Birthright Citizenship: A Brief History and Explanation
- 7 minutes ago
- 5 min read
“The title of citizen”
Consider the value of citizenship. Belonging to something larger than oneself affects a person’s safety, development, and overall well-being. United States citizenship is a form of belonging that affords basic human rights, access to services and protections, and opportunities to contribute.
Citizens benefit their country, too. A citizen can serve in public office, vote, or serve on a jury. In his farewell address to the nation, President Jimmy Carter famously said:
“In a few days I will lay down my official responsibilities in this office, to take up once more the only title in our democracy superior to that of president: the title of citizen.”
Today, a baby born in the U.S. becomes a citizen. Despite more than a century of legal precedent, some Americans, including the current presidential administration, argue that birthright citizenship has been misinterpreted and that the original intent of the Constitution is more restrictive than has been historically applied. Escalating this argument, President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, attempting to limit birthright citizenship. This action set in motion a series of legal actions leading to an upcoming Supreme Court decision.
On April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments regarding birthright citizenship — a legal right and privilege since the mid-nineteenth century.
Background
Birthright citizenship is a Western concept that nearly all countries in North, Central, and South America have adopted. In highly populated countries with complex government systems and robust infrastructures, citizenship allows people to receive licenses to own businesses and build properties. It provides identification needed to apply for employment and qualify for government services, such as unemployment.
Providing a pathway to citizenship in the U.S. has long served as a standard. It has invited people fleeing dangerous situations or looking for opportunities to thrive in a free land. One of MWEG’s principles of ethical government asserts that “People have moral responsibilities to provide succor and relief to their fellow human beings fleeing war, violence, persecution, and natural disasters, regardless of their race, nationality, or religion.” The arguments for birthright citizenship are at once arguments for equal human rights. This concept-turned-law encourages stability for the individual and strengthens nations where it exists.
A timeline of legal precedent
1608 — Calvin’s Case: The ruling in this case held that a child born in Scotland would be subject to the common law of England and benefit from citizenship status under that law. This laid the foundation for American ideology about birthplace citizenship.
1857 — Dred Scott v. Sanford: In what many consider “the worst ever rendered” Supreme Court decision, this ruling denied citizenship to enslaved people and offered no protections under the law.
1868 — 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment established the “citizenship clause” and reversed the Dred Scott decision.
“The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and 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.’ The Supreme Court addressed this in 1898 and ruled that children born to noncitizen immigrants are U.S. citizens. Being born in the U.S. confers citizenship.”
1884 — Lynch v. Clarke: In this case, the principle of jus soli, or birthplace-based citizenship, was applied to grant that Lynch, a woman born in the U.S. to Irish parents on a temporary visa, was an American citizen, despite her more than 20-year residence in Ireland.
1898 — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark: In the midst of growing anti-Chinese sentiments and after the establishment of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 came the landmark decision that Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was indeed a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, this case established that all children born under “the jurisdiction of the United States” received automatic citizenship.
1924 — Indian Citizenship Act: American citizenship was granted to Native, or Indigenous, Americans. The right to vote was granted by individual states, however, and it wasn’t until 1957 that all Native Americans were allowed to vote.
“Tribal members have been citizens of the United States since 1924.There’s nobody more American than American Indians. WE ARE AMERICA.”
2004 — Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Pertaining to one of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., this SCOTUS decision ruled that due process must be given to “enemy combatants” who are U.S. citizens. Hamdi was born in Louisiana to two Saudi parents.
2026 — Trump v. Barbara: This case came before SCOTUS on April 1, 2026, and challenges Executive Order 14160, which seeks to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Famous birthright citizens born to noncitizen parents in the U.S. include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and Olympic medalist Michelle Kwan.
Potential consequences
If the goal of removing birthright citizenship is to reduce unauthorized immigration to the U.S., the end result would have the opposite effect. Over time, it would create a growing population of people who lack legal status and face institutional barriers that persist for generations.
As advocates, we must consider these intended and unintended consequences of a potential ruling in favor of the recent executive order. For example, without birthright citizenship, a baby born in the U.S. today to two asylum-seekers would be stateless, having no legal country of origin. The fallout from this set of circumstances would create lifelong problems for this baby and her family. This potential reality, among many others, illustrates why MWEG’s commitment to ethical immigration laws remains a priority.
Additionally, there are many other possible consequences of a birthright citizenship reversal:
An average of 255,000 children per year who are born in the U.S. to parents without documentation would lose the chance for citizenship.
Children born to parents who are protected from deportation, for example on a temporary worker visa, under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, would be born stateless.
A child who is a native English speaker attending elementary school could be deported to a country they have never known and whose language they do not speak.
All labor and delivery hospital administrators and staff would need emergency training on verifying citizenship in order to complete the information necessary for birth certificates.
Individual and class action cases petitioning to receive or retain citizenship would cause court backlogs across the country.
Denying birthright citizenship would create a new subclass of people without rights.
Most points above create economic challenges to families, businesses, and the government.
A final thought
As birthright citizenship is debated in the nation’s highest court, we can reflect on its worth and impact. Other than Native Americans and people descended from enslaved Africans, every person in the U.S. enjoys citizenship thanks to the migration of an ancestor. Others before have placed high value on pathways to citizenship, including the right to belong to a nation where you are born. In one of his last speeches as U.S. president, Ronald Reagan celebrated and warned:
“Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”
This article was written by Sherilyn Stevenson, lead researcher and writer for Mormon Women for Ethical Government, with Alexa Alvarado, immigration specialist for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.