Why Was the Fourteenth Amendment Created?

To understand today’s debate, it’s necessary to return to the Civil War era.

In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that African Americans—even if free—could never become American citizens.

The decision became one of the most criticized rulings in U.S. history.

After the Civil War, Congress sought to permanently overturn that ruling.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Its immediate purpose was unquestionably to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

Historians across the political spectrum generally agree on this point.

Does That Mean It Applies Only to Former Slaves?

This is where opinions diverge.

Many conservative legal scholars argue that the amendment’s original purpose should guide its interpretation.

Others—including most constitutional scholars and the long-standing position of the federal government—argue that Congress intentionally wrote the amendment in universal language rather than limiting it to one group.

Instead of saying “former slaves,” the Constitution says:

“All persons born… in the United States…”

That wording has been central to more than a century of constitutional interpretation.

The 1898 Supreme Court Decision

The modern understanding of birthright citizenship largely comes from United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who were not eligible to become U.S. citizens under laws at that time.

When he returned from overseas travel, the government argued he was not an American citizen.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil was generally an American citizen regardless of the parents’ nationality, subject to limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or invading military forces.

That decision has remained a cornerstone of American citizenship law for more than a century.

What About Children of Undocumented Immigrants?

This is where the political controversy becomes especially intense.

Supporters of ending automatic birthright citizenship argue that undocumented immigrants are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Others respond that undocumented immigrants are subject to U.S. laws—they can be arrested, prosecuted, taxed in some circumstances, and required to obey American law—meaning they are under U.S. jurisdiction.

Federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to narrow the Citizenship Clause in the way proposed by opponents of birthright citizenship.