Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment: What the Debate Over “And” Really Means

The 14th Amendment begins with a sentence familiar to anyone who has followed debates about U.S. citizenship:

In recent years, political debate has reignited around this clause, particularly the meaning of the conjunction “and”. Some commentators argue that the phrase has been misinterpreted for over a century, while constitutional scholars maintain that its meaning has been settled since the 19th century.

The discussion reflects a broader tension between grammatical interpretation, historical intent, and Supreme Court precedent.

The Function of “And” in the Citizenship Clause

The argument advanced by some political figures is that the clause contains two requirements:

• A person must be born or naturalised in the United States.
• They must also be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Under this reading, children born in the U.S. to non‑citizen parents would not automatically qualify as citizens because their parents owe allegiance to another country.

However, constitutional law does not support this interpretation. Since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court has held that nearly all children born on U.S. soil, except children of foreign diplomats or occupying forces, are citizens at birth. “Subject to the jurisdiction” has consistently been interpreted to exclude only those narrow categories.

Historical Intent and Legislative Notes

The article cites Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause. Howard did state that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign diplomats or ministers, a position consistent with modern law.

However, Howard did not state that children of immigrants, asylum seekers, or undocumented individuals were excluded. Congressional debates at the time show that lawmakers understood “jurisdiction” to mean legal authority, not parental citizenship.

Thus, historical intent aligns with the Supreme Court’s later interpretation.

Modern Political Debate

In the late 2010s, media outlets reported that President Donald Trump was considering ways to reinterpret or limit birthright citizenship.

The question was whether the executive branch could change the application of the 14th Amendment without a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling.

Legal experts across the political spectrum agreed that:

• The President cannot unilaterally alter constitutional meaning.
• Any change would require either a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court reversal of Wong Kim Ark.
• The grammatical argument about “and” does not override established precedent.

The debate therefore became more political than legal, with commentators invoking grammar, legislative history, and immigration policy to support their positions.

Conjunctions and Constitutional Interpretation

The article’s original argument, that “and” creates a dual test, reflects a viewpoint held by some political commentators. But constitutional interpretation relies on:

• text
• historical context
• judicial precedent

And on all three grounds, birthright citizenship remains firmly established.