Is there birthright citizenship in the USA? GOP candidates want to end it. What to know

Immigration once again has become central to the Republican presidential race.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced June 26 a strategy for "getting the job done," which he says former President Donald Trump, the 2024 GOP frontrunner, failed to do. DeSantis' plan would include an attempt to end birthright citizenship in the United States as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Trump vowed to end birthright citizenship through an executive order in 2016 when he was elected and has since renewed his promise for the 2024 campaign.

Trump ally Kari Lake, who lost Arizona's 2022 gubernatorial race to Democrat Katie Hobbs but who may run for the Senate next year, showed support on Twitter by retweeting Trump's Day One plans to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship.

What does the 14th Amendment say about people born in the United States?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is known for several things, but the Citizenship Clause is in its first sentence. "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," it says. In the modern-day parlance, it means that anyone born on United States soil is automatically a citizen.

What is it called when you become a citizen by birth?

People who are born in the United States are automatic U.S. citizens. They also are considered "natural born" citizens.

Has birthright citizenship ever been legally tested?

Yes, it was the focus of the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Ark, the U.S.-born son of Chinese parents, was refused re-entry to the country after temporarily visiting China under the pretense of him not being a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Acts.

"Because the said Wong Kim Ark has been at all times, by reason of his race, language, color, and dress, a Chinese person, and now is, and for some time last past has been, a laborer by occupation," the district attorney of the United States wrote.

The court was tasked with deciding whether or not he was considered a citizen by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 6-2 ruling, the court determined that because he was born on U.S. soil and his parents were not "employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China," Ark was in fact, a citizen.

The issue came up again in the Supreme Court's 1982 Plyler v. Doe case involving a Texas education law that allowed the state to withhold education funds for educating the children of undocumented immigrants.

The high court reasoned that undocumented immigrants are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and are consequently afforded 14th Amendment protections.

The federal government challenged the bill, saying that it usurped federal authority over the enforcement of immigration. The Supreme Court blocked the first, second and fourth primary provisions, but upheld the provision requiring law enforcement to verify legal status of all arrestees.

Since then, California, Illinois and Alabama have attempted to circumvent Plyler, all unsuccessfully.

Republican politicians say they want to end birthright citizenship. How would they do it?

John Eastman, a scholar and former dean at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law, is a known dissenter on birthright citizenship through the 14th Amendment. He said in a New York Times op-ed that in the Ark case, the court didn't consider whether or not people born to parents who were in the country unlawfully were automatically citizens. He focuses on the "subject to the jurisdiction" language in the clause.

"Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, 'domiciled') residents was a citizen," he wrote. However, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law restricting immigration to the United States and it was only 16 years old at the time of the Ark case.

Eastman more recently has become known for his integral role in the controversial legal theory that the 2020 election results could be overturned to benefit Trump and is now facing disbarment in California.

Trump said in a video posted on Truth Social that he would sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship on day one if elected — something he vowed to do during his first presidency and never did.

However, most legal scholars agree that it can only be done through a constitutional amendment, which requires either a joint resolution passed by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or a convention called by Congress in response to two-thirds of state legislatures requesting one.

In 2018, Jonathan Gienapp, assistant professor of history at Stanford University, told The Arizona Republic that "Nobody would ever claim that a formal executive order could be a way around the amendment process of (amending the constitution)."

Michele Waslin, assistant director of the Immigration History Research Center, has said the ramifications of getting rid of birthright citizenship would affect more than just children of immigrants.

“Far from affecting only illegal immigrants, birthright citizenship impacts everyone," she told Immigrationimpact.com. "If simply being born in the U.S. and having a U.S. birth certificate were not proof of citizenship, Americans would have to navigate complex laws to prove their citizenship. Other than a birth certificate, most Americans do not have government documents that establish U.S. citizenship."

What disqualifies you from birthright citizenship?

The 14th Amendment says "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."

Critics of automatic citizenship point to the "subject to the jurisdiction" words. Some theoretical examples of people in the country who might not fit that definition are diplomats on assignment in the service of a foreign nation or the soldiers in an occupying army.

Some critics have claimed that undocumented immigrants living and working in the country should be disqualified, but no court ruling backs that up.

What are the other 2024 GOP presidential candidates saying about birthright citizenship?

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hasn't expressed a stance on the issue since 2015. That year, he said the practice is outdated in an NBC radio appearance.

In 2018, former Vice President Mike Pence backed his boss Trump's attempts to stop birthright citizenship, but said it's not clear whether or not "birthright citizenship" applies to people in the country illegally.

"I think all this stuff needs to be reexamined in light of the current circumstances," Pence said. "(Birthright citizenship) may have made sense at some point in our history, but right now, we need to re-look at all that."

"We all know what the 14th Amendment says. We all cherish the language of the 14th Amendment," Pence said in an interview with Politico. "But the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th Amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally.”

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., is the sole GOP candidate who has given birthright citizens a chance. In 2018, he told the (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier he was open to reviewing it.

“We are a nation of compassion, and a nation of laws,” he said in a written statement. “For too long, our immigration laws have been taken advantage of, and, in this case, may actually encourage illegal immigration. I look forward to reviewing proposals set forth by both the White House and my colleagues in the Senate, and taking an important step forward in reforming our immigration system.”

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: What are the requirements to be a birthright citizen?