US Supreme Court precedence already exists regarding birthright citizenship

In 1898, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling on what constituted being born as a US citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born on US soil. However, both his parents were Chinese nationals. After visiting his parents in China, Ark returned just to be barred reentry into the United States. The Supreme Court decided that since both of Ark’s parents were in the United States lawfully at the time he was born, Art was a US citizen based on the 14th Amendment. The parents being in the United States “legally” played a key role in Art’s favor.

From the American Thinker:

Twelve years later, in Wong Kim Ark v. United States, the citizenship status of an American-born man of Chinese descent was the issue.

Wong Kim Ark had been born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals, and had been denied entry to the United States after returning from a visit to China as an adult. At the time, Chinese nationals were precluded by treaty from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, after recounting the history of the common-law jus soli doctrine, and its influence on our Constitution, the Court held that, because the petitioner had been born to parents lawfully residing in the United States, he had been born within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States, and therefore at birth was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was thus born a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.

The Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment thus limits its application to children of aliens residing in the country with permission. This requirement implies that children born to foreign nationals living in the country without permission are not subject to its jurisdiction, and that mere tourists, since they are only visiting and do not reside here, also are not so subject. This crucial qualification of common law birthright citizenship by the requirements of both residence and permission therefore excludes from citizenship at birth children both of tourists and of those residing in this country without permission — that is, illegal aliens.

To disregard these requirements would involve interpreting the Court to mean that illegal aliens are within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States.

But the Court specifically stated otherwise, holding that Chinese nationals who were not permitted to reside in the United States were not within its allegiance and protection. The Court could hardly have held otherwise. The phrase “allegiance and protection” describes the reciprocal obligations of citizens and the state that are foundational to a nation. Since illegal aliens are at all times subject to apprehension and deportation, they can hardly be regarded as within the “protection” of the United States.

Additional Reading:

Canaan, G. (2025, May 22). Supreme Court: Children of Illegal Aliens or Tourists are not U.S. Citizens. American Thinker. Link.

Category: Editorial, Illegal Immigrants, Op-Ed