Birthright Citizenship_ Enduring Principle, Persistent Debate (2025)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, let's unpack this. Have you ever found yourself wondering
about something you know fundamental to how the country works,
but then you realize you only know bits and pieces
Like birthrate citizenship seems simple, right, born here, you're a citizen,
but it gets complicated. Today we're going to cut through
some of that noise. We want to clarify the core meaning,

(00:20):
its constitutional basis, how courts have seen it over time,
and of course its role in major headlines and political debates,
especially around the Supreme Court. Our mission here is to
give you that kind of well informed shortcut. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
And what's really fascinating, I think, is how a concept
that feels so so central to American law, it's also
this persistent point of argument debate. It's a cornerstone, but
one that's you know, constantly being looked at. And it's
important to say this right up front. As of today Friday,
June twenty eighth, twenty twenty five, the basic legal situation
around birthright citizenship, especially that Fourteenth Amendment part, hasn't fundamentally

(00:55):
changed because of some brand new major Supreme Court decision.
Despite all the buzz, the status quo holds right.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
So let's get into how we got here. To really
get it, we need to trace it back. Look at
the constitutional clause itself, that bedrock text, then the big
Supreme Court case that sort of cemented the interpretation, and
then yeah, look at the recent political challenges. It's faced
very public ones. So maybe star basic what is birthright citizenship? Fundamentally?

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Fundamentally, it's the principle that if you're born within a
country's territory it's borders, you automatically get citizenship there. It
doesn't matter what your parents' nationality or immigration status is.
It's sometimes called just soli rate of the soil. Many
countries have this.

Speaker 1 (01:37):
And in the US context, where does it come from?

Speaker 2 (01:40):
Legally, it's rooted directly, I mean directly in the fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution, ratified back in eighteen sixty eight. Specifically,
it's the very first sentence of Section one, the citizenship Clause.
It says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. Simple

(02:01):
as that almost now. It was passed mainly after the
Civil War, obviously to make sure formerly enslaved people were citizens.
But the languages you can hear is well very broad.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
Okay, that phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof that sounds
like where the wiggle room where the debate might come in.
How's that been interpreted?

Speaker 2 (02:18):
That's exactly it. That's the phrase people focus on, But legally, historically,
its interpretation has actually been quite narrow, quite specific. It
basically means, if you're born here, you're under US laws,
you're subject to its power, you're a citizen. The exceptions
are really limited. Think children of foreign diplomats who have
diplomatic immunity, or maybe someone born during a hostile military occupation,

(02:41):
very specific cases. Otherwise, the courts have consistently said being
born here puts you subject to the jurisdiction.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
And that interpretation solidified you mentioned with a key Supreme
Court case.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yes, absolutely, the main one. The landmark case everyone points
to is from way back in eighteen ninety eight. It's
United States view Wang Kimar Wangkimark was born in San
Francisco to Chinese parents who were legally resident but couldn't
become citizens themselves under laws at the time. He traveled
to China and was denied re entry to the US.
The Supreme Court sided with him. They ruled definitively that

(03:14):
someone born on US soil, even to non citizen parents,
is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. That Wang Kimark
decision basically established that the right of the soil just
solely generally overrides the right of blood Jess and Guini's
for births in the US. It really shaped this broad
inclusive idea of who's an American.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
Wow, eighteen ninety eight. It's a long time for a
precedent to stand.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
It is over a century.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
So even with all the talk, especially in recent years
from certain political groups wanting to change this maybe limited,
no Supreme Court ruling since then has actually chipped away
at Wang Kimark.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
Correct. That's the key takeaway regarding the courts. People often ask,
you know, what's the latest Scotis ruling, especially around late
June when big decisions drop. But as of our date
June twenty eight, twenty twenty five, there hasn't been a
new pre in court case that directly overturns or significantly
modifies the core holding of wonkim Ark regarding birthright citizenship.

(04:08):
The principle of stertocisis Latin for to stand by things decided,
basically meaning respect precedent. It carries a lot of weight,
even with changes in the court's makeup. Overturning something so
established for so long that would be a really major,
major judicial shift, unprecedented almost.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
Okay, speak of shifts. Let's talk about the political side.
Donald Trump's presidence, he definitely brought this issue to the
forefront again. He talked a lot about wanting to end
birthright citizenship. What were the actual proposals or actions during
that time and did any specific challenge make it up
to the Supreme Court concerning the Fourteenth Amendment part right.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
That's a critical point. President Trump was very vocal. He
called birthright citizenship ridiculous, claimed it incentivized illegal immigration. He
floated ideas like trying to end it via an executive order,
just declare that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mean what everyone
thinks it means, or maybe push for legislation. These suggestions
immediately sparked huge legal debate. Most constitutional scholars argued quite

(05:06):
strongly that birthright citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment and that you can't just you know, wipe it
away with an executive order, it would almost certainly need
a constitutional amendment, which is incredibly hard to pass, or
theoretically that huge Supreme Court reversal of wankim Ark we
just talked about.

Speaker 1 (05:23):
So lots of talk, lots of debate, but no specific
case testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself actually landed
at the Supreme Court during.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
His term exactly. His administration was involved in many high
profile immigration cases that did reach the court, things like
the travel ban, DACA, border wall funding, but none of
those were a direct assault on the citizenship clause the
Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by wankim Arc. The fact that
it didn't reach the court directly on that core issue,
despite the rhetoric, really highlights how difficult legally it is

(05:56):
to challenge such a fundamental, long standing principle.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
That's interesting now, when we talk about legal challenges, especially
to executive actions or policies, we often hear about injunctions,
things like nationwide injunctions. Well, maybe not used directly for
birthright citizenship, yet could you explain those briefly? Why might
they be relevant if a serious challenge ever did happen?

Speaker 2 (06:17):
Sure An injunction is just a court order. It tells someone,
often the government, to either do something or more commonly,
stop doing something. Now, these nationwide or universal injunctions, they've
become quite controversial. That's when a single federal judge issues
an order that blocks a government policy across the entire country,

(06:37):
not just for the specific people involved in the lawsuit.
Critics sometimes call this the imperial judiciary, the idea that
one judge is overstepping their bounds. Supporters say it's necessary
to stop potentially illegal policies quickly and uniformly. So, yeah,
we haven't seen one specifically targeting birthright citizenship itself. But
if an administration tried, say an executive order to deny

(07:00):
citizenship based on parents status, you'd instantly see lawsuits filed
and request for these kinds of broad injunctions to block
the order immediately. It shows the power struggle between the
executive and judicial branches in these areas.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
Right, that makes sense, It's part of the legal toolkit. Now,
shifting focus a bit, is the US unusual and having
birthright citizenship? Do other countries do this?

Speaker 2 (07:19):
That's a great question, and no, the US isn't alone,
although it's maybe less common than it once was globally,
While many countries in Europe and Asia followed just senguinees
the right of blood, where citizenship comes from your parents,
just solely the right of the soil, is actually the
norm in the America. Think Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina. Lots

(07:40):
of countries in North, Central and South America grant citizenship
based on birth within their territory. Historically, just soli was
more widespread, but many nations shifted away from it over time.
So the US practice fits within a distinct primarily Western
hemisphere tradition.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Okay, so let's try to pull this all together. We've
covered the amendment, the key case. The challenge is the
global context. What's the main takeaway for you, our listener, Well, it.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
Seems clear that birthright citizenship coming from the fourteenth Amendment,
strongly affirmed by United States view won kim Arkbeck in
eighteen ninety eight. It's still fundamental US law that hasn't changed,
and despite some very loud political challenges, especially as we
discussed from figures like Donald Trump, no Supreme Court ruling
has actually altered that basic legal framework. Not as of

(08:23):
today June twenty eight, twenty twenty five exactly. And if
you connect that to the bigger picture, the sheer stability
of this principle upheld for well over one hundred years now,
it really says something about the power of constitutional precedent
in the American legal system. Any real change would likely
need one of two things, either a formal constitutional amendment,

(08:44):
which is notoriously difficult to achieve, or that kind of
massive dramatic reversal by the Supreme Court we talked about,
which would be truly extraordinary.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
So, for you listening, thinking about birthright citizenship isn't just
a sort of an abstract legal thing. It's really about
understanding a core piece of American identity, and it's about
grasping this ongoing conversation, this dynamic debate about who belongs,
who is an American and how we.

Speaker 2 (09:09):
Define that, which does leave us with a pretty important
question to ponder, doesn't it. In today's world, with increasing
global migration, shifting ideas about nations and identity, and this
persistent political argument here in the US, how might this
debate over birthright citizenship continue to shape how we think
about sovereignty, about belonging, about who we are in the
years ahead.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
Definitely something to think about. It's a complex principle, deeply embedded,
but clearly still very much alive in our national conversation,
worth continuing to explore, for sure.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Birthright Citizenship_ Enduring Principle, Persistent Debate (2025)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

All Episodes

Birthright Citizenship_ Enduring Principle, Persistent Debate (2025)

Stuff You Should Know