Birthright Citizenship is People’s Choice, Not Party’s
Sovereignty & Values: Why Only the People Can Define American Identity
The question of birthright citizenship is often framed as a legal dispute — a battle over the meaning of a 158-year-old constitutional clause. On one side are those who believe the 14th Amendment’s promise is absolute, granting citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil. On the other are those who argue the amendment’s authors never intended to grant that status to the children of those here without legal consent.
But this framing misses the more profound truth. Beneath the legal briefs and executive orders lies a question far older than any statute: who decides what it means to be American? As the Supreme Court deliberates on Trump v. Barbara this spring, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not a debate for nine justices in robes to resolve. It is a debate for the American people. Birthright citizenship is, and must be, a matter of public choice, not party politics.
The current crisis is a product of constitutional ambiguity and political expediency. For over a century, the precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was considered settled law: children born to non-citizens on U.S. soil are citizens. However, the rise of “birth tourism” and the sustained influx of undocumented immigrants have forced a fundamental question: does the act of setting foot on American soil — even temporarily or without consent — automatically create a new American citizen with a permanent claim on the nation’s resources?
The executive branch has attempted to answer that question by administrative fiat. Executive orders aimed at denying citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants have been met with a wall of lower-court injunctions. These orders, whether crafted by one administration or another, share a common flaw: they attempt to settle a constitutional question through political maneuvering. An executive order is fleeting; it can be signed by one president and rescinded by the next. It is a tool of governance, not a foundation for defining national identity.
Similarly, the legislative branch has proposed a myriad of laws, some more creative than others. A common proposal is to criminalize the act of giving birth itself. The logic is straightforward: separate the mother’s action from the child’s status. The child remains a citizen, but the mother is penalized. Another approach envisions a “visa contract” where a woman, seeking entry, would sign a binding agreement promising not to give birth, backed by a million-dollar fine and the threat of prosecution.
These proposals, while politically potent, have revealed the limits of congressional power. As a neutral assessment of the legal landscape shows, such laws face a gauntlet of constitutional challenges that go far beyond the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
The “Act” vs. “Status” Conundrum
When a law criminalizes the act of giving birth for undocumented women, it enters a constitutional minefield. The 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishment. The landmark case Robinson v. California (1962) established that the government cannot criminalize a “status” or a biological condition. While the law would be framed as punishing an “act” (birth), courts would likely view it as punishing a person for who they are. Giving birth is a legal, natural, and protected act for every other person in the country. To make it a crime for one specific class of people violates the fundamental principle of equal protection.
The government would then be forced to argue that it has a “compelling interest” to justify such a targeted law — a legal hurdle known as “strict scrutiny.” It would need to prove that jailing a mother for childbirth is the least restrictive means to secure the border, an argument that collapses under the weight of existing laws like 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which already criminalizes illegal entry.
The “Contract” Illusion
The idea of a mandatory pre-entry contract — a guarantee not to give birth — appears to be a clever workaround. But it runs into the “Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine.” The government cannot force a person to waive a constitutional right in exchange for a benefit like a visa. The 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches would also be triggered. Requiring a doctor’s proof of “non-pregnancy” for all women of childbearing age is a massive invasion of bodily integrity. While border agents can search a phone (a device containing the “sum of an individual’s private life”), courts have historically drawn a line at the body itself. A pregnancy test is a “non-routine” search that requires a higher level of suspicion — a standard impossible to meet for millions of travelers.
Get A Critical Mind’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Furthermore, a million-dollar fine, even if justified as “cost recovery” for the child’s lifetime use of public resources, would likely be struck down under the 8th Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” clause. The Supreme Court has ruled that a fine must be proportional to the offense. Since the “offense” is a biological act that is legal for citizens, a million-dollar penalty is “grossly disproportionate.” The government cannot fine a mother for the speculative future costs of a child who, under the current Constitution, has a legal right to those services.
The “Invasion” Re-Framing
Given these legal obstacles, proponents of reform have begun to shift the narrative. I will not frame this as a simple matter of border control. Instead, I argue it is a matter of sovereign rights — an infringement on the existing citizenry. This argument draws from Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees states protection against “invasion.”
If a mass influx of individuals, through the act of birth, secures a permanent claim on U.S. territory and depletes public resources (schools, hospitals, infrastructure), then it is not merely a civil infraction. It is a “taking” of public property without consent. This reframing is potent because it transforms the debate. The mother’s act is no longer a private medical event; it is a strategic action that results in a new citizen with a permanent claim on the state.
This is the argument that sits at the heart of the current Supreme Court case. The government’s lawyers in Trump v. Barbara have argued that “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment requires allegiance and consent. They contend that an unauthorized presence cannot create a rightful claim on the American social contract. The counter-argument is historic and chilling: critics warn that treating birth as an “invasion” risks recreating a legal system where “personhood” is tied to “permission,” echoing the logic of the Dred Scott decision — a precedent the 14th Amendment was explicitly written to overturn.
The Only Path: Article V
And this is where the charade of judicial and executive action reaches its logical end. The Supreme Court, in its upcoming ruling, faces a binary choice. It can reaffirm the 125-year-old precedent of Wong Kim Ark, declaring that any person subject to U.S. laws is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus their children are citizens. Or, it can reinterpret the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants, effectively rewriting the Constitution from the bench.
But as legal scholars on all sides acknowledge, using judicial interpretation to achieve what should be a legislative or constitutional goal is a dangerous game. If the Court chooses to reinterpret “jurisdiction,” it will not settle the debate; it will inflame it. The decision will be seen as partisan, subject to reversal the moment the Court’s composition changes.
The only legitimate, permanent, and democratic avenue for such a foundational change is Article V of the Constitution. A constitutional amendment — requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states — is the only mechanism that carries the weight of the people’s consent. It is the only path that offers finality.
If a “Sovereignty Amendment” were proposed and failed to pass, that failure would be a definitive statement. It would tell us that the American people, after hearing the arguments about resource infringement and national sovereignty, have decided that birthright citizenship is a core, non-negotiable value of the national identity. Conversely, if it passed, it would signal a fundamental shift from a territorial model of citizenship to a consensual, lineage-based model.
Conclusion
The legal battles over executive orders and the political skirmishes in Congress are merely the surface noise. The debate over birthright citizenship is not about the clever drafting of a statute to bypass the 14th Amendment, nor is it about the ideological leanings of the nine justices who sit on the Supreme Court. It is a debate about values. It is a debate about whether belonging to the American community is a function of geography or of mutual consent; whether citizenship is a birthright for all who enter the world on this soil, or a privilege earned through the legal standing of one’s parents.
As one participant in the debate recently concluded, it is a question for the people to decide. If, after a full and honest argument, the people choose not to change the Constitution, then “so be it. People have spoken.” That is the essence of self-governance. It is not a matter for a political party to dictate, nor for a president to decree, nor for a court to divine from ancient texts. It is a choice reserved for the American people, to be made through the difficult, demanding, and final process of constitutional amendment. Anything less is not a solution; it is merely a delay.
