Skip to content
ThreadOut
Senator Eric Schmitt@SenEricSchmitt · Feb 2, 2026

The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause was never meant to grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens, tourists,…

10 tweets1 min read♥ 10.1Koriginal

Summary

An attorney argues that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens, tourists, or foreign students, citing original drafters' intent and filing an amicus brief ahead of a Supreme Court case challenging President Trump's executive order on the matter.

Summarized by ThreadOut AI from the full thread. May miss nuance — read the thread below.

  1. #1

    The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause was never meant to grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens, tourists, or foreign students. The Drafters said so explicitly. The courts ignored them. For our national sovereignty, security, and Constitution, I filed this brief. 🧵

  2. #2

    Here's what's happening: President Trump issued an executive order clarifying that the Constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Activist judges blocked it. Now it's up to SCOTUS.

    Eric Schmitt@Eric_Schmitt · Jun 27, 2025

    🚨 The Supreme Court just delivered a HUGE win on birthright citizenship. But it's even bigger than that. They also reaffirmed that rogue district judges can't issue nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump from carrying out his agenda. This is a big, big deal. 🧵

  3. #3

    The Citizenship Clause says you must be "born in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Courts have read "jurisdiction" to mean anyone who has to obey our laws. But that's both misreading the clause and not the drafters intent. The Constitution proves it.

  4. #4

    Look at the text. The 14th Amendment uses "jurisdiction" twice—but differently. Citizenship Clause: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" → complete political allegiance Equal Protection Clause: "within its jurisdiction" → territorial, everyone on the soil Different words. Different meanings.

  5. #5

    Senator Jacob Howard, the man who wrote the Citizenship Clause, said the quiet part out loud. The clause "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens." Not ambiguous. Not a secret. He said it on the Senate floor.

  6. #6

    Howard explained that "jurisdiction" was used in its "full and complete" sense. It requires a "permanent reciprocal political bond," owed only by those who have made America their "lawful and permanent home." Not tourists. Not illegal aliens. Permanent residents.

  7. #7

    Two months earlier, Senator Trumbull had authored the 1866 CRA, granting citizenship to those "not subject to any foreign power." When the 14th Amendment used new language, senators asked him directly: what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

  8. #8

    When the 14th Amendment changed the wording, Trumbull told his colleagues: "The object to be arrived at is the same." Same Congress. Same intent. They just cleaned up the language. The federal government has misinterpreted this for over 50 years.

  9. #9

    Here's a common sense test: If a New York couple vacations in Florida and has a baby there, that child is a citizen of New York, not Florida. Why? Because the baby doesn't "reside" in Florida. But under the courts' reading, a foreign tourist's baby is a full U.S. citizen? Make it make sense.

  10. #10

    Bottom line: Text, structure, history, precedent, and common sense all say the same thing. The Citizenship Clause applies only to those who have lawfully made America their permanent home. SCOTUS should reverse. Read my full amicus brief: schmitt.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…