Areas of Common Ground
Despite partisan divides, most Americans agree on these key points:
- âś“The Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, should be respected
- âś“Major changes to constitutional interpretation deserve serious legal and democratic deliberation
- âś“Citizenship is a profound legal status that shouldn't be left in administrative limbo for children
+ 3 more areas of agreement below
What's the Challenge?
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse U.S. citizenship documents to children born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order challenges more than a century of settled constitutional interpretation: the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause—'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States'—has been understood since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to extend citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil. The executive order has been blocked in part or in whole by multiple federal courts. The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in. At stake: whether birthright citizenship can be narrowed by executive action, whether 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes children of unauthorized immigrants, and what the policy consequences would be either way.
Where Most Americans Agree
The Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, should be respected
Major changes to constitutional interpretation deserve serious legal and democratic deliberation
Citizenship is a profound legal status that shouldn't be left in administrative limbo for children
The U.S. immigration system needs comprehensive reform
Federal courts have a legitimate role in deciding constitutional questions
Whatever the rule, it should be applied predictably and fairly
Source: Pew Research Center, Gallup 2024-2025
Current Perspectives from Both Sides
Understanding the full debate requires hearing what each side actually argues—not caricatures or strawmen.
Progressive Perspective
- •The text of the 14th Amendment is clear: nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth, full stop
- •Wong Kim Ark settled this question in 1898 and has been relied on by generations of Americans, courts, and federal agencies
- •Ending birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of U.S.-born children with no country—a recipe for civil rights crisis
- •Constitutional amendments require the amendment process; an executive order cannot override the 14th Amendment
- •The change would force every American to prove their parents' immigration status at birth, fundamentally altering how citizenship works
- •Most peer comparison countries do extend citizenship at birth, especially in the Americas; the U.S. is in good company, not an outlier
Conservative Perspective
- •The 14th Amendment was written to confer citizenship on freed slaves; extending it to children of unauthorized immigrants distorts the framers' intent
- •The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was meant to exclude people who owe primary allegiance elsewhere—originally Native Americans and foreign diplomats, but arguably others
- •Most developed countries in Europe and Asia do not grant automatic citizenship by birth on their soil
- •Birthright citizenship creates a powerful incentive for unauthorized immigration and 'birth tourism'
- •The Supreme Court hasn't squarely ruled on the children of unauthorized immigrants since the 14th Amendment was ratified—this is a legitimate question to revisit
- •Settling the question through litigation is appropriate even if the courts ultimately reject the executive order
These represent current talking points from each side of the political spectrum. Understanding both perspectives is essential for productive dialogue.
Evidence-Based Facts
The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause reads: '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.'
Source: U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents was a U.S. citizen at birth
Source: Supreme Court of the United States; Congressional Research Service
President Trump's January 2025 executive order directing agencies not to recognize birthright citizenship for certain children has been blocked in whole or in part by multiple federal district and appellate courts; cases are proceeding to the Supreme Court
Of major developed countries, the United States and Canada grant unconditional birthright citizenship; most European and Asian nations do not
Estimates of the number of children born annually in the U.S. to at least one unauthorized parent are around 250,000-300,000—about 6-7% of all U.S. births in recent years
Learn More
Constitution Annotated — Citizenship Clause
Library of Congress's official annotated guide to the 14th Amendment
Congress.gov
Congressional Research Service — Birthright Citizenship
Non-partisan legal analysis of the citizenship clause and the executive order
CRS
Migration Policy Institute
Non-partisan research on immigration law and policy
Migration Policy Institute
Questions for Thoughtful Debate
Can the president change the meaning of the 14th Amendment by executive order?
Does 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' exclude children of unauthorized immigrants?
What policy effects—on incentives, on a potential stateless underclass—would follow either outcome?
If the U.S. wanted to change the rule, would that require a constitutional amendment?
How should U.S. practice compare to peer democracies on this question?
How should the courts balance long-standing precedent against new constitutional arguments?