“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..”
Question: If the authors of the 14th Amendment believed that anyone born in the United States was a citizen, why did not the 14th Amendment start with “All persons born or naturalized are citizens of the United States”?
Plainly speaking, there must have been a meaning to the key phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. As discussed, the authors of the 14th Amendment understood that the entire legal structure of the United States was based on Natural Law, a belief that the core structure in society is the family unit and that children inherit their nationality from their parents, not from their place of birth.
Bastiat repeatedly talked about order and chaos with regard to Law – if the interpretation of a Law resulted in Order, which is the purpose of Law, then it was a correct interpretation, but if it resulted in chaos, it was improperly interpreted or it was simply a bad law.
If one thinks about it, what was the purpose of the 10 Commandments? Yes, there is a great aspect of God, but there are also Commandments for the people. Indeed, if the Commandments for the people are followed, we would live in a more utopian manner, with order and peace. Yes, it is difficult to follow God’s Law, but it is truly the law by which all Nations should live, for it results in order… law and order.
The Citizenship Clause was introduced by the members of the 39th Senate. It was debated, questions were asked and answered. What started as a discussion to ensure black freedmen would be afforded the rights and privileges of white men, that black freedmen would be citizens, morphed into a statement regarding universal citizenship at birth, commonly called birthright citizenship today.
Repeatedly, the authors of the Citizenship Clause stated that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the person had allegiance to ONLY the United States. The proof of that meaning was during the discussion of “Indians not Taxed”. Indians not taxed were legally within the United States, they had children born in the United States, they had to follow the laws of the United States, …. But they had an allegiance to their tribes, they were under the jurisdiction of their tribal laws and customs, therefore, their children were not granted citizenship in the United States. As stated in the Gospel of Matthew, no man can serve two masters.
Many hypothetical questions were discussed during the 39th Congress, including the children born in the United States of legal Chinese residents. They were answered with the same answer as “Indians not Taxed”. Yes, they were here legally, but they still had allegiance to China for they were not citizens of the United States, therefore, they were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Keep in mind that the Naturalization Laws at that time ONLY applied to “whites”, there were no naturalization laws for anyone else. It took years to update the Laws to allow non-whites to naturalize. This was purposeful at the time as the government wanted a society that assimilated, that had similar goals, that created a new heritage – of Americans. They restricted citizenship to people immigrating from nations that embraced Western Civilization. Over time, that society was opened to more and more people of diverse backgrounds, with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 opening the floodgates to anyone.
Another aspect of the Citizenship Clause is that in the discussions of the 39th Congress, there was no “illegal” immigration. The doors were open to all who could get to the United States. Indeed, the Nation needed more people, and people flocked for the opportunity of a dream to be self-sufficient, to excel, to achieve success. There was no “safety net”, that concept was void. Americans did not believe in subjects, Americans believed in citizens. Subjects are given the tools of survival, as with the story of Robin Hood. Citizens are given the opportunity to obtain the tools of survival, to own property and to prosper.
The Wong Kim Ark case with the Supreme Court in 1898 shattered the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the 14th Amendment. Even though the parents of the plaintiff maintained their allegiance to China, as evidence by the family and Wong returning to China about 5 years after his birth, even though when Wong returned to the United States as a teenager he required the sponsorship of his uncle, even though Wong returned to China as a young man to find a wife and start a family, even though Wong was denied entrée to the United States due to a Congressional Act restricting all Chinese immigrants, the Supreme Court decided that Wong was a United States citizen. This became the basis which led to the “birthright” citizenship argument.
Some may say that this ruling sets a precedent. But can a precedent be flawed, as in the Dred Scott decision? Indeed, a precedent can be in error, for that birthright argument has caused chaos. Does one need proof? Hundreds of thousands of “citizens” are being raised in foreign countries, they are being taught the beliefs and customs of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and many other Nations that do not embrace American values, yet, someday they can return to America as citizens, bring their families and extended families. How does that support the values and traditions off the United States?
The precedent established in the Wong Kim Ark case simply creates chaos, and it must be overturned.
President Trump has issued Executive Order 14160 — Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. It is being challenged in court and will land in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can state that the precedent of the Wong Kim Ark decision has been established, which maintains citizenship chaos, or they can rule that the precedent is wrong, restating the Original Intent of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which means that for a child to become a citizen of the United States, at least one parent of the child must be a citizen of the United States.
As a footnote, in the opinion of the author, there is a flaw in the Executive Order when it describes the status of the father. It states that the father must be a citizen or a lawful permanent resident for the child to be a citizen of the United States. That creates chaos. Is a Green card holder a citizen of the United States? No. Can a Green Card holder return home? Yes. Can the Green Card status be revoked? Yes. When these questions are answered truthfully, how is the statement “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” satisfied? But what about the child? Is this interpretation fair? If the child is denied citizenship, is there a lawful method for the child to become a citizen? Yes, it is called naturalization.
Is birthright citizenship a right? Does it really mean that anyone born in this great Nation is automatically a citizen? Or is birthright citizenship a privilege? Is it fair to have standards that establish citizenship? Is it fair that some of us won the citizenship lottery, we were born in the United States with parents who were citizens of the United States?
The standard of citizenship was established in Article 2 of the Constitution, which listed the requirements to become the President of the United States. The President had to be a natural born citizen, meaning the President had to have parents, plural meaning father and mother, who were citizens of the United States at the time of that persons birth.(1)
Why is a natural born citizen important? It ensures that the person elected President is at least the 2nd generation of American citizen. As described in the writings of Emir Vattel in “The Law of Nations”, the child understands that he has the same “home” as his parents, there is a love of Nation that grows due to the love of parents who love the Nation.(2)
As stated in the Executive Order 14160, “the privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.” It must be protected; it must not be diluted, or we are stealing the benefits of citizenship from generations to come. Citizenship is the glue that holds this Nation together. Yes, there are Conservatives and Liberals and people in between, but we are all Americans, and when threatened from outside, we come together to protect this great Nation.
The glue of Citizenship is important.
Tom Weaver, Patriot © 3/16/25
- Congress established that the place of birth was not important in the 1st Session of the 1st Congress.
- The natural born citizen requirement was waved in the Constitution provided a candidate for President was born before the signing of the Constitution.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
2 thoughts on “14th Amendment – Part 9: A Summary and Executive Order 14160”