The Supreme Court Must Apply Originalist Interpretation to Reject Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal/Temporary Residents
Source: James Uthmeier. "A SCOTUS That Doesn't Stop Birthplace Citizenship Isn't Originalist." April 14, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Supreme Court should rule that children born in America to illegal immigrants or temporary visitors shouldn't automatically become citizens. He claims the 14th Amendment was originally meant to require complete loyalty to America, not just being born here, and that ignoring this history would make originalist legal philosophy worthless.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should rule that children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegally present or only temporarily present are not citizens under the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and failure to do so undermines originalism itself
Premises
- The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment requires complete allegiance to the United States, not mere physical presence
- Historical evidence shows that Sen. Lyman Trumbull, architect of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, intended citizenship only for those who 'owe allegiance to the United States'
- Children of temporary visitors cannot owe the complete allegiance required for citizenship in a republic
- Children of illegal immigrants cannot owe allegiance to a country their parents cannot lawfully make their permanent home
- This case presents a rare opportunity for pure originalist interpretation without conflicting precedent or jurisdictional obstacles
- Originalism as a judicial philosophy becomes meaningless if justices ignore historical evidence when it's politically inconvenient
Assumptions
- Originalist interpretation should be the primary method for constitutional interpretation
- Complete allegiance is a prerequisite for citizenship in a republic
- The intentions of the 14th Amendment's framers can be definitively determined from historical records
- Current birthright citizenship practices represent a misapplication of the Constitution
- Political pressure and precedent should not override original constitutional meaning