The Supreme Court fortunately ruled recently in favor of affirming that birthright citizenship is indeed the law of the land, as it has been literally described in the Constitution since the 1860s. This was directly triggered by Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order, but it is quite shameful that this was even a case being considered. This has been settled law for 158 years. It should not have been considered, and the Court should have dismissed it like many cases that do not even deserve attention.

But let’s rewind to the Middle Ages of Europe, where some of our legal foundations can be traced. The concept of citizenship is relatively modern. In the Middle Ages, you were more a subject of a king rather than a citizen of a country. As such, questions of jurisdiction over foreigners were not clear-cut. A subject of King Edward III of England visiting France would be treated differently than a subject of the French king living in his own monarch’s realm. It also depended on what they did, where they were, and the time period in question.

When the United States was founded, we were no longer subjects of King George III, and the Founding Fathers never outlined what it meant to be a citizen. In practice, however, most white people were included by default, while enslaved people were excluded, especially after the Dred Scott decision, which clarified the unclear question. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was passed, which clearly defined citizenship and guaranteed that formerly enslaved people were citizens. By the 20th century, birthright citizenship had become common in many countries. If you look at global patterns, countries in the Americas with histories of immigration often recognize it. It exists in places like Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile, though there are exceptions such as Colombia, which does not fully guarantee it. In contrast, countries im the Eastern hemisphere, especially places like Japan have much stricter naturalization systems.

Social conservatives have long debated the 14th Amendment, often focusing on the phrase “subject to jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction, in its basic sense, refers to the authority of law over a person. The people who wrote the amendment would have been familiar with contemporary legal definitions, including those found in 19th-century dictionaries like Webster’s. The case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was a key Supreme Court test of this issue. Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents, and the question was whether he was a citizen despite his parents being subjects of a foreign emperor. The Court ruled that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, except for children of foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, or other officials with immunity.

I was concerned this case might not go that way, given the current right-wing composition of the Supreme Court. However, Amy Coney Barrett surprisingly sided with the majority, relying heavily on precedent, particularly United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Chief Justice John Roberts also joined that position. Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the majority but raised a partial dissent, suggesting Congress could potentially clarify the meaning of “subject to jurisdiction,” which I believe is incorrect and highly dangerous to civil rights.

The oreo of the court, Clarence Thomas was unsurprisingly among the 3 dissenting justices. The dissent argued, in part, that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was tied primarily to the aftermath of Dred Scott. However, the amendment itself does not reference race or former slave status. It states “all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” If undocumented immigrants were not subject to jurisdiction, they would not be subject to law enforcement actions such as ICE enforcement. The phrase “all persons” is pretty darn clear too.