Does the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship make sense?

Nearly one in 11 babies born in the U.S. in 2023 had mothers who were either here in violation of our laws or had only temporary legal status. But all of their babies were U.S. citizens, because they were born on U.S. soil. This is known as birthright citizenship, or “jus soli” (Latin for “right of the soil”). 

Birthright citizenship is uncommon. Only 33 of the world’s 191 countries have it.

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump tried to end it in the U.S. with an executive order. He declared that the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision does not apply to babies whose mothers are unlawfully present in the U.S. or have only temporary lawful status, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.   

The 14th Amendment provides that “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.” And this week, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, including the children of parents who are here unlawfully or with temporary legal status.

But the truth is, the U.S. had birthright citizenship long before the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Before the American Revolution, American colonists were subjects of England’s king. English common law provided that the king owed people “born within the dominions” a duty of “protection.” And “in return for that protection,” those “born within the dominions” owe the King “allegiance.”

This applied even to the children of parents who were subject to........

© The Hill