TOM PATTERSON: Founders of the 14th Amendment Never Intended Birthright Citizenship

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Debate surrounding birthright citizenship is intensifying, drawing attention to a complex issue within American immigration law. While a significant portion of the public opposes automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, many feel trapped by current policies that seem unchangeable.

Repeated assertions claim that this practice is anchored in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, backed by Supreme Court decisions and established jurisprudence. However, these assertions lack truth, as the immigration system remains fraught with inconsistencies. While immigrants are a vital part of the American narrative, the existing laws should prioritize societal welfare over enabling unlawful behavior.

It is essential to evaluate immigrants for their potential to contribute positively to society, rather than encouraging illegal crossings solely for citizenship benefits. The historical context of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, aimed primarily to secure rights for newly emancipated slaves, not to grant unfettered citizenship to all born on American soil, especially those with undocumented parents.

Senator Jacob Howard, a key figure behind the amendment, explained that it was designed to affirm “full and complete jurisdiction” for those born in the U.S. This language was deliberately meant to exclude illegal aliens. Senator Lyman Trumbull, supporting the amendment, clarified that “jurisdiction” did not imply allegiance to another nation.

Legal scholar Lino Graglia notes that the original authors of the amendment would have understood citizenship to pertain to individuals born to parents lawfully present in the U.S. The amendment’s protection clearly does not extend to children of illegal immigrants, soldiers stationed abroad, or foreign diplomats.

Proponents of birthright citizenship often reference the 1897 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark. The Court ruled in favor of Wong, a child of Chinese immigrants, whose citizenship claim was based on the legality of his parents’ presence in the U.S. at the time of his birth. This ruling does not extend to children born to illegal immigrants, as the Supreme Court has never definitively addressed that specific issue.

The intention of the 14th Amendment stands firm in historical context and language, which has been distorted to serve political agendas. The Democratic Party and others on the Left have taken a provision meant to rectify injustice and leveraged it to benefit those unlawfully entering the country.

Statistics reveal a startling reality: approximately 5 million children in the United States may have received citizenship inappropriately, accounting for about one in eight births nationally. This raises concerns about political motivations behind facilitating such citizenship.

Respect for the Constitution and its historical roots should guide discussions on citizenship. True merit should dictate who is granted the significant privilege of U.S. citizenship.

Dr. Thomas Patterson is a former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute and a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for a decade in the 1990s, including a tenure as Majority Leader from 1993 to 1996. Patterson is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.