You are here > Home > News Columns HOME > NEWSPAPER COLUMNS>Are we "Subjects" or "Citizens" - The issue of Birthright Citizenshiop

 

Previous Protecting the Party at all costs? Accountability?	"Subjects" vs. "Citizens" Birthright Citizenship	Next: I'm Alive Because of Devine Inervention
Published by The Galveston County Daily News Published: May 13, 2026
Background:  The concept of citizenship was unknown in 17th century England.  All those who were born there were “subjects” of the King and owed their allegiance to him.  Our American founders were well aware of this British approach and rejected it.  The Declaration of Independence dissolved any semblance of being the King’s “subjects.”  As James Wilson, signer of the Declaration and a member of the Constitution Convention said, “Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.”  Both the Declaration and Constitution were rooted in the concept that citizenship is based upon the consent of the governed, not the accident of birth. The 1778 Constitution mentioned, but didn’t define, citizenship.  It wasn’t until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, that citizenship was constitutionally defined.  That definition reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”  The “subject to” clause wasn’t in the initial draft of the Amendment.  It was added during debate.  Furthermore, supporters of the amendment were explicit about the meaning of the clause; that it meant owning exclusive allegiance to the U.S. and no other nation.  So, at a minimum when the 14th Amendment was adopted all persons born in the U.S. were not automatically U.S. citizens.  At the time, this language excluded citizenship for members of Indian tribes because they owed their allegiance to their tribes, not the U.S.   Additionally, Michigan Senator Jacob Howard who was the Senate manager of the 14th Amendment said, “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [or] who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” are excluded.  The contention that simply being born in the U.S. makes you a citizen is a legacy of what our founders rejected: feudalism, where people are “subjects” with allegiance to the King.  Additionally, children of illegal aliens born in the United States are not being denied anything to which they have a right.  For example, children of Chinese parents who are born here as part of “birthright tourism” and then return to their home country shouldn’t be granted citizenship.  They, or at least their parents/benefactors, don’t claim allegiance to the United States. Our Belief: We contend children born in the United States of parents who are here illegally, or on short-term visas, shouldn’t be considered U.S. citizens.  Secondly, the U.S. Census Bureau should count everyone during its decennial census, but only those who are actually U.S. citizens should be included in the number used to determine Congressional representation.  We also contend that of the immigrants currently in the United States, only those who: (1) are here legally (excluding those on short-term visas); (2) provide benefit to our country (i.e., bringing skill sets that are in demand); (3) can support themselves, and not become a burden to U.S taxpayers (i.e., being on welfare, food stamps, etc.); and (4) those who agree to pledge their undivided allegiance to the United States, should be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. When the Supreme Court decides this high-profile case next month our hope is that they will consider the historic background of the 14th Amendment and decide accordingly.
	About the Authors and Columnists 2026 Mark and Bill have written over 300 guest columns and editorials together over the last ten years for numerous publications across the country and they continue to do so. Bill lives in Texas and Mark in Utah. Both gentlemen ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary for Texas Congressional District 14. Since then they have become close friends and colleagues.
Feedback from a cyber security engineer living in the Houston Metropolitan area Two quick thoughts:  First, the historical reason for birthright citizenship has past, we don’t have to answer the question of the status of former slaves. Second, in following traditional law, the fruits of committing a crime (i.e. illegally being in the country) don’t allow for sanctioned benefits for the lawbreakers.  In addition, I have a question: Why are religious organizations becoming involved in this debate? Comments from a retired teacher living in Pennsylvania: Beautifully written!  I had already decided that there should be NO Birthright citizenship before reading this article. Now I have been given Fantastic, Historic talking points to use when I want to discuss this topic. I appreciate all your preparation and hard work. Well done, gentlemen! Feedback from former employee of Stanford University Medical School currently living in the Chicago area: I don’t have any comments to add but pray that the Supreme Court’s decision adheres to the original intent of the 14th Amendment although my guess is that at least one member won’t interpret it historically accurately. Comment from a Rabbi living in Southern California: I'm glad you emphasized the concept of "allegiance." It is the most primary consideration and tells of intent. Feedback from a small business owner living in Tennessee: All what you two wrote makes perfectly good sense to me and I believe to most American citizens!

.