Citizenship Clause

1st Section of the 14th Amendmentbirthright citizenshipgrants citizenship
The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868.wikipedia
70 Related Articles

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment14th AmendmentFourteenth
The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868.
The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause.

Citizenship of the United States

United States citizenAmericanU.S. citizen
The reference to naturalization in the Citizenship Clause is to the process by which immigrants are granted United States citizenship.
These two pathways to citizenship are specified in the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution's 1868 Fourteenth Amendment which reads:

Civil Rights Act of 1866

Civil Rights Act1866 Civil Rights ActCivil Rights Bill
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act, which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently.
A similar provision (called the Citizenship Clause) was written a few months later into the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim ArkIn re Wong Kim ArkU.S. Supreme Court citizenship case
Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Afroyim v. Rusk

Beys Afroyim
Under the Supreme Court precedent of Afroyim v. Rusk, loss of 14th-Amendment-based U.S.
The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Jus soli

birthright citizenshipius solinative-born
This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"—does not exist in most of Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas.

Elk v. Wilkins

Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause.

Slaughter-House Cases

Slaughterhouse CasesThe Slaughterhouse CasesThe Slaughter-House Cases
The Saenz Court also mentioned the majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which had stated that "a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."
The Court supported this holding by pointing to the previous clause in the Fourteenth Amendment which expressly distinguished between federal and state citizenship; the Citizenship Clause says, "All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside."

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott decisionDred ScottDred Scott case
This clause reversed a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

African Americans

African AmericanAfrican-Americanblack
This clause reversed a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

39th United States Congress

Thirty-ninth39th39th Congress
The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.

Naturalization

naturalizednaturalized citizennaturalised
The reference to naturalization in the Citizenship Clause is to the process by which immigrants are granted United States citizenship.

United States nationality law

AmericanU.S. citizenUnited States
Congress has power in relation to naturalization under the Naturalization Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution.

Article One of the United States Constitution

Article IArticle OneU.S. Const. art. I
Congress has power in relation to naturalization under the Naturalization Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution.

United States Senate

U.S. SenatorUnited States SenatorU.S. Senate
The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House.

Joint resolution

joint resolution of Congresscongressional joint resolutionCongressional resolution
The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House.

United States House of Representatives

U.S. RepresentativeU.S. House of RepresentativesUnited States Representative
The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House.

Jacob M. Howard

Jacob HowardJacob Merritt HowardSenator Jacob Howard
While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act, which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently.

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Senate Judiciary CommitteeJudiciaryJudiciary Committee
In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.

Lyman Trumbull

Trumbull
In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.

James Rood Doolittle

James R. DoolittleJames DoolittleDoolittle Committee
In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.

President of the United States

PresidentU.S. PresidentUnited States President
Concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), however, three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, debated how both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause could confer citizenship on them at birth, and Trumbull stated that "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Andrew Johnson

JohnsonPresident Andrew JohnsonPresident Johnson
Concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), however, three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, debated how both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause could confer citizenship on them at birth, and Trumbull stated that "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Reverdy Johnson

Reverdy Johnson (born)
Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland commented that subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the proposed amendment undoubtedly meant the same thing as "not subject to some foreign power", and Trumbull asserted that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania disagreed, arguing that this was only true for the children of European immigrants.

Edgar Cowan

Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland commented that subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the proposed amendment undoubtedly meant the same thing as "not subject to some foreign power", and Trumbull asserted that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania disagreed, arguing that this was only true for the children of European immigrants.