769); see Brief for Gerard N. Magliocca as Amicus Curiae 2–4; cf. H. Hirota, Expelling the Poor 114–115 (2017) (describing outcry in 1855 when Massachusetts deported a pauper Irish mother with her American-born infant, who was acknowledged to be a “na tive born citizen”). For those children, and all others born in Britain, the rule was the same: With protection came al legiance, and with allegiance came the status of a natural born subject. ... This case had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. Maybe you are thinking of a different case? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/214 "2026-07-01T02:25:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Because they wanted to support their ridiculous conclusion, of course. I’d say they wanted to support an inhumane conclusion, inconsistent with precedent, that would result in lots of hard working people either being deported or, at best, staying poor and thus paying hardly any federal taxes. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/215 "2026-07-01T02:29:43Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This case had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. Maybe you are thinking of a different case? > U\> nder the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “[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.”…Several > parents filed suit, some in the name of their children, arguing that the > Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA. > The District Court agreed, provisionally certified a nationwide class of > children who would be denied citizenship by the Order, and preliminarily enjoined the Order’s enforcement. This Court granted certiorari > before judgment. > Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States > and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Pp. 2–26. > (a) The Citizenship Clause The 14th amendment is mentioned many times. And yes common law was also mentioned. Justices love to throw in Blackstone somewhere. Unless maybe you are claiming the Bill of Rights is only the first ten amendments. 🙄 ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/216 "2026-07-01T02:31:28Z")
Yeah, it _is_ only the first ten Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights, having been ratified almost 100 years later… ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/217 "2026-07-01T02:31:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Unless maybe you are claiming the Bill of Rights is only the first ten amendments. Um, yes, it is. There are other amendments, and some of them are pretty darned important, but they’re not the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/218 "2026-07-01T02:34:12Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yeah, it _is_ only the first ten Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights, having been ratified almost 100 years later… Ah, so that is your argument, Okay, sure, so what? Your point was > [@Max\_S](#): > > The majority opinion (striking down Trump’s executive order) is the one that went into feudalism and common law. Well, so did the dissents, but the majority relied on that history more. But the decision relying mostly on the 14th ad. Not history or feudalism- which last I didnt find, so maybe a cite on that? And not a link to a 147 page document. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/219 "2026-07-01T02:36:07Z")
As I cited explicitly and pasted for your convenience, from pages 2-4, the very first pages of substance in the opinion, the majority goes into feudalism and common law principles which (they hold) the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause embodies. > **pp. 2-4 (click to show/hide)** > > > The story of citizenship in the United States begins with the English common law. Before the Revolution, the Amer ican colonists—like all in the British Empire—were consid ered subjects of the sovereign. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbour in City of New York, 3 Pet. 99, 120– 121 (1830). That arose not from royal fiat, but from what the common law conceived as the relationship between the sovereign and the people. The King, Blackstone explained, owes those “born within the dominions” a duty of “protection.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (1765) (Blackstone); see also id., at 358. And “in return for that protection,” those “born within the dominions” owe the King a “duty” of “allegiance” (some times rendered “ligeance”). Id., at 354, 356. Children born with that allegiance were “natural-born subject[s].” Doe v. Jones, 4 T. R. 300, 308, 100 Eng. Rep. 1031, 1035 (K. B. 1791) (Kenyon, C. J.). As Lord Coke put it in the celebrated Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K. B. 1608), a “dual and reciprocal tie” thus connects “the Sovereign and [his] subject[s].” Id., at 4b–5a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 382 (trans lated from Latin). Because the sovereign’s power (and thus his duty) was limited in various respects, so too was the scope of this rule. He could not demand allegiance from—for he could not pro tect—those born in lands that he did not control. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399. (Among that group were the peo ple born in the King’s lost dominions—“France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c.”—over which he claimed an “absolute right” but had no actual power to rule. Ibid.) The same held true even in discrete areas within his kingdom that were tempo rarily outside his control. See id., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399 (if “enemies” were to “possess” a “castle or fort,” their children would not be born “under the King’s ligeance”). And the same held true for ambassadors (and their fami lies), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritorial ity—to remain on foreign soil and thus “under the ligeance” of their home country. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399; see also Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 138– 139 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court). In all other respects, however, the sovereign’s power— and his claim to the people’s allegiance—was complete. A foreign mother could enter the British Isles, give birth, and leave with her child the very next day, and that child would remain a British subject. Why? Because the child owed an implied allegiance to the sovereign who protected him at his birth—no matter how “momentary and uncertain” his pres ence in the King’s realms.2 Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep., at 6a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 384; see also Doe, 4 T. R., at 308, 100 Eng. Rep., at 1035. The same rule applied to children born in the realm of parents subject to expulsion. For example, chil dren of “gypsies” (today, called Romani or Roma people) born in the realm were natural-born subjects, notwith standing that British law at the time “directed” the Roma people “to avoid the realm” under “pain of imprisonment” or even death. 4 Blackstone 166 (1769); see Brief for Gerard N. Magliocca as Amicus Curiae 2–4; cf. H. Hirota, Expelling the Poor 114–115 (2017) (describing outcry in 1855 when Massachusetts deported a pauper Irish mother with her American-born infant, who was acknowledged to be a “na tive born citizen”). For those children, and all others born in Britain, the rule was the same: With protection came al legiance, and with allegiance came the status of a natural born subject. ... ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2026, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335/220 "2026-07-01T02:42:22Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > As I cited explicitly and pasted for your convenience, from pages 2-4, the very first pages of substance in the opinion, the majority goes into feudalism and common law principles which (they hold) the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause embodies. Sure, like I said, Blackstone is almost always cited. But your claim seemed to indicate that was what the Decision was based upon. It was not, it was based upon the 14th ad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-legal-reasoning-that-allows-ending-birthright-citizenship/1013335.md?page=12)