America has always been more than a place on the map. It is a political community — a people united by common principles and institutions rather than merely by geography. That simple proposition has important implications for one of today’s most contentious constitutional debates: birthright citizenship.
Critics often portray efforts to reconsider the prevailing understanding of the 14th Amendment as an attack on America’s founding creed. In reality, the opposite is true. The debate concerns not whether all human beings possess equal natural rights, but who belongs to the American political community that exists to secure those rights for that particular people.
Recommended Stories
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence begins by proclaiming that “all men are created equal.” But the declaration does not then announce that every person everywhere is automatically a citizen of the United States. Indeed, the very act of declaring independence presupposed the existence of a distinct political people with the authority to establish governments and determine their own membership, as was made clear in the declaration’s opening paragraph announcing that it had become “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another.”
The founders never confused universal human equality with universal political citizenship. Every nation possesses the sovereign authority to define its own political community. The U.S. was no exception. And, from the moment of its birth, it explicitly grounded that authority on the consent of the governed.
That understanding persisted through Reconstruction. The 14th Amendment was adopted to overturn Dred Scott and to ensure that formerly enslaved Americans could never again be denied citizenship. It constitutionalized a principle already reflected in the Civil Rights Act of 1866: Those born in the U.S. and subject to its complete political jurisdiction, which is to say not subject to any foreign power, are citizens.
That final phrase matters. It reflected the long-standing distinction between simply being required to obey American laws while present within the country and owing complete political allegiance to the U.S.
This was no novel invention, but a repudiation of English common law that was present in the Declaration of Independence itself. English common law, the law of the soil, or jus soli, held that, excepting only the children of foreign diplomats and hostile occupying armies, anyone born on the king’s soil was forever and perpetually the king’s subject. The declaration repudiated that feudal doctrine, famously declaring in its final paragraph that “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; [and] that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” Americans were no longer to be subjects of a monarch asserting a divine-right-of-kings claim to rule, but rather members of a political community, formed by consent — a social compact — among a particular people rooted in the self-evident truth of human equality but devoted to securing the God-given blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.
The modern claim that every child born on American soil, regardless of the parents’ allegiance, legal status, or relationship to the nation, must automatically become a citizen reflects a much more expansive understanding than was recognized by our nation’s founders and by those who, generations later, proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment. It effectively transforms geography into the sole criterion for political membership, obliterating the important requirement of mutual consent.
Citizenship has never been merely geographic. It is fundamentally political.
That is why every naturalization system asks not only where an applicant resides but whether he understands the Constitution, renounces prior allegiances, and pledges fidelity to the U.S. Citizenship has always been understood as reciprocal. The nation owes protection to its citizens; citizens owe allegiance to the nation. And both sides of that coin are based on consent.
The current debate is therefore not about equality. Every person within America’s jurisdiction enjoys important legal protections. The Constitution safeguards due process, equal protection, and numerous individual liberties without making every person a citizen.
Nor is the debate about whether immigrants enrich America. Throughout our history, immigrants have strengthened the nation precisely because they sought to become Americans, and were to that extent welcomed with the consent of those already here. They came expecting to join an existing political community rather than redefine its membership according to the customs of their countries of origin.
This distinction points to the broader question facing conservatives today. Is American identity merely an abstract proposition available to anyone who happens to be born within its borders? Or does citizenship represent admission into a self-governing political community possessing the sovereign authority to determine its own membership?
The founders’ answer seems clear. “Consent of the governed” means that “We the People” govern ourselves. But a people cannot exercise self-government if it lacks the authority to determine who constitutes the people.
THE 14TH AMENDMENT’S AUTHOR WOULDN’T ACCEPT THE SUPREME COURT’S INTERPRETATION
That principle does not diminish America’s universal ideals. On the contrary, it preserves them. Equal natural rights belong to all humanity. Citizenship belongs to a particular political community charged with protecting those rights for its own members while welcoming new citizens according to laws established through democratic self-government.
The birthright citizenship debate ultimately asks whether America remains such a political community. Conservatives should not hesitate to answer yes. A nation committed to equality before the law may still determine who belongs to the body politic. Indeed, if self-government means anything, it necessarily includes the authority of a free people to define the terms of its own political membership.