The question of birthright citizenship is back in the spotlight, with President-elect Donald Trump vowing to end automatic citizenship for those born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This has stirred constitutional debate, historical analysis, and plenty of fiery opinions. The issue invites us to reflect on the balance between the rule of law, compassion for families, and the stewardship of national identity.

What Does the Constitution Say?

The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The key phrase here, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is the crux of the argument. Historically, the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of legal immigrants, but the interpretation has since expanded to include nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

Constitutional originalists argue that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to exclude certain groups, such as foreign diplomats or members of sovereign tribal nations, whose primary allegiance was elsewhere. This view suggests that children born to illegal immigrants may also fall outside the scope of this clause.

As Christians who believe in the sanctity of law, we recognize the importance of clarity and order in interpreting the Constitution. If the current application of birthright citizenship contradicts the original intent of the 14th Amendment, then it’s appropriate to revisit the issue—albeit through the legislative and judicial processes, not unilateral executive action.

The Historical Context

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was a landmark provision designed to address the moral and legal failures of America’s past. It guaranteed citizenship to formerly enslaved people, affirming their full inclusion in the nation’s political and social fabric, and it eliminated race-based exclusions that had long tarnished the ideals of equality and justice. This was a noble endeavor, deeply rooted in biblical principles of justice and the recognition that all humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). It was a bold declaration that the law of the land would no longer tolerate distinctions based on race or ethnicity, and it sought to reflect the scriptural mandate to treat every individual with dignity and fairness.

However, applying the broad principles of the 14th Amendment to modern complexities such as illegal immigration raises questions that the amendment’s framers likely never anticipated. Citizenship, while a right for those it was intended to protect, also carries with it a profound relationship of allegiance and accountability to the nation. This nuanced understanding of citizenship was affirmed in the Supreme Court’s decision in Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

In Elk, the Court ruled that Native Americans born under the jurisdiction of tribal governments were not automatically U.S. citizens because their allegiance was primarily to their tribes, not the federal government. The Court interpreted the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment to mean more than mere physical presence; it required a genuine legal and political allegiance to the United States. This case underscores the idea that jurisdiction is not a passive concept—it involves a mutual relationship of obligation and loyalty.

The framers of the 14th Amendment could not have foreseen a world with modern immigration challenges, where millions of people might reside within U.S. borders without formal legal status. While the amendment was designed to ensure that no one lawfully residing within the United States could be denied citizenship due to race or ancestry, it also assumed a foundational relationship between the individual and the nation—a relationship defined by allegiance, accountability, and integration into the political community.

The Elk decision highlights that the question of citizenship goes beyond birthplace alone. It invites a deeper exploration of what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of a nation. Are individuals who enter or remain in the United States without legal authorization fully subject to the jurisdiction of its laws, or does their continued allegiance to their home country complicate the matter? These are the questions that modern legal scholars and policymakers must grapple with as they consider how to apply the 14th Amendment in today’s context.

The principles of the 14th Amendment remain vital, but they must be carefully interpreted to ensure that they honor the rule of law while addressing contemporary realities. In this way, the amendment can continue to serve as a testament to America’s commitment to justice, equity, and the biblical mandate to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8), even in the face of evolving challenges.

Moral Considerations

Critics of ending birthright citizenship raise an important moral concern: children should not be punished for the actions of their parents. This principle resonates deeply with Christian teachings, as Scripture consistently calls us to protect and nurture the vulnerable. Jesus Himself demonstrated this when He said: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14).

This verse reflects Christ’s heart for children, highlighting their innocence and intrinsic value in God’s eyes. It reminds us that any policy, even one addressing the serious challenges of illegal immigration, must treat children with dignity and compassion. However, compassion must be balanced with responsibility, particularly when the long-term effects of a system may inadvertently harm the broader community.

The current practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, has led to what many term a “moral hazard.” By incentivizing illegal immigration through the promise of citizenship for children, the system can unintentionally encourage law-breaking and create a cycle of dependence that strains public resources. Schools, healthcare systems, and social services are often stretched thin, impacting not only citizens and lawful residents but also the very families seeking a better life.

This is where stewardship comes into play. The Bible calls Christians to act justly and steward resources wisely for the good of all. While we are commanded to show mercy and love, we are also instructed to respect the laws of the land: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1).

The laws governing immigration and citizenship exist to maintain order and fairness, both of which are necessary for the flourishing of any society. Addressing abuses of the birthright citizenship system is not inherently unkind; rather, it is a matter of ensuring justice for all—citizens, lawful immigrants, and those seeking to enter legally.

Moreover, unchecked incentives for illegal immigration can inadvertently create a deeper injustice by encouraging perilous journeys. Families often risk their lives crossing deserts or seas, hoping for a better future. Tragically, some never make it. Addressing these incentives responsibly could deter such dangerous undertakings, reducing human suffering while preserving the rule of law.

Practical Challenges and Solutions

Reforming birthright citizenship is a complex issue that raises significant logistical, legal, and moral questions. While the goal of such reform may be to address the unintended consequences of current policies, opponents rightly highlight several challenges that must be carefully considered to avoid creating new problems. Any approach must balance the need for accountability with a commitment to compassion, ensuring that reforms are just, humane, and in line with the values that uphold the sanctity of family and the rule of law.

One of the primary difficulties in reforming birthright citizenship lies in defining who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The phrase, central to the 14th Amendment, has been broadly interpreted for over a century to include nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. Narrowing this definition would require meticulous legislation to ensure clarity and fairness, but even with the best intentions, such changes would almost certainly face intense legal scrutiny and protracted court battles.

Moreover, ending automatic birthright citizenship could unintentionally create a class of stateless individuals—children born in the United States who lack citizenship in any country. Statelessness often leads to bureaucratic limbo, depriving individuals of essential rights and protections and complicating their ability to participate in society fully.

From a practical perspective, reforming birthright citizenship could also complicate immigration enforcement. Without automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented parents, the undocumented population could swell as more individuals are categorized as “illegal,” exacerbating existing challenges rather than solving them. Critics point out that such measures could disrupt families, create a new underclass of individuals, and run counter to the pro-family values that many conservatives champion.

To address these valid concerns, reforms must be accompanied by practical, compassionate measures that ensure fairness while upholding the integrity of citizenship laws. Some potential solutions include:

1. Clear Guidelines for Citizenship
   Reforms should define “subject to the jurisdiction” explicitly, clarifying the parameters of who qualifies for citizenship. Such definitions must balance fairness with a commitment to discourage exploitation of the system. This could include exemptions for diplomats and others who retain foreign allegiance while maintaining pathways for lawful immigrants and their families.
2. Support for Families
   Mixed-status families—those with members of differing legal statuses—require compassionate solutions. Reforms should include pathways for these families to regularize their status in alignment with U.S. law. This could involve streamlined processes for lawful residency or naturalization for parents of citizen children, reducing the risk of family separation while reinforcing respect for legal norms.
3. Border Security and Immigration Reform
   Citizenship reform should be part of a broader effort to address the root causes of illegal immigration. This includes strengthening border security, modernizing immigration systems to prevent abuse, and expanding legal pathways for immigration. By addressing these issues holistically, policymakers can reduce the incentive for individuals to bypass the law in pursuit of a better life.

The challenge lies in finding a balance between compassion for families caught in difficult circumstances and accountability to the nation’s laws and resources. Compassion calls us to protect children and preserve families, recognizing the intrinsic value of every human life as created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, accountability requires that we steward the nation’s resources wisely and uphold the principles of fairness and justice.

A Christian Conservative Vision for Citizenship

As Christians, we are called to seek justice that reflects both God’s mercy and His righteousness. Scripture reminds us: “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Psalm 85:10). This verse highlights the need to balance compassion with truth, mercy with justice. While we must never lose sight of the children and families affected by these policies, neither can we ignore the broader consequences of systems that undermine the law, strain resources, and incentivize harmful practices.

Reforming birthright citizenship, when done with care and wisdom, can reflect this balance. It can uphold the dignity of families while ensuring that citizenship remains a meaningful and lawful covenant of allegiance to the nation. Compassion and responsibility are not mutually exclusive; they are essential partners in building a society that honors God and serves its people well.

By addressing these challenges thoughtfully, we can move toward a system that preserves the integrity of citizenship, protects families, and reflects the values of justice, mercy, and stewardship that should guide all aspects of governance.