The U.S. Constitution’s Naturalization Clause

Naturalization is the process of non-citizens becoming citizens. Before the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, the Articles of Confederation allowed the states to set their own rules for granting citizenship. This led to inconsistencies and confusion.

The Framers of the Constitution sought to remedy the problem by centralizing this power. Accordingly, they included the naturalization clause to ensure fairness and uniformity.

In this article, we’ll review some historical context surrounding the naturalization clause. We’ll also take a look at the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it over time.

What Is the Naturalization Clause?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution states:

[The Congress shall have Power . . .] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…

What Does the Naturalization Clause Do?

The naturalization clause gives Congress (the legislative branch) the power to create uniform rules for naturalization across the United States. It doesn’t set the rules for naturalization. Rather, it authorizes Congress to create and change these rules as needed.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first act of Congress under the naturalization clause. It established the initial rules for granting U.S. citizenship. It limited eligibility to “free white persons.” They also had to be:

• Of good character
• Living in the U.S. for at least two years

In the years that followed, the Supreme Court interpreted the naturalization clause to mean that states had concurrent authority over naturalization as long as their laws didn’t conflict with federal laws.

Chirac vs. Chirac (1817)

In 1817, however, the Supreme Court firmly established that the power of naturalization rests solely with Congress. The Chirac case dealt with the power of naturalization and property rights of foreign nationals.

Chief Justice John Marshall declared in Chirac that naturalization was exclusively a power of Congress. This reinforced the federal government’s sole authority over naturalization laws. It clarified that states couldn’t independently grant citizenship.

The ruling aimed to support a uniform approach to naturalization across the United States. It helped ensure that the process of becoming an American citizen was fair and consistent.

But it wasn’t long before problems with the naturalization clause came to light.

Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857)

The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was a landmark Supreme Court case. It revealed major flaws in the naturalization clause, showing it didn’t clearly define who could become a citizen, especially regarding race.

In Dred Scott, the Court ruled that Black Americans, whether enslaved or free, couldn’t be American citizens. Its decision to deny citizenship to such persons based on race reinforced the notion that enslaved people were considered property. The decision outraged many, heightening tensions between the North and the South.

After the Civil War, lawmakers set out to fix the citizenship problem that Dred Scott had revealed. Extensive debates in the Senate ultimately helped lead to the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

What Is the Citizenship Clause?

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States includes a citizenship clause. The clause addresses birthright citizenship. It clarifies that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, no matter their race. It 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…

However, there were varying interpretations about who exactly is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This sparked debate about whether children of non-citizens were included.

Children of Non-Citizens

For decades, the citizenship status of children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents was unclear and inconsistent. Many courts followed the English common law principle that granted rights of citizenship to most people born within a country’s territory. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was also generally interpreted to grant citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizens.

But government officials often discriminated against children of Chinese immigrants and Native Americans when applying these principles. The Supreme Court also suggested in the 1870s that the Fourteenth Amendment might not apply to children of foreigners.

Whether children of non-citizens should automatically receive citizenship remained uncertain, particularly if the parents weren’t permanent residents.

United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark resolved much of this ambiguity by affirming the principle of birthright citizenship. It clearly established that, subject to a few exceptions, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ nationality.

This ruling reinforced equal protection, as well as privileges and immunities, for all individuals born in the United States.

Citizenship Revocation

For nearly a century after the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment, the government retained broad power to strip individuals of their citizenship. Whether native-born or naturalized citizens, the government revoked people’s citizenship for various reasons. These included:

• Voting in a foreign election
• Serving in a foreign military
• Working for a foreign government
• Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship
• Taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign country
• Remaining outside the U.S. to avoid military service

These provisions were part of various nationality acts and laws of the United States, including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Supreme Court had upheld many of these provisions in earlier cases.

Afroyim vs. Rusk (1967)

The Afroyim v. Rusk decision significantly changed this landscape. It established that United States citizens can’t lose their citizenship status involuntarily. The Supreme Court said expatriation must be voluntary except for cases of fraudulently acquired citizenship. This fundamentally changed the understanding of American citizenship.

The Afroyim decision ensured due process and equal protection by preventing the government from arbitrarily stripping citizenship. It also safeguarded the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens by affirming their citizenship status as a right that generally can’t be taken away without consent.

Later in 1980, the Court recognized that Congress may also expatriate citizens who’ve voluntarily given up their citizenship.

Native Citizens vs. Natural-Born Citizens

It’s important to note one critical distinction between native citizens and natural-born citizens. To clarify, a native citizen acquires U.S. citizenship at birth. Either they’re born here or abroad to U.S. citizen parents. A natural-born citizen is the type of native citizen that is born here.

The privileges of a native citizen are almost identical to those of natural-born citizens. Some of these common privileges include:

• Voting rights
• Education benefits
• Legal protections abroad

However, only natural-born citizens are eligible to become President or Vice President of the United States.

The Evolution of Naturalization

The naturalization clause in the United States has evolved significantly since the days when only free white people were eligible for citizenship. After the Fourteenth Amendment overturned Dred Scott, the Naturalization Act of 1906 standardized the naturalization process nationwide.

Despite our dynamic legal landscape today, people can still become citizens by birthright or naturalization. The legal developments in this area have thus far reflected society’s broader movement toward inclusiveness and accessible citizenship.