Opinion by R.J. Morales | TX3DNews
Rep. Keith Self posted this week:
“American citizenship is a sacred privilege, not an automatic gift given flippantly to those who break our laws. End the exploitation. End birthright citizenship.”
The timing isn’t accidental. The issue is back in focus following recent arguments at the Supreme Court of the United States, putting birthright citizenship back into the spotlight.
That matters locally.
In TX-03, this isn’t just a national talking point—it touches families, voters, and residents who are already citizens under current law. It also raises a broader question: how citizenship is defined, and who gets to decide that moving forward.
What this means for people in TX-03
There are families across Collin County and North Texas where parents may be undocumented, but their children were born here. Under current law and longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, those children are U.S. citizens.
That’s what makes Rep. Self’s wording stand out.
He calls citizenship a “sacred privilege,” not an “automatic gift,” and says it’s being handed out “flippantly” as part of “exploitation.” But he doesn’t say where that leaves people who are already citizens under that same rule.
Some readers may interpret an implication there.
If citizenship by birth is described as something handed out “flippantly” or tied to “exploitation,” then what is being said about the people who have it?
For citizens born here to undocumented parents, this isn’t theoretical. They already have citizenship—it is their legal identity and their right. So when that citizenship is framed as a “careless giveaway” tied to “exploitation,” it raises understandable questions for those who already hold it.
That matters in TX-03. The people hearing this are not outsiders they are citizens, constituents, and in some cases veterans.
What the law actually says—and what’s being debated
The Constitution states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”
For more than a century, that language has been interpreted—most notably in United States v. Wong Kim Ark—to mean that children born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status, with narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
That is the prevailing interpretation under current law.
Critics argue that interpretation is too broad. They contend “subject to the jurisdiction” should be read more narrowly—not just meaning subject to U.S. laws, but requiring full political allegiance. Some arguments raised in recent court discussions also focus on domicile, suggesting citizenship should depend on a parent’s legal and permanent ties to the country, not simply place of birth.
Critics also argue that birthright citizenship can create incentives for unlawful immigration and that the current interpretation goes beyond what the framers intended.
That’s a legitimate constitutional argument. It’s one that can be debated on legal, historical, and policy grounds.
But it’s also important to be clear about what it would take to change it.
Ending birthright citizenship as it exists today would require either a new ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States or a constitutional amendment.
There is no alternative process for changing constitutional text.
If the Constitution is wrong, there’s a process to fix it
If a member of Congress believes the Constitution is being misinterpreted—or should be changed—the path is already laid out:
- Propose a constitutional amendment
- Secure a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate
- Send it to the states
- Three-fourths of states must ratify it
It’s hard on purpose. Changing something as fundamental as citizenship is supposed to require broad agreement.
An executive order cannot amend the Constitution. It can only direct how existing law is enforced.
That’s why relying on executive action to reinterpret constitutional language raises a separate concern. Presidents change. Priorities change.
The Constitution isn’t supposed to.
During recent arguments at the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts put it plainly:
“Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same constitution.”
If constitutional meaning can shift based on executive action, then its stability depends on who holds power at the time.
Let the debate happen—but follow the process
There is a real argument here. People can disagree on whether birthright citizenship should stay as it is, be narrowed, or be left alone.
That debate should happen.
But if the position is that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect—or no longer fits the country—then it should be taken through the process the Constitution already provides.
Introduce an amendment. Make the case. Debate it. Vote on it. Let the states decide.
That’s the standard.
Because this isn’t just about immigration policy. It’s about whether constitutional rights are fixed or reshaped by executive action depending on who is in power.
And if that’s the standard, then the Constitution stops reflecting the will of the American people and starts reflecting the will of whoever happens to be in charge.
Because if rights are understood as “God‑given,” they are not meant to change with administrations.
